User blog comment:Manofgod/King David vs Count Roland (Battle of the Holy Warriors!)/@comment-4661256-20170510074143/@comment-422690-20170510161503

The biggest issue with metallurgy here is that King David's exact chronology (ignoring his existence itself, since this seems to be a biblical version) is under scholarly dispute. If you side with the ones placing him in the early Iron Age, then his iron weapons are at best equivalent to bronze, and more than likely worse; at this point in time, the big advantage of iron was that it was more economically viable. If you put him in the middle- or late- iron age, then this issue is greatly lessened.

The dates you give are typically considered Iron Age II, which is early iron age. Whether or not David's tactics makes it more "fair" is a matter I won't touch. Mainly because that's highly subjective, the most prolific source on David's prowess is more than slightly biased, and there's not enough information on Roland to determine his tactical prowess or lack thereof.

Just a couple things in MoG's comment to address, though:

You mention him and his battle by name with a link in your blog, saying that it was one of your major reasons for making this. Don't think that counts as not caring.

You are correct here. However, you're not writing a war, but a single 10-man skirmish. Metallurgy and technology is more likely to make a difference then; a single lucky (or unlucky) blow from Roland and his group can severely bend, if work-hardened, or shatter, if quenched before tempering was introduced, David's group's weaponry. In a war situation, this can be fixed by retreating and re-arming, but in a small skirmish setting like you state (as of writing), it can make a difference.

This post was meant to inform rather than argue, so apologies if I came off as such.