User blog comment:Battlefan237/Mikhail Kutuzov vs. The 1st Duke of Wellington/@comment-17814994-20180605053111

Elgb's "I'll Rip Your Bones Apart... BONAPARTE!!!" EDGES!!!

Close: During the Napoleonic Eras, it was mostly the officers who were allowed to carry swords. And since officers, especially the high-ranking ones, were obliged to be on their horses, there's no doubt that they fought mosly on horseback. The cossack sword is the perfect weapon for this type of battles than the straighter pattern sword. EDGE: Kutuzov

Mid: Both are the same, but I am giving a slight edge to the Duke since his pistol was probably better crafted and more reliable (in a time where firearms where far more unreliable than your ex-girlfriend during spring break). EDGE: The Duke

Long: The British Brown Bess was the best musket of its time, so much so that even in the later century, many of them were capable of being turned into rifled muskets. Its accuracy, smooth operating system and speed allowed the British to decimate the longer and more cumbersome weapons of their rivals. I still don't get why you didn't give the Brown Bess a bayonet, since it was pretty standard at that time for Besses to have bayonets. EDGE: The Duke

Special: The grenade easy since its an actual weapon. I can see the Russian lines taking cover or retreating once these grenados are thrown towards them. EDGE: The Duke

Deadliest Warrior?

Sigh... I really like this match-up Battlefan and I really wanted to vote. But damn I think my vote would just end up tying the voting system again. Seriously, Wass and BG made some pretty good points on why Kutuzov should win (props for BG for even citing some information). However, I just can't see Mikhail Kutuzov actually winning this.

Listen. I know both became famous for having kicked Napoleon's ass, but the span of their successses are leagues apart. Kutuzov fought a very long and costly Fabian war against Napoleon and barely survived. Duke of Wellington on the other, fought and conquered Napoleon in just one battle. Kutuzov was in sone cases, lucky that Napoleon attacked Russia (his own homeland btw) in the snowy season. He was a great Fabian strategist but guerilla warfare can only get you so far. Kutuzov might have won the Russian campaign, but if you look at his war records, he lost almost all his engagements with Napoleon. Don't get me wrong, there's nothing bad about good ol' guerilla strategy (just ask the NVs and VCs who kicked America's ass in the Vietnam War), but in this type of scenario Kutuzov doesn't have his hometown advantage on his side.

The Duke on the other hand, doesn't have a problem with this. The British Redcoats are far better trained and physically adapatable than the Russians. But its the Duke's tactics which is going to give them the win. The Duke is younger, far more adaptable, and have the better men and equipement for the job. In a small scale battle such as this, the Duke's tactic of "Defensive Offense" would decimate Kutuzov if he tried to even skirmish with him. The Duke may not be an expert Fabian strategist than Kutuzov, but he himself value the effectiveness of ambushes and traps (during the Battle of Waterloo, he actually hid some of his forces in tall grass to surprise the French). It's kind of hard to explain further, but there is a reason why even the Tsar of Russia, Kutuzov's own boss, called Wellington the "Conqueror of the World's Conqueror." Since while Kutuzov only goal was to survive and hold on Napoleon, Wellington actually came, destroyed and conquered Napoleon.