User blog comment:Deathblade 100/Rome's Greatest Rivals Collide: Hannibal vs Attila the Hun/@comment-17814994-20150730132214

Elgb's "Roman Ass Kickers" EDGES!!!

Long: Lol no contest. Bows beat any thrown prokectile any day. They're easier to aim and easier to fire, not to mention takes less energy. EDGE: Attila

Mid: I'm almost tempted to give this one to the sarissa because of its length. But then again, it's not really meant to be used in single or small combat. It's specialized more in formations and as an anti-cavalry. The axe simplicity and various uses makes it the better weapon in this fight. EDGE: Attila

Close: Nobody really knows if the sword of mars existed. For me it's just a damn myth. Attila would have used the traditional hunnic sabres designed for horseback. Then again, the Sword of Mars does have the legnth to beat the obsolete falcata. EDGE: Attila

Special: Some match-up here. Both weapons are stupid in today's standarized, but the elephant is far more useful. It can share the shit out of the legendary Hunnic cavalry. EDGE: Hannibal

Armor: I don't know if the lamellar armor Attila is using is the same as what Genghis Khan was using. It's definately not cold-hearted steel, but then again it's amde out of iron, which is superior to the bronze musculata. EDGE: Attila

Deadliest Warrior: Attila the Hun

Damn frigging damn. I hate to vote against you Hannibal You are defiantely the better tacticain than Attila. The Hun's tactics is nothing more than brute strength which involves the unecessary sacrifices of his prized troops. Hannibal's tactics are far more creative, inventive, and ingenuine with the use of stealth and brilliant maneuvers. But by looking at the weapons, this battle feels awefully alot like that POS Attila vs Alexander battle. And yeah well, computers don't lie, and Alexander>Hannibal all the time in strategy.