Quite funny, French G.
I agree that one-on-one, the Roman soldier would have a heck of a time against a knight.
Unfortunately, I'm actually less certain now of the outcome of a one-on-one incursion than I was before posting. I was previously convinced of the outcome if a single knight were to battle a single legionnaire. I’m beginning to see that even this could be a toss-up.
It’s entirely possible the disciplined legionnaire would strategically bide his time and allow the knight to tire, as others pointed out, if it were 1:1. I’m sure the Romans were aware how physically taxing the weight armor can be. I would agree that the legionnaire would then employ his shield as a battering ram, attempting to knock the exhausted knight off balance and to the ground, knowing the encumbered knight would lose much of his advantage.
If both on foot and fighting in the way they were trained (along with retaining their experiences of previous combat), I believe the odds would be greatly in favor of the legion at 2:1, let alone 5:1. How anyone could convince themselves a knight could defeat 5 legionnaires (or 5 knights to 25 legionary soldiers) is now beyond me.
I am having issues believing that one of these guys (without the horse... of course)
Could best 5 of these guys (in formation):
However, I DO have some trouble seeing how, at least initially, these guys:
would be able to find a weakness in this guy's armor:
Unless they were able to thrust their gladius or pilum through the chainmail coif that protects the knight's throat (and they knew to strike there, which I suspect they would).
I'm thinking attrition would ultimately be the deciding factor. With five men attacking/defending against one, I don't think that would be a problem, especially now that I believe a one-to-one match-up is closer to fair.
My coworker will not be pleased to hear this.