User blog comment:El Alamein/Shakespeare's Warriors vs. Rome's Enemies/@comment-5078776-20130712234004/@comment-180.191.234.101-20130716030105

I am cmpletely going to rip this vote apart.

1st thing- Shakespeare warriors being "pompous nobles who have a little training in swordplay". Doodwat? Go backk to school and ace English lit. FYI. Macbeth is a brilliant general who fought since he was 12 or so. He fought an army 50 times his size and destroyed them completely, noy by luck, but using a pincer maneavuer and outflanking. And so is the Duke, who is also a military man and a brilliant tactician with sociopathic ways. Tybalt, has been a champion fencer and horsemen since in his youth. Hamlet had a horrific journey having him to fight pirates, soldiers, savages, and nobles alike for months. These guys are just as brilliant and battle ready as their opponents.

2nd thing- Ok sure Rome's enemies are brilliant tacticians as well. But you should try to remember, only two of them hd any formal educations, the rest are just bloodlust barbarians. And this is importan becasue every one of them came from different ethnicity At least Shakespear's warriors are born in similar places and speaks the same language. Only two maybe three if Visigoth knew, can understand each other. There'sno way for them to understand what each were saying. Remember in this battle there will be notranslators.

3rd thing-Yes they are brilliant tacticians, but all of Rome's enemies have different styles of battles. Hannibal and Attila are all in the offensive, preferring to meet their enemies head on. Spartacus, Alaric and Vercingetorix are all in the defensive, preferring guerilla type battles and hit and run tactics. All of them would disagree with each other in terms of strategy, and being brilliant generals ey are they would end up bickering to whom the supreme command should be given to. And Attila is a psychopathic loose canon, he would kill anyone who disagreeswith him.