idk if this is actually true but werent guns useless at those times because they couldnt penetrate hard metal?
just like bows they were almost useless
I mean if we're talking about 17th century flintlocks firing musketballs at plate metal (as in the armour of heavy knights), then most pellets would bounce off or just dent. Arrows at the very least could be designed to puncture thinner materials or slide and pierce the weaker exposed joints.
A flintlock rifle/pistol is then much too slow to reload and a knight would have the advantage.
Shorter sabres/cutlasses would have less effect too, as they could never really stab into the gaps/through under armour, whereas a regular sword/spear would be better suited for a thrust. Getting in close to a heavily armoured knight could be disastrous if you have no means to get past his armour.
Pirates are lightly armoured with slashing weapons and slow, weak, inaccurate guns.
They're completely useless in almost all terrestrial conflicts.
But they're agile enough on a tight, busy and claustrophobic ship, whereas any armoured knight/samurai lacks the benefit of space and speed. In that situation a knight could easily be overwhelmed or confused, and may even find movement on a rocking ship to be difficult in heavy armour.
So the question of who would win in a fight depends entirely upon the location they fight in.
Poll