kinghts own they are strong tanks with armour that works they will crush the samurai but a ninja is a differnt story..........
It was. But is it worth arguing after? People here classify by use of the asian, not asian, white scale.
not a nerd....i was a pot smoking dropout.....how the hell does that make e a nerd? anyways yes a knight is armored like a tank...he has nowhere near enough agility to hit a samuri the armor is to heavy for the knight to keep up with the samuri
well, it acually depend on how many samurai and knight! and not all samurai are fast! and not all knight are slow! knights are more equip and has skills and better swords, samurai are fast and they can understand each other without fighting! but not all knights has sword! some of them has those bow and arrow! so who would win? the knights! they just use their bow and arrow and kill all the samurai! ps: samurai and ninjas are totaly different! ninjas would knock the samurai out of them!
the samurai would win hands down! there swords where made 2 cut thro the best of armours so the knight would not hav a chance as there slow as hell & the knights get tired alot more quicker then a samurai..
Knights weren't all that slow. Samurai had bows too. But Samurai were amazingly skilled and disciplined and those swords are works of art.
depends normally i would say a samurai but the knight has those big twohander swords also they have the big armour that not even arrows can go through i think a knight would win if he was skilled but generaly a samurai
