User blog comment:Elgb333/Duel of the Beastmasters: Ramses II vs Marcus Aurelius/@comment-4661256-20160519000524

El Alamein's Edges:

 Close Range: Khopesh vs. Gladius:  The gladius wins. Although the khopesh's curved blade does allow for greater transfer of energy for slashes (especially on a moving platform like a chariot), it's basically outclassed here. The gladius is a double-edged blade, so either side can strike with lethal force, whereas the khopesh's single-edged blade limits its killing surface area. Also, the gladius's main purpose as a thrusting weapon will allow Marcus to compromise  Rameses ' armor a lot more easily than  Rameses will be able to damage the Roman's armor with his slashing khopesh. Finally, the gladius is longer, so it will afford Marcus Aurelius a greater reach, enabling him to strike at his opponent from a larger distance.

Edge: Marcus Aurelius

 Long Range: Bow vs. Pilum;  Technically, I suppose the bow gets the edge just because it has more range, is arguably more accurate, and can be used more than once (ie you can fire multiple arrows but once you throw the pilum it's done). So, yes, while I can't deny that it's the better of the two weapons, I'd like to point out that Marcus Aurelius' large scutum will likely do wonders to protect him from  Rameses ' bow. Not only that, but ancient Egyptian arrows will likely have a significantly inferior metallurgy than Roman arms and armor, so probably even without the shield, Marcus' regular body armor and helmet would be enough to stop them. The pilum is mostly an anti-shield weapon, and since  Rameses lacks a shield its main purpose is diluted, but it can still kill, and can be used in a melee fashion, granting Marcus a necessary mid-ranged option that his foe lacks. You know what? Damn it, I'm giving the edge to the pilum. The Egyptian bow is simply way too underpowered to get the edge.

Edge: Marcus Aurelius

 Special Weapons: Chariot vs. Scutum:  Yeah, the scutum wins. It offers a level of protection that  Rameses can't surpass in terms of damage output to compromise Marcus' protection. It's also by far the most effective piece of armor that will be present on the field. The chariot, by contrast, was made obsolete by cavalry, and Marcus' horse is by itself more maneuverable and more controllable than  Rameses ' bulkier vehicle. Whatever advantages of momentum it can offer are nullified by Marcus Aurelius' horse.

Edge: Marcus Aurelius

 Animals: Lion vs. Dogs:  I cannot emphasize this enough. ''The dogs win. The lion loses.'' I don't think I emphasized that enough. Hang on.

' The lion, a wild animal which is untrained and untameable, will be a liability on the battlefield. It is not capable of distinguishing between friend and foe, and will either attack anyone or else flee the field entirely. The war dogs are domesticated, trained animals who utilize pack mentality to effectively attack opponents. They are practically warriors. There is no way that the lion can possibly be a better choice, especially when outnumbered. '


 * deep breath* Not only that, but male lions are considerably less aggressive than their female counterparts. Not only that, but  Rameses  probably didn't even really have a lion in combat, because that's a bunch of Egyptian propaganda bullshit that was made up in a revisionist fashion after Ramses had his ass handed to him by the Hittites. I'm getting ahead of myself here, but this last point in particular will be very, very important in a bit.

In terms of lion vs. dogs, the dogs win. I think I've made my point quite clear.

Edge: Marcus Aurelius

WINNER: MARCUS AURELIUS

Before I go off the rails on  Rameses (because I will), let me just say that Marcus Aurelius would probably win even against a different Egyptian pharaoh just because of the significant technological disparity between ancient Egypt and ancient Rome. The Romans did conquer the Egyptians (and beat them handily in battle several times over, most famously at the Battle of Actium), too, so that's just another point in Marcus' favor. Also, the horse is more modern than the chariot. (I know, counterintuitive, isn't it? But yeah, regular cavalry is more controllable and maneuverable than chariot cavalry.) Finally, the dogs will tear that poor lion to raw bloody pieces.

However, all that aside,  Rameses was a giant phony. His most famous battle, the Battle of Kadesh, was for the longest time regarded by historians as the textbook example of how to defeat the enemy on the battlefield. Egyptian records recount the pharaoh's glorious victory. Basically, the Hittites attacking the Egyptians pushed an advantage and started to pursue their foes off the battlefield--it looked like the Egyptians were going to lose. But lo and behold, brave  Rameses plunged into the fray, turning the tide in favor of his army, winning the fight.

Except, yeah, that probably didn't happen. I will be citing Alexander Canduci's The Greatest Lies in History, 2010, Metro Books, New York (Chapter 1: The Victor's Version of the Battle of Kadesh). Page 18: "With their bronze weapons, the Egyptians stood little chance against the Hittite's superior iron weapons and three-man chariots. The Hittites ripped through Rameses's single division, which broke and fled in disorder." Okay, well fine, technically this all backs up the Egyptian version--so now we just need to wait for  Rameses to swoop in and save the day! Except, no, that didn't happen. Rameses only escaped with his life because "a division of his infantry that were marching separately appreated and joined with the main army, preventing a complete rout," and because "the HIttite army didn't pursue... but instead started to pillage the Egyptian camp." So basically  Rameses got his ass kicked super hard, then ran home and told everyone he won, and they believed him, because he was a god to them.

So... *sigh* I had to get that off my chest. Rameses sucks and he loses no matter how you look at it.