User blog comment:Pygmy Hippo 2/Apache Warriors vs. New Kingdom Egyptian Soldiers/@comment-17814994-20190729141739

Elgb's "Who Needs Armor?" EDGES!!!

Short: This I gotta give to the khopesh and dagger straight away. The tomahawk definitely lacks the range and damage capability of the khopesh. The tomahawk can only do push cuts while the khopesh can slash and even stab if needed. The tomahawk can be thrown but if the Apache misses, then he looses his primary weapon (not helped by the fact that the Egyptian is carrying the thicker shield). When it comes to knives, I still give it to the dagger. Not only is it longer than the puny Indian knife, but its made of stronger materials too. EDGE: Egyptian

Mid: Even though the Native American spear is longer, in my opinion though a 6-foot long spear is more maneuverable and less vulnerable to being passed than an 8-feet long spear. Also, copper < bronze (like what Tyb and Laq said, copper tends to bend if it hits). Just another FYI though, I don't think the Apache spear, or any spear used by Plains Indians, can be thrown. The only throwing spears in the Old West are those of the Cree, Pueblo and the Arctic Indians. So the Egytians get the edge as a throwing weapon too. EDGE: Egyptian

Long: Both bows carry different sets of advantages and disadvantages. The Hyksos bow definitely has the edge in power and range while the Apache bow has speed and poison. If I am going to choose, I would go for the Hyksos bow. Middle Eastern composite bows are almost always superior to short d-shaped bows that the Indians used. That kind of power is enough to basically go through the rawhide shield of the Apache. The Apache bow on the other hand, was not meant for power. It was meant for stealth and speed, hence why it is shorter. There's no way an Apache bow can outrange a Hyksos bow (an American soldier once noted that the Plains Indian bow has the same range as a guy throwing a baseball). And while it is poisoned, it will be negated by the fact that the Egyptians are carrying the thicker wooden shields and even armor in the form of tunics. EDGE: Egyptian

Blunt: I don't really see that either weapon being that much of an edge. The Egyptian mace is longer but the Apache club is lighter. Does having a ball head better? Or a metal disk head superior? I can't say. How does both react to their respective shields? I can't say really. In the end, it can go either way so I have to give this one a solid even. EDGE: Even

X-Factors: The Apache did well in fighting the U.S. and Mexican Government, as well as other Native American tribes. But the Egyptians have fought a wider range of enemies from nomadic raiders and hordes to other Empires. The Egyptian Empire is richer, larger and better fed and supplied than the scattered Apache tribes. EDGE: Egyptian

Deadliest Warrior?

I have to give this one to the Egyptian Soldier hands down. They have the overwhelming advantage in weapons and x-factors. The only thing special going for the Apache is their speed and stealth, which isn't really taht big of an advantage since the Egyptians were just as nimble and quick too in combat (the light armor of the Egyptians were favored for mobility, in fact there is actually a special unit called "Runners" in the Egyptian army that was capable of running together with chariots). I admit the Apache are better in stealth than the Egyptians but again it's not that much of a game changer.

The New Kingdom Egyptians fought and carved one hell of an empire during their time that stood till the end of the Ancient World. I respect the Apaches for putting up one hell of a fight against the US and Mexico, but their battles are smaller and less-decisive than what the Egyptians have accomplished. Combine that with better weapons and the New Kingdom Egptian Soldiers get the win.