A knight vs a samurai is a fight between 2 very different breeds of warrior. Without taking into account codes of honor or conduct, additional weaponry, or anything along those lines, just a fight that focuses on both sides in traditional armor, a single sword (Longsword, Katana), and their distinct fighting styles, I'd have to put my money on the knight.
Sure, the Katana is possibly the greatest blade ever created, and a skilled Samurai could easily punch it through some weaker plate armor, the longsword tended to be heavier than the Katana and was MADE for piercing plate armor, and would easily poke through the lighter, less protective armor of the samurai. Samurai armor was created to fend off slash blows from the side, the traditional fighting technique with a japanese sword, and tended to be less effective to piercings from the front and in the joints as the metal plates only covered broad, stationary areas. Knight armor, after the plate armor technique was perfected some time in the 15th century, was very durable, if heavy, and a knight could shrug off a slash and some piercings. Longsword became piercing weapons entirely for this reason, as slashing durable plate armor served no purpose other than hastening your own death. A katana, while an admirable piercing weapon, wouldn't have the strength to pierce a knights armor on the first, second, or possibly even the third try, even at the joints. It wasn't designed for that style of combat as the main focus. I've heard stories of some samurai actually using European armor over their own as it was considered superior in defense to bladed weapons.
Their fighting styles also differed greatly. A samurai was about predicting your opponents movements, your best attacks being either defensive or to gain a tactical advantage over your opponent. In a samurai duel, it was not unheard of for the battle to be won in a single blow before the opponent could even draw his weapon. A samurai fought savagely, but their was a rhythm it followed. They had steps in their fighting, choreography if you will, and they expected their opponents to follow a similar, if not identical, code of fighting. Slash and kill... pierce joint if not successful... slash exposed area if not successful, dodge or block as needed. Knights, on the other hand, had no code of fighting. Sure, they had styles, like half-sword, but their fighting techniques were brutish and unorthodox, meant to overwhelm, confuse, and beat their enemy into submission. Even their sword techniques were odd, at least to what we believe dueling to be. Crossing blades, swashbuckling, wasn't a common occurence. Knights often kept a hand on the blade at all times, easier to maneuver the blade and block incoming attacks. They used every part of the weapon when it was needed, pommel, grip, blade, even their own fists if need be. Knights chose this form of combat as a way to take out an opponent quickly, as crossing blades, which only served to damage the blade and put you at a disadvantage in a fight, could be drawn out and tiring if they were both in appropriate armor. They would often go for any opening their opponent gave them: a missed lunge could mean a pommel to the back of the head, a missed tackle meant a stab in the back, etc. A samurai would not be able to adapt to such a fast-paced and changing style of fighting without prior knowledge of their opponents techniques, and even then their own equipment is not designed to deal with it.
It's a difficult scenario to imagine, but I would still go with the knight. Their superior armor and styles of fighting give them an advantage in my opinion.
Log in to comment