Medieval Knight Vs Modern Day Soldier

Sir Gandy is correct. An early armored knight would stand little chance against an AK-47 or an M-16 assault rifle, where as, a modern soldier would probably fall with a well-placed sword thrust or cut. Funny how time repeats, yet still contradicts it's self. You have a warrior clad from head to toe in the best steel available(at the time), and one round of full-metal jacket will take him out. Then you have a modern soldier dressed in Kevlar. Modern body armor has gaps in it just like early plate. A good thrust with a ballock dagger...done deal.

I also disagree with much of the article's claims. For one thing, not all medieval warriors or soldiers were knights. They were also supported by levies of foot soldiers and "men-at-arms." A much closer comparison would be with the samurai class of warriors in Japan. Both were warrior classes exclusively (at least during the medieval period, later in Japan) and were trained as such from their youth. I do not think today's Marines or other so-called (militarily) elite could be described as a warrior class as such. In addition I think that both the code of chivalry in Europe and Bushido in Japan were more of an after the fact codes of principles rather than things which governed behavior during the warring period which largely came to an end by the 17th century in both places. The warring period was mostly followed by a long period of relative peace in Japan, while in Europe, larger armies of foot soldiers were fighting the wars instead of knights on horseback. An essential element of the knightly period was the horse, by the way.

For one on one combat, I don't know. There is also the ancient Spartan hoplite, who was in many ways similar to the European knight, though for different reasons. But they were also raised by childhood to be soldiers, mainly to be able to suppress the large slave population in Sparta, in a way similar to the Southern gentry before the war, who also were associated with horses. But strictly speaking, as far as the Marines go, it should be limited to just the officers and in the same way, the Southern gentry were also the officer class.

Interesting subject, nevertheless. One might wonder if there is a military class (as opposed to a knightly class) in the United States.

No, not at all. Men have changed very little, either physically or mentally, since the time of the ancient Greeks. The technology has certainly changed, to be sure, if that's what is being compared. The effectiveness of the man himself, all other things being equal and often they are, depends on his training, his organization, his health and physical condition and his dedication, not to mention how well led he is.

There is a series of monographs comparing opposing soldiers in wars of the last hundred years or so, most of whom were fairly equal in technology at the foot soldier's level. But everything else about them was usually different. Maybe that's why they were fighting to begin with.