User blog comment:Urbancommando77/Mongols VS Saxons/@comment-422690-20140414165911

If you're going to provide stats and info for the weapon, please provide stats that are comparable. Right now, all of the things you provide are completely, utterly useless because it's an apples-to-oranges comparison between the first table and the second.

So...

Close range: Longsword and Seax win. While my personal preference with the words lies with the saber, the two area fairly evenly matched. The longsword gives up some power in slashing for the sake of versatility, while the saber gives up most thrusting effectiveness for the sake of slashing excellently. What decides this, then, is the Seax against the dagger. The Seax outperforms the dagger in every fashion, especially for chopping blows which will either go right through the leather armor or debilitate the mongol enough to get a killing blow.

Mid Range: I'm going with the Glaive here. The thickness and armor-crushing power of the Glaive can better penetrate armor and has a wider arc with which to hit; when you're using a pole weapon, that's important. Those crossbars are almost useful - there needs to be more placed radially for it to be effective at stopping another polearm.

Long Range: Recurve bow wins. Better reload, similar power, next.

Special: Dane Axe wins, entirely due to its reach. The mace is an excellent weapon, but the Saxon can split the mongol like a log before he gets in range.

Overall: Overall, the Mongols take this. They'd be very evenly matched if this was one-on-one, but what really decides this is the ten-on-ten with the Mongols having the advantage of cavalry. Normally, being on horseback alone is a death sentence to most infantry opponents. But these are the Mongols. They practically define horseback warrior. It doesn't matter f they're in a forest or on a plain - simply being mounted is enough to carry the Mongols to victory here.