User blog comment:El Alamein/Varangian Guard vs. Praetorian Guard/@comment-379205-20140630182141

119's "Fall of Rome" Edges

Swords: The spatha has a longer blade than the gladius, making it similar to the kind of sword the Vikings are used to, a weapon useful for slashing attacks while still proving useful for thrusting While this may be a disadvantage against a large formation of Romans, in a five vs five battle, the Praetorians will likely be separated into a series of one-on-one battles with the Varangians. Exactly the kind of close combat where the barbarians, who fought similarly to the Vikings, proved superior- barbarian armies who managed to break the Roman formations tended to be able to defeat them. Edge: Varangian

Mid-Range 1: The pilum is the only ranged weapon in this fight, which is an advantage, and unless it hit in the iron boss, it would still be able to immobilize the Varangian's shields, and a it will definitely do some damage if it impacts their actual body. On the other other hand, the Dane Axe is a deadly close combat weapon capable of easily cleaving through armor, and has "horns" protruding out from the blade, great for hooking a shield and pulling at aside. In the end, the thing that pulls the odds just slightly in favor of the Varangians is the nature of throwing the pilum. Not only was it inaccurate, as Elgb said, it also required a running start to throw effectively, and there were accounts of Roman soldiers not being able to throw them fast enough against a rapidly charging enemy, much in the manner as the Vikings often fought. Edge: Varangians.

Mid-Range 2: The Byzantine spear vs hasta. In truth, this one depends on the range the weapon is being used. The Hasta is certainly deadlier at longer ranges, however, in a closer-range fight, the shorter Byzantine spear is a handier weapon. Even.

Shields: The Roman scutum is best designed for formation warfare, with a large line of soldiers. The boss shield, the basic design used by both the Byzantines and the Vikings (though the shape might have varied somewhat), on the other hand, was designed to be an effective weapon in individual close combat, which is more likely in a five vs five fight. Edge: Varangians

X-Factors: In general, I agree that the Romans were more disciplined and a bit better trained, however, the experience gap is likely even greater than that. Before they fought for the Byzantines, they likely had experience, both in the constant conflict between Viking chieftains, as well as attacking foreign settlements on raids. As for loyalty, I'll agree with the fact that, while the Varangians were mercenaries, the Praetorians would assassinate an emperor for political gain. On the other hand, in this case, the Praetorians are not fighting other Romans (disregarding technicalities of the Byzantine essentially being the Eastern Empire, they don't look like Romans, anyway), but what at least appears to be a foreign enemy similar to the Germanic barbarians, so they will not doubt fight with all their strength against them. On the other hand, the Varangians are Vikings, and if they are from prior to about 1000 AD, they may be pagans who believe they will be rewarded in Valhalla if they are killed in battle. Given the Byzantine chronicles, even after most of the Norse people were converted to Christianity, they still fought brutally even as mercenaries, suggesting that they might outfight the less experienced Praetorians.

OVERALL WINNER: Varangians. In a five vs five fight, the Varangians will be able to separate the Praetorians into individual close-range fights and kill them one-by-one with their weapons, which are more suited to close combat.