User blog comment:Deathblade 100/Conquerors, Legions and Blood: Roman Empire vs Alternate Aztecs (Crusaders Kings 2)/@comment-27358240-20200213133649

Kazanshin's "Mesoamerican masterrace" edges:

Infantry: The romans have the far superior weapons, armor and tactics. Any Aztec will be hard pressed to do anything against a Roman in his cohort, protected by his shield as well as those of his peers. The pilum will annhihilate the chimalli, whjch won't stand a a chance against the sheer devastating piercing power of the javelin. The lorica armors will stop any blow directed against them and make the obsidian weapons semi-useless. Clear edge to the Romans, right? Wrong. It all comes down to the numerical superiority of the Aztec: while the Romans will be holding off the front lines, they'll be outflanked, surrounded and taken down one by one. I have sources mentioning the usage of atlatls by the Aztec before charging, something which could be used to devastating effects if they fire a barrage from the unshielded flanks and rear. I'm not sure this is the case for the Aztec here, since they don't seem to be completely identical to their real life counterparts, but I still think the massive numerial advantage of the Aztec will make them a far more flexible force capable of much more than the Romans. Edge: Alternate Aztecs

Missile infantry: This is once again a solid edge to the Aztec. They simply have the far, far superior volume of fire compared to the Romans, no matter how skilled the Cretans may be. Again, I'm not sure if facts about the real life Aztecs apply here, but Aztec archers are recorded to have used arm-strapped chimalli shields, which would allow them to reinforce the infantry if need arise. But really, it's just all about the sheer volume of fire from the Aztec archers' superior numbers. Edge: Alternate Aztecs

Cavalry: The numidians are cool. They can cause some dangerous damage with their javelins and will be pretty damn hard to catch with their speed. But man, do they suffer from a complete lack of armor. This will make them sitting ducks against the Aztec archers, whose obsidian arrrows will rip them to shreds. The Aztec, while definitely not the best cavalry around with their brittle-ass spears and light armor, will definitely be capable of chasing around Roman archers and ride them down. Once that's done, they can smash into the rear of Roman forces, simply using the sheer mass of their mount to trample any poor bozo in front of them into dust. Edge: Alternate Aztecs

Elite Infantry: This is where I think the Romans take an edge. The Thracian auxiliaries may not be as well trained and disciplined as the Eagle warriors, but they completely make up for that in versatility: throw in the javelins first to kill a bunch of lightly armored Aztecs, follow it up with a charge with the rhompaia to finish off the rest. They seem to be wearing roman armor so they can definitely take some arrows and keep going, and their offensive ability by far exceeds that of the Eagles. Edge: Roman Empire

X-Factors and Conclusion: The Roman Empire is the greatest empire known to Europe relatively to its time period. They were far, faaaaaar ahead of their time in both technology and politics and their fall caused an entire Dark Age in the continent, just because of how much better they were than anyone else. However, I think here they meet their match in the field of battle. Really, the only thing I can attribute this victory to is the superior numbers of the Aztec. The archers will be the first to show their superiority: the Cretans will be ripped to shreds. Then, the archers will obliterate the unarmored Numidians, giving way for the Aztec cavalry to chase down whatever poor Cretan is left. The Roman legionaries will be fighting the good fight and definitely inflicting heavy casualties upon the Aztec warriors, but they just won't be capable of ripping through them before they get outflanked, surrounded, and overhwelmed.

(Kazanshin's rant session begins here. Skip ahead if you're not interested)

I see a lot of you bringing up the Gauls and Britons. Let's not forget, however, that just because the Romans could beat the Gauls when fully outnumbered, it didn't mean they always did. The only time this happened was under the military genius of Gaius Julius Caesar, greatest Roman general to ever be birthed from the empire/republic. And guess who inflicted one of the only two defeats Caesar suffered in his life? Vercingetorix, national hero of France and chieftain of a gallic tribe. And he did it while outnumbered by the Romans. So yeah, I don't think the Gauls are a good case because of how the situation was a two way street. As for the Britons, Imma say it folks. Boudicca was a fucking idiot. She had the Romans completely outnumbered, free to smash them apart whatever way she wated. Nah, let's just charge blindly at them! And that's what she did. That's what the fuck she did. No outflanking, no surrounding, just charged uphill towards the Roman formation and engaged head on. That happened not because the Britons were that much inferior to the Romans. No, it was because Boudicca was an idiot. That's the only reason the Britons lost at the Battle of Watling Street. It's not because a single roman is equal to 23 britons, it's because Boudicca was godblazingly stupid.

(End of rant)

So. With the Celtic case out of the way, I reaffirm my opinion that the numerical advantage of the Aztecs will allow them to be a far more flexible and versatile force than the Romans, who will be encircled, fired upon from all sides, and slaughtered. Deadliest Army: Alternate Aztecs