User blog comment:Goddess of Despair/William the Conqueror vs Hannibal Barca/@comment-5795750-20130410002106

BG1's "Conquering is ma game!" Edges:

Short: Hmmm... the falcata is lighter than the broadsword but the latter has a greater reach and it is double-bladed meaning that it gains an edge in killing power

EDGE: William

Long: Crossbows are powerful and have range over a traditional bow and arrow but it has a slow reload time. A spear? well its one of those throw away weapons but at least you can fire them off in quick succession. Also, if someone is on a war elephant then you have two weapons in use for the price of one. I'd say the rate of fire and versatility of the soliferrum and the range and power of the crossbow even this off

EDGE: Even

Special: Both are massive siege weapons but the catapult seems a bit cumbersome to move and a bit inaccurate with a long reloading time - sure an elephant is a slow animal too but it can swerve around and stuff like that making aim a bit tricky. Also, as mentioned above, have a man with a soliferrum makes it two weapons in one so...

EDGE: Hannibal

Armour: Metallurgy lesson here - iron beats out against bronze, even if the iron armour is heavier and in chainmail form. Wooden shield too is useless.

EDGE: William

Overall Winner: Despite gaining advantages with the war elephant and soliferrum (maybe), Hannibal's armour and sword will brign about his downfall. Also, taking X-Factors into account, William has had more years of experience and is a better tactician compared to Hannibal even if the latter had miraculously crossed the Alps to fight the Romans. In the end, I must say that William the Conqueror remains supreme