User blog comment:Wassboss/Epic Rap Battles of History: Shaka Zulu vs Julius Caesar/@comment-4661256-20160720215021

El Alamein's Edges:

 Primary Weapons: Iklwa vs. Gladius:  I'm going to give this edge to the iklwa, actually. It's got a shorter blade than the gladius while boasting the longer reach thanks to its spear shaft, which in my opinion gives Shaka a tactical edge that will really play into his favor. The iklwa has the potential to outreach the gladius in a melee fight, so the Zulus could try to maintain the distance from the Romans and be relatively successful. Alternately, the Zulus could always grab the iklwa further up the shaft in a very close proximity fight, in which case the length of the gladius would work against it (and this definitely did happen, which is why the pugio was issued as a weapon, in case the gladius' reach was compromised). Finally, the Romans primarily thrusted with their gladius swords (while it was certainly possible and even practical to chop/slash with it, it went against the style of their formation fighting) whereas the iklwa offers the versatility for both a stab (in case armor needs to be penetrated) or a slash (in case an unarmored portion of the body is being targeted).

Edge: Shaka Zulu

 Shield: Ishlangu vs. Scutum:  Yeah, it's pretty hard to argue in favor of the ishlangu here. The scutum offers more protection and its iron boss offers nominal offensive capabilities. The ishlangu is lighter and more maneuverable in one-on-one combat, and I'd argue that it might even be able to hold off blows from projectiles like the plumbata, but that's about it.

Edge: Julius Caesar

 Secondary Weapons: Iwisa vs. Pugio:  The iwisa is actually probably more practical than a lot of people are giving it credit for here. For one thing, it's got the reach advantage, which will be pretty important for engaging close-quarters fighters like the Romans. The iwisa's capacity to inflict blunt trauma also means that it will be able to bypass armor with repeated strikes, giving it the potential to break bones and stun an enemy underneath the armor. While the pugio's sharper blade will inflict more serious trauma with less energy, it's considerably shorter ranged and is really used as a secondary or last-resort weapon by the Romans. I wouldn't put a lot of stock in the iwisa as a thrown weapon, but as a clubbing instrument, it will be brutally effective.

Edge: Shaka Zulu

 Ranged Weapons: Assegai vs. Pilum:  Technically the assegai was phased out historically by Shaka in favor of the iklwa, but it's certainly possible that some of his troops still carried the weapon. The thing about the pilum is that, as an anti-shield weapon, it suffers considerably when the denial of the Zulu's shield won't greatly hinder their fighting capacity. Yeah, there's the probable event of the pilum piercing the ishlangu, but, again, the pilum's primary design is impeded by the lack of a pivotal shields (or, in other words, the lack of a shield that would disrupt the enemy's battle plan if it were denied them). The assegai probably won't fare a lot better against the Romans' heavier armor and shields, though, so I'm going to call it even at long range as both weapons suffer equally in their lack of efficiency.

Edge: Even

 Special Weapons: Zulu Axe vs. Plumbata:  The plumbata are pretty small weapons and I would imagine than even the ishlangu would be able to successfully block a plumbata. With such a small point being thrown in such small quantities in a 5-on-5 fight, I can't see these weapons being little more than distractions and maybe wounding an opponent if the Romans are lucky. The Zulu axe is a very important weapon here because its half-moon shaped blade was designed to hook an opponent's shield away from them (which will be very useful against a defensive opponent like the Romans) before targeting the limbs. For those of you saying that you're not sure if the axe would be effective against the Romans, it's got an iron blade, for crying out loud! That aside, there are plenty of unarmored areas on the Romans for the Zulu warriors to target with such a nasty blade. This also gives the Zulus operational flexibility in close range (in conjunction with their iklwa and possibly the iwisa) whereas the plumbata does absolutely nothing to further Caesar's ranged game.

Edge: Shaka Zulu

 X-Factors:  I have to disagree with quite a few of Shaka's low-ranking X-Factors like battle experience (while his campaigns may not be as famous as those of Caesar's, they were certainly still large-scale, year-long operations, with some estimates putting the death tolls of his wars in the millions) and training (he revolutionized the Zulu military, which included drilling with the iklwa and  the development of the "bull horns" formation). Shaka might not have shiny metal armor or have fought in Europe, resulting in lesser coverage of his historical exploits among a Western audience, but I would certainly argue that he was at least Caesar's equal in terms of innovation, training, and combat experience. Just putting that out there. Anyway, Shaka's higher mobility and equivalent training and experience will work in his favor for a 5-on-5, where the Romans will be quite unable to effectively employ a shield-based formation for protection. Caesar also has no cavalry or auxiliary units present, things that he relied heavily on for many of his most famous victories (such as Alesia), whereas Shaka does not suffer with an exclusive infantry composition. For these reasons, Shaka will be more mobile and will be able to outmaneuver an opponent who is significantly more weighed down.

Edge: Shaka Zulu

WINNER: SHAKA ZULU

I doubt that many (or any) of you will agree with me, but I think there's a very real chance that Shaka will win. There's this psychological thing that a lot of us have where we see an African warrior with no metal armor and automatically discount them (deliberately or subconsciously) as "primitive." This is unfair, though. For one thing, Shaka's weapons are still iron-based, so it's not like he's just fighting with stone and bone weapons. Secondly, Shaka was just as competent, if not more so, than Caesar when it came to military innovations, and it certainly showed in his campaigns of conquest. What gives Shaka the win here though is that in a small-scale 5-on-5 fight, the higher mobility of his soldiers will work greatly to their advantage against an opponent who is not used to such small-scale engagements and will therefore be unable to employ many of his effective tactics (such as shield formations). Even weapons-wise, the Zulus hold their own, with a startling amount of tactical flexibility present with their iklwa (which is good at both mid and short range) and the Zulu axe (which is capable of tearing that scutum right out of Roman hands). The Romans have armor, yes, but that armor can be compromised or bypassed by striking an unarmored area. Shaka's aggressive and fluid battle tactics are a perfect counter to Caesar's highly analytical but ultimately long-term and complex maneuvers, and in the end, he should win.