User blog comment:Cfp3157/Suleiman the Magnificent vs. Cesare of Borgia/@comment-422690-20140824163152

So...

Sword 1: Rapier wins. This is a difficult one to call, for both bias and practical reasons. I'm quite a fan of both styles, but here the Rapier wins out. This is due primarily to the schools of rapier swordsmanship practiced in Cesare's times. These emphasized agility and speed, focusing on quick thrusts aimed at lethal areas. More importantly, they were made to counter the kind of "cut and thrust" swordsmanship that would be more evident in the use of the yataghan. Edge: Cesasre Borgia

Sword 2: Kilij wins. While I'm fond of the falchion, the kilij is simply designed better for what it does. Its shape allows it to concentrate more force with each strike, increasing the likelihood that the edge will penetrate. Additionally, that edged tip is a lot more useful than people think. It's going to allow the user to strike despite being parried, with a quick flick of the wrist sending that point into the foe's face/arm/chest/whatever. Edge: Suleiman the Magnificent

Heavy Melee: Warhammer wins. See that spike on the end? It's known as a dismounting hook; those are designed to puncture through armor and either kill the foe or control their movements. The hammer end is typically used to crush armor and bone, killing or incapacitating. The mace is equally good at that last, but it doesn't have the ability to simply punch through armor that the warhammer's dismounting hook offers. Edge: Cesare Borgia

Bows: Recurve wins. As I and others have said time and again on this site, crossbows are massed-fire siege weapons, with limited use in closer ranges due to the reload time. The recurve bow is small and light, allowing it to be used in smaller spaces, and has a reload time limited only by the user's speed, which increases the volume of fire from a single, skilled user. Edge: Suleiman the Magnificent

Polearms: Halberd wins. Yes, the pike has length. No, it doesn't matter. Halberds and the like were initially developed to break up pikes - that's what that large axe head is for. One good swing and you've got a headless pike. While the splinters can still harm someone if you hit them in just the right place, the pike is effectively useless. Try to whack someone with that broken haft and it'll just get wrecked again. To add insult to injury, the halberd is capable of everything the pike does and more. Edge: Suleiman the Magnificent.

Firearms: Bleh. I'm not good with guns, and these seem to be pretty much the same thing to me. However, Suleiman is bringing his muskets as a compliment to his bowmen. They can keep the opposing force at bay while the musketeer goes through the lengthy reload. Cesare has the muskets and his crossbowmen, two units that function very similarly. Ultimately, Suleiman's more likely to get that second volley off than Cesare due to the interplay with their other weaponry. Edge: Suleiman the Magnificent, though through no fault of the weapons themselves.

Overall: Overall, Suleiman the Magnificent wins. He's bringing superior arms to this fight, as well as a superior diversity of roles in his forces. People's worth as a commander is not based on how much land they conquer*, but is rather on how effectively they build and command their forces. Suleiman was far superior in this regard; he was not called "the Magnificent" for nothing. Better arms and better men make the better warrior.

* That's a fucking ridiculous standard, IMO. Quantity of land != quality of foes.