I assume it would depend on the level of armour the knight is wearing. I don't care HOW sharp your Katana is, it's not cutting through steel. Unless, of course, the steel of the samurai's sword is stronger than the steel of the Knight's armour. In which case, the Samurai stands a better chance, since the Knight's movements would be greatly hindered by his armour. Now... is the knight mounted?

AAAAh So - I say the knight would win.

It should not be who would win but who has the advantage, because any one of them can win. But I am going for the knight on this on. I will say why. European Armor: The armor will not hinder any ones movements greatly. In fact; a man in full suit of armor can do almost anything a man with no armor. Also swords whether stronger than the steel or not; you cannot cut steel or even iron with it… Most Metal armor manly steel plate armor is invincible to cuts & incoming arrows! (I do not know about the Claymore, Lowlander, Flamberge, Zweihander; these swords may do some series damages on ANY armor!) Plate armors is not that heavy; most were 44lbs to 65 lbs the heaviest; it is very well distributed across the body so it would not feel it is that much. It also depends on the size of the man and the type of armor and how much he has on for the weight of it (Germans are very big people). The decorations on the metal would make the armor lighter and stronger... This will explain why armors like Gothic plate is very strong often very light... Steel plate armors are lighter then what most people think; in fact it is the lightest form of metal armor! A front plate and a back plate and a helmet will be about 10 to 15 lbs! Steel Legs are about 1.5 to 2.3 lbs each arms are about the same, and 95% of helmets will not be over 5 lbs! Also keep in mined that a knight or a armored men has been training in that for a long time, he will be use to the armor, and it like if it was nothing. It has been said that armored troops in Europe will have to do aerobics in his armor as well fight in it for a wile. It also been said that a fit armored man can run and catch an unarmored man running away. Knights and armored troops can run, jump, get back up very fast, and they even can do cart wheels in a full suit of steel plate! :D Also a knight can grab his sword do to the armored gloves... Swords: European Straight blades are the best for thrusting at weak parts on any armor out there. Straight blades are bettor for thrusting; many European blades… You must do what is called “half sword” it is to help go thrust through the gambeson, or Buff coat, or other soft padded armor that is often under metal European armors. Most European swords were 1.5 lbs to 3.5 lbs! Most two-swords are 2.7 lbs to 3.5 lbs just as much as most Katanas, BUT Most European two-handed swords are longer then a Katana! One-handed swords are going to be 1.5 to 2.5 lbs! Swords are not heavy and so were most other weapons. A Claymore was about 4 to 4.7 lbs, Lowlanders, Flamberge, and Zweihanders were VERY long swords; about 59 to 71.5 in long! They were about 4.5 to 7 lbs the heaviest! Most were about 4.5 t0 5.5lbs! Other weapons like the halberd were only about 5 to 7 lbs as well! The Katana is bettor at cutting, but a Straight blade can cut very good as well. Both can slice arms and legs off easily; that is if they have no armor. Samurai armor is not lighter then European Armor, in fact it is about the same! Also a Samurai is not going to be more maneuverable then a knight. The armor of the Samurai is good armor but no were the level of that in Europe. As will it often have more weak spots then European Armor, and were a knight will love to thrust the sword or halberd at. This is why I think the knight has a MUCH bettor advantage over the Samurai. And the odds are in his favor… Even in a unarmored fight; both were every skilled, BUT the Knight’s or European swords-man’s two-handed Long sword is going to be a bit longer! Or what if he had a Claymore, Lowlander, Flamberge, Zweihander? A halberd? A Lowlander, Flamberge & Zweihander can easily cut off the head of the spear or pike or cut it in two... As well if the man has a one-handed sword and a type of shied? What type of shied? A Steel buckler? Steel or wooden shields? A Round shield? A Roman Shied? A long Kite Shield? A short Kite Shield? Or a German hewing shield? Ones again ether way the European swords-man’s had the advantage…

The training of a Samurai and Knight was so similar in hand to hand combat that you really can't call a winner. The edge generally goes to the knight who has superior technology and better steel. Also, he'll likely have seen more varieties of armours due to their tendency to travel widely. However, no Samurai worth his salt will take a look at a knight in full plate armour and think that cutting at it with a katana is a good idea. He'll use the katana to close to grappling range to make the fight more even. Then it becomes REALLY even... it comes down to armoured grappling with daggers, which both Knights and Samurai knew VERY well. In an unarmoured duel, then the first person to make a mistake loses. Basically the question boils down to: if two of the greatest types of hand to hand fighters in history had to fight each other, what would happen? The only thing you can say with certainty is that it would be a very good fight! :)

well... id say a knight , because i cant imagine someone surviving an impact from a claymore or zweihander

Evenly matched...but I would put my money on the Samurai. Knight armor is superior and only marginally heavier than Samurai armor. Samurai armor is MUCH more manouverable. Thus there were purpose built gaps in the armor to accommodate this movement. Advantage--Knight Knights were about 4" taller and proportionally bigger. Knights were exceptionally strong and would bulldog there way over an opponent--HUGE advantage knight. The knight had a shield which was also an offensive weapon. This reduced his power stroke to one arm vs the samurai's entire body. In place of the shield the samurai also carried a second shorter sword--even Samurai were thicker in the waist and generated their power through the hips (power stroke) not the arms. More importantly martial arts training always stresses side to side movement--advantage samurai. The katana Samurai sword was superior in EVERY single way. Made of 2 different metals--hard for cutting edge and soft for impact and reinforcing the blow of the cutting edge. This weapon was continually folded and mud tempered for over a month. It had a bend that distributed the shock along the entire blade as opposed to 90 degrees of the European straight blade.--HUGE advantage Samurai. Sword to sword the European sword will break. The katana could also pierce. The samurai also used his sword for a defense. Thus they were much better at reflex and counter strike.--advantage Samurai. However, the biggest advantage a Samurai had is that they specialized in one on one fighting and had no fear of death. The goal was to seek out the toughest opponent and defeat him for honor...or die trying. That too was honorable. So it boils down to the better trained and a degree of luck--pretty close either way. How a knight could win: The shield is the difference here. They tended not to have steel reinforced edging as the opponents sword could get momentarily stuck in the shield. The superior cutting katana would most certainly fall victim to this--game over. How a samurai could win: Avoid power on power and rely on superior counter strike and movement. As they were trained to use the sword as a defensive tool, they were experts at deflection. Counter the broadside of the knights sword. It will break.

Knight. The samuri doesn't have a horse :) No seriously, I think the knight would (if equally trained) Because this is how I think of a samuri: a large sword, unbalanced fighting. a knight in my opinion has a lighter sword, and then a shield. So, the samuri would throw a huge unbalanced attack, then the knight would block with a shield (assuming it's an adequate one) and then throw a decisive jab into the heart :) Pwned.

sound chaser did well. . . but the fight always will come down not to the equipment as they are fairly evenly matched, I would venture to admit the knight carries better defence and the samurai better offence, however it will be the better warrior with the most spirit and determination who wins, and whoever finds superior positioning and strikes at the key moments. I have had experience with armored swordplay and though European armor is not as heavy as many assume, it is indeed a hindrance to balance which plays a huge factor in one's ability to strike powerfully, react quickly, and alters timing as well. However I do not deny that Japanese armor also has this weakness. Weapon control plays another key issue and many european hand armors hinder grip slightly while Japanese less so. A shield also becomes a major barrier, thwarting attacks, however the control of the weapon in the other hand then becomes more difficult as well as restricts the range of motion for striking. anyway they are both trained killers and are skilled in much the same things. . . pole arms, husbandry, swords, daggars, wrestling/jujutsu, archery, and both the have the will to endanger themselves for their lords. I say it's fifty-fifty and the fight's outcome is only determined by the fighter who has the best courage at the right moment in time. also. . . about cutting armor or breaking swords with another's sword is nonsense. It could very well happen but to count on it happening in any real situation is risky and the fighter to do so will most probably lose. It is the most adaptable fighter who realizes the right time and target to strike and acts accordingly who will win.

Some things to consider: 1) The Samurai were trained archers wielding longbows on horseback. Longbows ended the reign of the knights in Europe and pretty much brought an end to the age of chivalry. 2) The armor worn by European knights was generally superior for deflecting slashing blows from a sword, but weak against piercing strikes and thrusts. Samurai swords were designed primarily with cutting and slashing in mind which would not work well against such armor. That said, European swords were mainly designed with thrusting and piercing in mind, and samurai armor was mainly designed to deflect those kinds of blows. Nevertheless, it's unlikely that samurai armor would deflect a powerful thrusting blow from a dagger or sword, while it's quite likely that a knight's armor or shield would stop a slashing blow from a katana. 3) Knights often carried shields. Shields made a world of difference in combat, much more than people tend to acknowledge. The samurai never carried shields because they needed both hands free for their swords and bows. If you ask me, the samurai would dispatch the knights from a distance. Up close, they would be at a great disadvantage and the only way the samurai might win would be through superior training, and it's questionable who had superior training in duels.

Knight wins with HUGE advantage if equaly trained. No katanas can't cut trought a damn sword, only douchebags who watch to much anime cartoons think like you, infact the european sword could dull the sharp edge of a katana in impact. A riveted chainmail removes the cuting abilities from all swords so that makes the katana usseles. Only way a samurai could win a knight is with superior numbers or gunpowder.

Gor! There is not enough info to answer this question. What century knight is fighting. During the Dark Ages, 1 AD to 1000 AD, knights wore almost entirely chainmail armor. This armor was strong against slashing weapons such as the sword or axe, but weak against crushing and piercing weapons: spear, mace, bow, crossbow, gun etc. During the 14th century, full plate armor came in and it covered every square inch of a knight's skin. Two small eyeslits allowed the knight to see, but had limited vision when his visor was down. Take in mind though, the visor could be lifted, giving the knight full vision but leaving his face vulnerable. Plate armor was created during the 1300's because stronger weapons came in: Morning Star, Warhammer, polaxe, halberd, pike, longsword, crossbow and an assortment of early guns. All these weapons could injure a knight in chainmail but had less effect on a knight wearing 1 inch thick stell plates with padding underneath. Plate armor went out in the 18th century when rifles came in. The flintlock rifle could easily blow a hole through a knight's armor, killing him instantly. So is the knight wearing chainmail or suit of plate armor? What weapons does he wield? Does he have a shield? Is he mounted? Let's talk about the samaurai. Powerful warlords of Japan through the year 700 AD to the end of WW2, they wielded 6 main weapons. The tanto, the Samaurai knife. The Wakazashi, the samaurai shortsword. The katana, the samaurai longsword. Then there is the naginata, the samaurai spear, the Yumi, the samuarai bow, and the kanabo, the samaurai mace. They wore armor made of layers and layers or steel, wood, and leather. They wore a helmet that protected the head, neck and shoulders. However there face was vulnerable. The samaurai's tanto would have little effect on plate armor, but could stab through chainmail if he were to get close enough. The samaurai's wakizashi would have no efect on the plate armor or chainmail. The katana would be somewhat effective on the plate armor, but ineffective on chainmail. The naginata would be effective on chainmail if thrusted, but not if slashed. It would have little effect on plate armor either way. The arrows shot from the Yumi would injure a knight wearing chainmail, but would simply ricochete off a knight's plate armor. The eyeslits are two small for the samaurai to shoot the knight in the eyes, unless he had his visor up. The kanabo would definetly kill a knightin chainmail, and would probably injure or stun a knight in plate. The knight's sword would have no effect on the samaurai's armor. The knight's pike would if thrusted hard enough. The smae with the halberd or polaxe. The morningstar, warhammer, or flail would create devastating damage to the samaurai. The knight's crossbow may perhaps injure the samaurai, but would most likely not kill him, unless he was shot in the face. If the knight was wearing chainmail, he would probably lose, but if he was wearing his suit of armor, he would most definetly win. Especially if he was mounted with shield and lance. More and likely though neither would win, you would see an injured samurai commiting sepuku(suicide) on the battlefield.