User blog comment:Urbancommando77/King Arthur VS Attila the Hun/@comment-5232784-20150220052446

Huns of the round table!

1. Attilla vs Arthur

Blades:

Excalibur has longer range and is lighter than the sword of mars, and though the sword of Attillia was supposed to be the god mar's sword, and though Attila thought getting it meant that he would be victorious in every war, it is a known fact that he did not win every battle or war (the battle of Chalons was a strategic defeat for him, and he retreated from the romans, ending a conflict over a succession in a Frankish kingdom (Attilla favored the elder son). Excalibur, on the other hand, was magical, which shone with the light of thirty torches, dazzling and blinding his foes (This will severly impact Attilla in close quarter combat, if not his long distance attacks.). Plus, if Arthur has excalibur placed in its original scabbard, then Attilla has another problem: whoever had that scabbard could not even bleed in battle (Morgan Le Faye, his half sister, was given this scabbard by Arthur for safekeeping: she replaced it with a replica without the magic and gave it to her brother.)

Giving them blinding power of Excalibur, and the longer range, Arthur has a masterful advantage

Edge: Arthur

Long range:

The Steel crossbow has half the range, and is much heavier, than the composite bow. It also will do doubt take longer to load. It does have more penetrating power, however, and the arrows of the composite bow might not pierce the plate armor of the knights (though this is uncertain. Certainly some bows, like the devistating longbow, could pierce plate armor.).

The steel crossbow will have no problem penetrating the leather lamellar armor of the Huns, however. Still, with twice the range and faster reload time, combined with being lighter (though more bulky), I give this to the composite bow.

Edge: Attilla

Special:

Attila's Scythian Axe has superior range to the warhammer (both in close quarters and in long distance throwing attacks). The hammer is a blunt force weapon, very useful (especially against armored opponents), and while the axe may not penetrate the plate armor, the hammer will bash into Attilla's head. Remember, Arthur came from a later age in history (since we are using plate armor here, we must place this version in the medieval period), so metallurgy, and hence weapons and armor, would be expected to be more advanced that the day of Atilla.

Due to the issue of armor on one hand, and greater range on the other...I give this a tie.

Edge: Dead even

Attilla has superior range, but Arthur's plate armor will greatly protect him from these attacks, if not prove imperivious to them. If Arthur has his sword drawn, then Attila's long range attacks will be hampered by the sword's glow. At close quarters, Attila will get butchered. If Arthur has the magic scabbard, this battle is over even quicker (for sake of fairness, and since the scabbard is not mentioned, I assume Arthur does not have it (and should not).

MAJOR EDGE: King Arthur!

2. Allies!

Blades:

The longsword will probably have superior steel, and greater range. Add to this the fact that the swords weigh the same, and thus the longsword has its weight further distributed i.e. its greater length, it will probably be wielded faster than the hunnic sword (though with the knights wearing plate armor, this speed advantage will be negligable, if non-existent).

Edge: Knights

Medium range:

The Pike is a good anti-cavalry weapon, designed to take down mounted foes and their horses. Though Knights would have used lances instead of pikes from horseback, the pike could still be used in a similar way, taking down mounted foes from a good, safe distance.

However, the javelin gives the huns the ability to take down mounted enemies from an even safer distance. The downed knights could still, however, use the pikes like a pikeman if they find themselves on foot, facing oncoming Hun warriors in full charge. Still, killing enemies at a greater range than they can kill you is a good advantage

Edge: Huns

Long range:

The edges for this category are the same for that between Attila and King Arthur, since the same weapons are involved.

Edge: Huns

Special:

The flail is a murderous up close weapon, but it does not have the range of the Scythian axe. However, the axe's ability to pierce plate armor is suspect, and the flail will have no problem with leather armor (and once you throw the axe, you've lost it)

Due to armor issues, and distance vs power, I give this  draw.

Edge: dead even

Armor:

Having a steel cuirass means one is wearing full plate armor, not just on the chest or helmet. Plate armor is far more effective than chainmail, let alone lamellar armor, and being encased in such armor and riding a horse, which would also have plate armor (they had such in the later middle ages), a knight was a human tank. The huns will move faster, but they will have a hard time getting through that armor. Plus, the guantlets of the armor can be used as a striking weapon, and since knights were trained in boxing, they would have hit harder than the average medieval man, as well as the average Hun. Their helmets, depending on design, could be used as a head butting weapon, or even in the case of the hounskull design, a sabbing weapon (the face pointed out sharply, especially the nose). The armor is a crucial factor here.

Edge: knights

While the knights have superior close quarter weapons, the Huns have superior long range capabilities. The huns are faster, but they are not as heavily armored as knights, cannot use their leather armor as a weapon like a knight can, and their horses are not as armored as that of a knight's either (if at all). Plus, the horses of the huns might not have been as large as the Destrier war horses that knights used (Destriers were not a breed of horse, but any horse that was within the 1600 lbs or so range, a heavily muscled beast that could charge through infantry formations). Also, they were probably not trained to box like Destriers were. Also, being from a later age, Arthur's weapons were no doubt superior to hun weapons, and remember, the inferior metal of the hun weapons have to pierce the superior steel of the knights armor to get at them, or try to hit the knights in their small eyeholes or gaps in their armor (which will have chainmail inside, also made of superior steel.)

Major EDGE: Knights

X Factors

Arthur has more intelligence, experience, training, and loyalty among his troops (which indicates better morale). Attila has more brutality and endurance, a 2 to 4 disadvantag. Having more brains and more experience alone gives Arthur a commanding lead: add superior training and loyalty, and with that morale...his victory is certain

EDGE: Arthur

King Arthur has a magic sword that blinds and dazzles his enemies, and both he and his troops have way superior armor, close quarter weapons, larger, more powerful and armored horses that are trained to box, better metal, and Arthur in particular has superior training, experience, intelligence. His troops have better morale. Though the huns will move faster, knights were not as slow as commonly thought (they could do backflips in full plate armor, and on average their heavy armor was lighter than the loads American troops take into combat today. Add to that that they were brought up more roughly, using their bodies more often than modern kids and teens do, they were pound for pound stronger than modern troops, and thus would not have been as hevily burdened as men would be today wearing knight's plate armor). The Huns have superior range, but their longer range weapons will be well countered buy the plate armor.

Smarter, more experience leader, magic, better morale, better horses, better armor and steel...need I say more?

KING ARTHUR KO'S ATTILA LE HUN!!!!!!!!!!