User blog comment:El Alamein/Shakespeare's Warriors vs. Rome's Enemies/@comment-379205-20130714061437

119's "F(r)iends, Romans, Invaders, I Come to Bury Rome, Not to Praise It!" Edges


 * Bows: Both the longbow and Hunnic Bow are formidable weapons, but the Hunnic Bow is more mobile, being easily used on both foot and horseback. Combine that with Attila and the Hun's marksmanship. Edge: Rome's Enemies


 * Spears: Hannibal's Sarrissa is longer than Hamlet's partisan, but long spears are most effective in formation and can be clumsy in single combat. Edge: Shakespeare's Warriors


 * Swords: In terms of metallurgy, the Rennaissance-era weapons of Shakespeare's warriors are superior, however, one of them, Tybalt, is carrying a rapier, a civilian weapon not meant for the battlefield. The Claymore, Falchion, and Scimitar should prove effective melee weapons with superior strength to all but perhaps the Celtic Longswords, which were themselves renowned for their quality craftmanship.


 * Daggers: The poignard and in particular main gauche were mainly civilian weapons, worn as part of an outfit and sometimes used for self-defense. The saex and pugio were intended to stand up to the rigors of military combat. Edge: Rome's enemies


 * X-Factors: Rome's Enemies take this with a landslide. For one, they possess far more combat experience, having fought numerous battles against a powerful enemy, meaning greater tactical experience and strategy, particularly in the case of tactical geniuses such as Hannibal and Vercingetorix. That's not to mention the raw strength and combat prowess of Spartacus and Alaric, as well as Attila's expert archery.


 * Overall Winner: Rome's enemies take this- While Shakespeare's warriors have slightly better weapons, they are not well enough to overcome the gap in skill, tactical and strategic aptitude and sheer brute force of Rome's enemies.