[24MurinivaMak]

I actually enjoyed reading this but I do have some observations.

The author did seem to try to come across as being impartial and unbiased but it seemed to me that he know more about Feudal European weaponry than Japanese. He would mention how much more versatile European weapons compared to how they would be portrayed in Hollywood etc but did not apply the same criteria to Japanese swords.

I did concur with his view that the Japanese sword has become over romanticised and we do not apply this to equally well crafted swords of our own heritage. Anyone here seen a Saxon longsword? They are truly beautiful and they twisted the metal to strengthen it which gives it a beautiful natural pattern in a similar way to a folded Shinken.

I also found his arguments skewed with regard to Knights and Samurai in combat situations.
Whilst I agreed that the Samurai has developed considerably more kudos than the Knight I have never been convinced that he was necessarily a better soldier. The author didn't seem to want to get involved in tactics - something the Europeans worked extensively on from the Greeks and Romans onwards.

But I will conclude with the observation that there is a common factor between knights and Samurai - the Mongols. The mongols fought against both. They were defeated by the Samurai, and we all know this was by providence as much as ability. Yet, they managed to defeat a much larger army of Teutonic (mostly German, Russian and Polish) knights on the fields of Eastern Europe. I read somewhere that this was not even the main Mongol army but a part of it under the command of a Mongol general called Subudai.

So, whilst we cannot say who is the better soldier, we can hazard a guess at the odds received at the local bookies.