who do you think would win?


Katanas were only a pound or two lighter then most european swords, they were like two-handed swords, but not as powerful as a claymore.

Knight armor was not as heavy as hollywood says, if it were they wouldnt of used it. It was almost immune too slashing, and if it was curved, it was hard too stab too.

Samurai armor also usually consisted of metal, it wasnt as heavy but it was metal armor.

Samurais were better with bows then swords usually, being the masters of horse and bows.

Knights had shield and sword training, samurai did not and had little experience fighting shielded opponents.

They both had martial arts training, and side arms like daggers. Both trained from youth, and both had a system of nobility/honour.

well i think knights will win
cuz they had a lot of experience
better than samurai

Samurai's are trained in their early childhood to be vigorous and dexterous.

With their fast striking, knights don't stand a chance against them. Though, knights' heavy armor protects them very well, but a samurai learns opponent's weak points before the actual fight starts.

Knights are also great fighters on their own place. They can match samurais in swordsmanship but their armor reduces flexibility in their bodies.

BUT knights are given training on how to take advantage of their protective armor which includes how to fight against fast opponents etc etc.

Now, the most important thing which gives knights a lead on samurais is: SHIELD!
Full body armor + Shield makes knights highly dominant against Samurais.

I still can't decide since it's a fight between flexibility and Defense.

If you see, my name is KZero07. K means Knight.
But for me, it depends upon the skill of the warrior. Knights are stronger but samurais are faster. It's like a battle of speed and strength.

Im pro knight but i like the discipline of the samurai.
-----
btw, Nice question

Ok, let me break it down for you;
A 'knight' is armed with a 1 handed sword, a shield, and lance, is mounted on an armoured warhorse and wears heavy plate mail.
A 'samurai' is armed with a daisho, a composite bow, and a smaller tanto, and is mounted on an armoured warhorse (perhaps armed with a spear or other polearm), and wears lamellar armour (which is quite lighter than plate).

A knight often has no true formal training, and learns to fight only in tournament arenas or training grounds.
A samurai learns multiple martial arts, precursors to modern judo, and several other arts (including iaido, iato, kendo, kenjutsu).

Knights win by clubbing their opponents to death or using the brute force of the lance to defeat them with blunt force.
Samurai will engage opponents from a distance with their bow, and in close combat will attempt to defeat their opponent with a perfect attack to a vital point, relying on finesse. Failing that, they will immobilise their opponent and draw their tanto to finish them off.

A knight would find it hard to keep up with the skill and speed of a samurai, but the samurai's weapons are ill-equipped to defeat plate mail, katanas are not supposed to be used to even block an attack, let alone pierce heavy plate mail.



So, neither of the classes has ever faced an opponent similar to each other, and are ill-equipped to fight each other, the knight's lance and heavy sword are near useless, and the shield is merely false security. The samurai's daisho would be unable to find a strike zone on the knight's plate, and would be unable to pierce it, their bows are not made to pierce such heavy armour, their polearm may be able to pierce, but their main advantage is their martial arts skill and tanto, which would be able to find a strike zone and be able to deliver a fatal blow.


tl;dr: Neither are made to fight each other, samurai's skill and versatility would be their best advantage, the knight has no real way to win.

Oh, and later samurai were armed with guns, making it a straight up gg for the knights.

So you can pretty much say a samurai cannot kill a knight but can throw him down and run away.

That's a half-advantage for samurai.

This was actually done on Deadliest Warrior.

I actually believe that a Samurai would win with all of their experience and whatnot. Especially by outwitting the knight, but according to Deadliest Warrior the samurai would lose.

http://www.spike.com/articles/demecc/samurai-vs-knight

haha , the knights will win

I Say the knights is going to win because knights have armor and some stuff

And Samurai well they do have great (composer) but they don't stand a single match against the knights because the knights have more power and thinking

Armor doesn't mean anything, if you don't know how to control yourself when fighting then you cannot win. A samurai can counter there attacks and they have great speed so they have the advantage. So samurai would win. Besides they have more expecience and can almost predict your movements. Here's a saying. "The force of the blow is more powerful than the double handed grip".