Who would win in a duel, knight or samurai?

Question

If the best knight from midieval Europe and the best samurai warrior from fuedal Japan were to duke it out, who would kick butt?

Answer 1

My money is on the Japanese.

Answer 2

These are the opinions of a guy who likes to watch war movies, and not that of a historian.

I'd say a samurai. The katana is far superior than most European swords. The samaurai also has better technique. He would be faster and more agile than the knight who is used to fighting with heavy, cumbersome weapons. But most importantly, winning duels brings honor to a samurai, while it is gaining lands, whether by force or by peace, that brings glory to a knight. This means that the samurai can focus their whole life on just being true warrior, while a knight, aside from being a fighter also has to be a leader, a politician, an economist, a bastion of fate, a role model, and a very attractive man in the eyes of the opposite sex.

But that is in a duel. However, if there ever was a full blown war between forces of medieval Europe and feudal japan, I'd say Europe would win.

Answer 3

Hmm hard. A Knight was generally stronger than a Samurai ( due to the army and heavy weaponry). A Samurai was skilled in Jiu Jitsu, Archery etc.

On horse a Samurai could pick out a Knight before he got close. On ground it'd be even for the Knights Army would protect him and hinder him and while the Samurai's light army would make him faster but not very well protected

Answer 4

Knights rarely fought standing on the ground - they were equipped for fighting on horseback, whereas the Samuri stood on the ground. If the duel were fought under those conditions, the Samuri would go down. If, however, the knight were taken off of his horse and placed on the ground, the Samuri would likely win. Knights used swords called sabers, like claymores, which had a long cutting edge. They were heavy and cumbersome (because they had to whack through heavy leather or chain link) The use of foils didn't come in until much later and much of the foil play came from the fencing schools that were popular in France and Germany. But the rules for matches were very strict - they took place on a piste and were formalized to the nth degree. The few duels between swordsmen that did take place were not usually to the death, but only to first blood.
That's what makes it so hard to predict the outcome between two such unlikely contenders.

Answer 5

I don't know. At first I would think the knight, since he wore armor that would deflect the weapons used by the samurai, but then I thought how the armor would slow him down and tire him and I leaned toward the samurai.

Would they be mounted? Because I think that a knight's horse was trained for warfare more than a samurai's. Too many variables. I think in the end it would depend not upon who was best, but who most wanted to win, who had the greatest heart.

Answer 6

GO KNIGHT! Everyone says Samurai because there is so much information on them and they look cool, you don't hear much on the knights. But my bet is on the knight because they could handle their shield and sword very well and unlike what many think the knight was pretty flexible in their armor.

Answer 7

Samurai. He is less encumbered with all the armor. He would be doing circles around the knight. I think knights were more equipped to fight from horseback.

Answer 8

Samurai.


I suppose it also depends on their weapon and armor.

A medieval knight may have the use of a crossbow, which could take out the samurai before he was in range with his sword.

Answer 9

Are they on horses or on the ground? Knight on a horse. Samurai on the ground.