User blog comment:BattleGames1/Deadliest Warrior Battle 5 - Julius Caesar vs Ramesses II/@comment-5232784-20130112044130

Okay Egypt vs Italy!

1. weapons:

The Kopesh swords of Egypt were made of Bronze, which despite common knowledge is not always weaker than Iron. However, the Iron swords of Rome were plentiful, and might have been stronger. Plus they were straight swords instead of bent and curved like the Kopesh: the Philistine swords were considered more advanced in design because of their straightness. Due to the iron and straight design of the Roman Crocea Mors, I give this to Julius Caesar

The Roman speas and Javelins would also have the Iron advantage over those of the Egyptians, and this would likewise hold true for the arrowheads they would use.

Now the Plumbata...that's an amazing weapon. Not only is it iron, but it has a greater range than javelins do: while the Egyptian mace is both made of a lesser metal than bronze (copper ) and is a melee weapon, not a long range one. The Romans have a long range and metalurgy advantage here.

2. Egyptian chariots/Roman Fighting experience

This here is the ultimate X Factor: While Rammasses used powerful Egyptian war chariots (whose horses were trained to strike at enemy combatants with their hooves), the Romans, though not fielding chariots (save for sport), had experience fighting Celtic Chariots in Britain (Julius Caesar led the first Roman invasion of Britannia). The Romas wupped Chariot armies, though were impressed by their performance. They have years of history, experience and training on their side when confronted by such weaponry, which was during the Roman age had already lost its battlefield importance in most of the western world. The Egyptians will not know this: the Romans were ages after them

Edge" Caesar

Julius Caesar has the better military smarts than Ramasses, better weaponry, better trained troops, and he knows how to defeat chariot forces. Ramasses has no chance...

JULIUS CAESAR WINS