User blog comment:Wassboss/Deadliest Warrior Rematch: Comanche vs Mongol/@comment-4661256-20181118211410

El Alamein's Edges:

 Close Range: Scalping Knife vs. Mongolian Knife:  This is straightfoward. The Mongolian knife is a better-made tool. I'm not necessarily going to say that being made of steel as compared to iron is going to make a massive difference here, because the blade of either warrior's weapon will work just fine in this type of fight. However, the Mongolian knife's longer reach gives it a notable edge over the scalping knife. It is worth noting, however, that the Comanche might actually be more used to fighting at knife-range than the Mongols, if you take their raiding and guerrilla-style warfare into account. Nevertheless, I still give the edge to the Mongols.

Edge: Mongols

 Mid Range: War Lance vs. Turko-Mongol Saber:  The saber is an excellent weapon, and is made of a more durable material. However, I'm giving the edge to the lance because I consider it to be the superior cavalry weapon. It's got a much longer reach, and that foot-long blade is a very big skewer that will completely run the Mongol through before he has a chance to retaliate with the sword. Don't get me wrong, the sword is nice, and it's quite big and is very versatile in its own right, but this is going to be overwhelmingly a cavalry battle, so I'm not going to put too much stock in the whole "the sword is better on foot" argument. If either warrior is dismounted, he's as good as dead. The superior weapon in this comparison is, without a doubt, the lance.

Edge: Comanche

 Long Range: Comanche Self Bow vs. Mongol Recurve Bow:  While Deadliest Warrior embarrassed itself with its horrible test in its "Comanche vs. Mongol" episode, upon further reflection and after calming down from my Mongol fanboy rage, I think that they might have had a point, even if they didn't go about proving it very well. Mongol archers really functioned most effectively by showering an enemy army with thousands of arrows raining down on a general area, if I understand their means of combat correctly. To be absolutely fair, I have no doubt that an individual Mongol archer could accurately fire at an individual target, but this was not their primary means of fighting (it wasn't their modus operandi, if you will). The Comanche, alternately, probably had a modus operandi that will be more suited to this type of squad-based, skirmishing/raiding-style combat.

Yes, the Mongol bow has a greater draw weight, but that's kind of like comparing muzzle velocity for bullets. If you get hit with either projectile, it's going to hurt you and possibly kill you. The fact that the Mongolian arrow flies faster and hits harder does confer some benefits, but it's not like the Comanche bow won't be a deadly, dangerous weapon.

That being said, I think that here is where armor must be most seriously taken into consideration. I think that the lance will definitely go through the Mongol soldier's armor (especially if it's got the momentum of a galloping horse behind it), but with a lower draw weight and weaker arrowhead, I think the Comanche arrows might actually have a harder time going through the Mongol's armor. The Comanche's shield, alternately, provides far less protection and could potentially be penetrated by the Mongol's better arrows. (Yeah, there's the whole "deflect arrows" thing, but I think that a Mongol arrow flying at several hundred feet per second is going too fast for a Comanche to deflect with a little shield.)

All this is to say that while Deadliest Warrior sucked in its long-range edge on "Comache vs. Mongol," I am not going to simply give a reactionary edge to the Mongol in retaliation. I think that the Mongol bow is more powerful, but the Comanche bow is situationally better for this type of fight. Both are obviously very skilled with these weapons, so I have to call it a draw.

Edge: Even

 Special Weapons: War Hawk vs. Iron Flanged Mace:  Yeah, I'm giving the edge to the mace. The war hawk is cool, and as far as I'm concerned, even if it can't penetrate the Mongol armor outright, it will be wielded at a close enough range where the Comanche could target exposed areas like the face or legs. That being said, the mace is a far more devastating weapon. Basically one hit with that thing will put an enemy soldier permanently out of commission.

Edge: Mongol

 Armor: Buffalo Hide Shield vs. Lamellar Vest:  Easy edge for the Mongol armor. It covers more of the body, and probably offers better resistance against enemy weaponry. I can't see the shield offering much effective protection against any weapon in the Mongol arsenal besides the knife.

Edge: Mongol

 Mount: Native American Horse vs. Mongolian Horse:  Edge to the Comanche mount. It's bigger, it's stronger, and it's faster than the Mongol horse.

Edge: Comanche

 X-Factors:  I'm giving the edge to the Comanche. The situational experience and archery edges are the most significant in this engagement, as far as I'm concerned. The fact that the Mongols rampaged across Asia and Europe means little in a 5-on-5 skirmish, whereas the fact that Comanche warriors launched raids and ambushes on their opponents actually carries a lot of value here. Add the fact that the Comanche have a marginal physicality advantage and that gives them a bit of a leg up in the hand-to-hand fighting.

Edge: Comanche

WINNER: COMANCHE

So, here's the thing. Deadliest Warrior was still wrong. Their tests sucked, their logic was flawed, and their choice of weaponry made little sense (a glaive?). However, in this particular scenario, a small squad battle, the Comanche are fighting in their element while the Mongols are sorely out of their element. If we made this be an army fight with thousands of men on each side, things would absolutely be different. But as it stands, the Comanche are more competent archers when it comes to picking and choosing targets, their mounts are better suited to short-term high-energy combat situations, and their greater skill in riding and maneuvering ''works better in a situation where you have the tactical flexibility to avoid individual opponents. The Mongols, alternately, are more competent archers when it comes to powerful volley fire and targeting enemy armies, their mounts are better suited to long-term campaigns across thousands of miles of ground with strained logistics, and their greater skill in "traditional" combat works better in a situation where you have the strategic flexibility to force the opponent to fight you on your own terms. ''

This situation seems to fit the bill for all of the above-mentioned scenarios that favor the Comanche. I simply can't see five Mongol warriors taking on a Comanche raiding party and coming out alive, just like I can't see a few thousand Comanche warriors taking on a Mongol forward unit and winning the battle. As it were, in this battle, the Comanche are going to get five brand-new scalps to take home with them.

Also, yeah, I know I'm not going to change anyone's minds.