User blog comment:Laquearius/Deadliest Warrior Rematch: Alexander the Great vs Attila the Hun/@comment-17814994-20181122043431

Elgb's "Conquerors" EDGES!!!

Heavy Infantry: Greeks vs Germanic/Iranian Tribes eh? Seeing both the weapons and the quality of troops that both commanders have, I see the Allied Infantry being able to draw first blood with their longer range weapons. The javelins and the throwing axes will be able to soften up the Pezhetairoi with their softer armor and smaller shields (though it would have less damage on the better armored Hypaspists). Worse for the Greeks here is the fact that their tight phalanx (Hypaspists) and box formation (Pezhetairoi) have lesser mobility and more difficult to move or wheel at the sides, than that of the more flexible Allied Infantry. The pilum and the francisca are also great at taking out shields and doing damage in armor.

The only problem for the Allied Infantry here is that, like in most Germanic battles after they finally use up all their ranged weapons (most Germanic infantry at that time can carry up to 2, at most 3, javelins or axes), they'll be drawing their swords next to engage the Greeks in hand to hand combat. The moment it happens though the Greeks' superior pikes, spears and shields would annihilate the Allied Infantry swarming through the shield wall. I doubt the latter can even get close to strike at the pikemen, and if they try to flank there's the hypaspists they have to worry about. The Allied Infantry also has their own shield walls but the square formation by Alexander is far more superior, both in weapons and the fact that Alexander had more knowledge of it than Attila. EDGE: Alexander

Light Infantry: Hmmm, we're basically comparing a warrior group who has better reputation vs a warrior group who has better weapons. I respect the peltasts and the Cretes here for being the best of their era. None of the Alexander's campaigns would be successful without them, and Hell even the Daidochi and Hannibal used them during their own successful battles. The only problem that the Alexander's light infantry is facing here is their weaker weapons. Wicker shield is far inferior than a wooden one, and normal javelins are dwarfed by the more sophisticated angon pilum and francisca (which can bend and take out shields). But the real deal here is the bows that the Allied Archers are using. The Cretes were great, they really were. Their yew cedarwood self bows were recorded as always being outdistanced by Asian archers with composite bows (hence why by 326 BC, Alexander has started integrated more Persian archers into his army). The Allied Archers may not be all armed with composite bows, but they would still nonetheless draw first blood during the first initial volleys. If I'm not mistaken, Alan Archers were also used by Attila, and these archers would decimate the Macedonians with their self and composite bows drenched in poison. EDGE: Attila

Cavalry: It seems that the Alexander has the better melee cavalry while Attila has the better horse archers here. In a fight between the Companion Cavalry vs the Allied Cavalry, the former has the edge in both weapons and training. Their longer spears meant they can pretty much lance off the Germanics before they can even get close (being double headed meant that they can lance off TWO enemies with two rides). Not only that, but the Companion Cavalry are able to use these weapons using two hands. TWO HANDS! That is very very difficult to do in the times where stirrups weren't invented yet. They relied solely on pressure from their legs to do this, and the companion cavalry needed superb physical prowess to do so.

In terms of horse archers though, the Huns all the way. They've been riding ever since they can walk, and the fact that they are nomads that crossed from Asia to Europe meant that they pretty much lived on the horse here. Not only were they better horsemen, but they also had the better weapons (they had some melee weapons and better armor, also Laq, its a misconception that Huns used scale armor, but early records said that they used chainmail more often). Mail armor beats just plain clothing here. The only thing going for Alexander here is his Scythian archers, which were the best in the Ancient World, but even Attila was recorded to use Scythians as well (and besides that there are also theories that say that Attila and the Huns were Scythians themselves). The small Afghan mounted troops that Alexander also has are also inferior to that of Attila's. EDGE: Attila

Tactics: This one I have to give with Alexander the Great. The guy has never lost a battle as far as I can remember (besides some small skirmishes). The dude was practically a military prodigy, who was calculating, wise and studied his enemies. While he can be hotheaded at times (he pinned a cousin with a spear once because he got pissed), he is a cool general in the battlefield. The thing that made him so endearing to historians is the fact that he created one of the largest empires in such an early age and in such a quick fashion, as well as being able to adapt to any enemies he came across from Greeks, Persians, Afghan Warriors to Indians). Attila was great himself, I mean the Huns basically drove off and repopulated the whole Germanic peninsula (something that the Romans could NEVER do) and Attila ravaged the Eastern Roman Empire so bad that they had to pay him not to ravage them again. However, his campaigns with the Sassanids and in Greece were utter failures. He was also very prone to being overconfident, as seen in Catautalian Plains in which he unwittingly let the slower Roman army take the high ground first. EDGE: Attila

X-Factor: Both were good at forging empires and very bad at keeping them united when they died. Both also trained from very young ages but Alexander has the edge in being taught and trained by the smartest people of his time. In terms of metallury though, I have to disagree, wince I've read some that stated that Alexander also had steel. However, in the end it boils down to a battle between the Empire Builder vs the Empire Crusher, and while Alexander the Great built the largest empire of his time, Attila couldn't even conquer the largest empires of his time even if said empires were weakened (both Roman and Sassanids). EDGE: Alexander

TBC