Euro armours and swords did weight basically the same than japanese countparts. If
it's a individual sword fight then armoured knight is near
invulnerable to katana attacks while armoured knight's sword is done
for crushing bones inside an armour. The only melee weapon a samurai can use is yari,but I'm not sure it had enought trusting ability and it's not for 1vs1 combat. There are too many advantages for knights: Armour,sword
designed to damage european armours(stronger than japanese models),size
and phisicall strenght(japanese were very short and less bulky than
average european) and more knowledge about other different kind of
warfare. I see an advantage for samurai,his abilty with bow when riding,(italian nobles but also normal paesant were famous for their ability with crossbow but more foe thir use as infantry,the same goes for brits with longbow)
Knight werent that effective against mid-eastern mounted archers,and their armour could make them tire in prolongued fight or in hot places. But again dunno if japanese were good like mid eastern or mongol soldiers with bows and horses.
|