User blog comment:MilenHD/Norman vs Winged Hussar/@comment-4661256-20160302173640

El Alamein's Edges:

 Close Range: Broadsword vs. Szabla:  I disagree with your classification of the length of the Szabla's blade--|according to Wikipedia, the Hussar's sword was around 33 inches in length and had a double-edged tip. So technically the Szabla is actually longer than the broadsword. That aside, I still find it to be the more useful weapon here, as the saber is better designed for mounted combat (as its slashing attacks are better designed to transfer the momentum of a moving horse) and both warriors are on horseback for this fight.

Edge: Winged Hussar

 Mid Range: Spear vs. Lance:  Again, here we see the superiority of the Hussar's weapons as they were specifically designed to excel in mounted combat. While the spear may be more versatile on foot that's really only a minor advantage at best, since if the Norman gets knocked off his horse by the Hussar he's as good as dead. The Kopia lance is significantly longer, giving the Hussar a reach advantage, and it was typically adorned with streamers or other banners, which tended to spook enemy horses with the noise they made. Honestly I can't disagree more about the whole "Hussars weren't intimidating" because it's not a matter of scaring the enemy soldier necessarily, but instead scaring his horse, and if your mount won't move or tries to run because they're scared you simply can't fight effectively. The Kopia enables the Hussar to enjoy not only a reach but a psychological advantage that is much more significant than anybody thus far has given them credit for.

Edge: Winged Hussar

 Long Range: Composite Crossbow vs. Polish Crossbow:  I'm not exactly sure how effective a crossbow would be on horseback just because of how unwieldy it tends to be, but the Polish crossbow's pistol design makes it at least more maneuverable on horseback, and the bayonet could be useful (I guess) if the Norman gets close to the Hussar while his ranged weapon is still out. I still don't see this range as being very effective but the Hussar still gets the edge.

Edge: Winged Hussar

 Special Weapons: Seax & Shield vs. Nadziak:  Uh, okay, so on horseback that shield is going to be a nightmare and that seax is much too short to do much. I'm going to assume that these weapons will only be used on foot, really, in which case the Norman has a huge disadvantage. Even the protective capabilites offered by the shield are more or less negated by the war hammer, which can transfer blunt trauma through armor and shields and can break bones underneath. Even on foot the Nadziak retains this armor-negating power, and its longer reach means the Hussar will have an easier time forcing his opponent behind his shield and preventing him from closing in with the seax knife.

Edge: Winged Hussar

WINNER: WINGED HUSSAR

And is it any surprise, really? The Norman cavalry were not really famous for being exceptional whereas the Polish Winged Hussar was a highly mobile strike force that was able to strike fear into the hearts of their enemies' mounts. The Winged Hussar's weapons are all far superior while on horseback, with longer reach and a design built to capitalize off of the momentum of a moving horse, and even on foot they can still hold their own. A really important thing to keep in mind is the streamers on the lance and the wings on the Hussar's armor, which were specifically designed to scare an opponent's horse--you might laugh and say "What a joke, the Norman won't be scared by that," and you might be right, but he definitely should be. If his horse is afraid then he won't be able to control it effectively and at that point the Hussar can move around the battle space and wear down his opponent at his leisure. I mean, I gave the Hussar every damn edge, for crying out loud. He wins this fight with relative ease.