I don't know it depends on the knight and the samurai. Most knights with large broadswords would rarely be on the ground unless the terrain warranted such. The broadsword was a heavy weapon that could be used to come down upon people on the ground.

The typical European longsword only weighed around 3 pounds. That is not too heavy. It is really a very manageble weapon, and not as slow as everyone would think.

Also most european swords were meant for thrusting, not cutting. This is seen with the straight blade. While this is generally quicker than completeing a swing, it would leave the person extended.

This is another misconception. The European longsword was used for both cutting and thrusting. The thrust as a primary means of attack didn't come into effect until later on in the 1600s, when the rapier began to become popular as a civilian weapon.

given the criteria, the samurai. he has the lightest most efficient and perhaps the sharpest weapon. if you give both a katana or both a broadsword then to each their respective mastery. now, hand to hand no weapons... i would have to give it to the samurai who is most likely a skilled Aikidoist.

A European longsword was still a sharp weapon, and very capable of severing limbs with a swing.

As for hand to hand combat, European knights were skilled at this as well.

I'd honestly have to call it a draw under those conditions. I would think the European would win sometimes and the Samurai would win sometimes. It really boils down to the person, not the weapon. Both cultures had heavier and lighter weapons than the standard broadsword or katana so I'm sure they would have incorporated defense against different weapons into their training.

european knite their swords are a lot stronger than katanas athough heavier if they are skilled the katana would break in one hit if hit hard enough

I don't think that this quite as likely as most people would think. That is movie stuff. It takes quite a lot of force to break a weapon like that.

possibly but would a samurai randomly hit swords with the knight, the samurai actually didnt clash swords over and over again...

Neither did European knights.

http://www.thearma.org/essays/knightvs.htm has a good article on this...a bit long so if you want the end answer....there would be no clear winner with all the varibles involved.

http://www.thearma.org/essays/knightvs.htm has a good article on this...a bit long so if you want the end answer....there would be no clear winner with all the varibles involved.

I agree. There is a lot of misconceptions about Medieval warriors, be they knights or foot soldiers. They were still competent fighters; not dim-witted lugs swinging around a big heavy weapon with no knowledge or skill.

http://www.thearma.org/essays/knightvs.htm has a good article on this...a bit long so if you want the end answer....there would be no clear winner with all the varibles involved.

I got a chance to read this article in its entirety, and it has a lot of great information, and provides a very objective viewpoint about the potential confrontation.

Wow!!bushido_man96...you really know stuff!!!hehe..What I observed the most is that there is a lot of mysticism given to the oriental arts that one might misunderstand the efficacy of non-oriental arts...