You're right. The Winged Hussars used firearms, not crossbows, and I couldn't find any historical examples of crossbows with bayonets either. My theory would be that the first user to mention such a weapon decided that including firearms would be "unfair" for their battle and misguidedly included a fictional weapon instead, and everyone else just followed suit.
Beats me. They did they same thing with the Roman centurion. He was shown wearing lorica segmentata in the acted segments during the analysis, but was giving lorica hamata for the actual fight.
Both steel and leather armors were used by the Ming dynasty, with the former being used mostly by officers and generals and the latter being used by the rank-and-file. However, Ming leather armor was treated and reinforced, making it much more effective that typical leather armor. You can read more on a blog I found about this topic: https://greatmingmilitary.blogspot.com/2014/11/leather-armour-of-ming-dynasty.html
A week needs to pass from the time you made the post before any edits can be made. Once that time is up, you are expected to move the battle onto a disregarded page. Ask if you are confused on how to do that.
Support. As you said, the Mayans did not have access to metallurgy, and all I could find through a reverse image search of the image of the sickle was references to this very blog.
Support. I'll also add that Charlemagne, as is the case in almost all his battles, is given a spiked club. I've found no record detailing Frankish troops carrying such weapons, but I have read an account that specified that no man in Charlemagne's army was to carry a cudgel.
I support this, and I also disagree with Kaz. A battle doesn't need to be invalid to be rematched, so not having inaccurate weapons isn't a counterargument. A rematch doesn't have to be "necessary"; the purpose is to try to do the match better, and this battle is extremely barebones. Luna has proven herself to be a capable user, and I have no doubts that she'll make a much better version. On the subject of x-factors, they are always a critical part of a battle. Old battles don't have them because old users were dumb and lazy. And citing Deadliest Warrior is just dumb. C'mon, man, we've debunked their shit so many times that we shouldn't even need to tell you why it shouldn't be used as a template.
Support for everything except Leonidas v. Caesar and Hannibal v. Leonidas.
Oppose: Vader can use Force lightning in the form of kinetite. The blogs don't go into detail on that, but I don't think that's enough to make them invalid. The Rise and Fall of Darth Vader may claim that special circumstances are needed for Vader to use kinetite, but that's just one book and it's not continuous with other sources.
Support for all. I actually don't think Snake Eyes v. Deadpool is unfair, as you don't need to counter Deadpool's healing factor in order to beat him. Doing enough damage to disable him is enough to consider him defeated (such an event has happened numerous times), and the blog doesn't specify any win conditions. However, it completely neglects to mention a single one of Deadpool's superhuman abilities, including the healing factor.
*Reapers vs Empire
*Brutes v Korgan
*Thane v Luger
*HK vs Wrex
*Wrex vs Predator
*Sovereign vs Chise
*Ashley vs Sam
*Kai v Sam
*Wrex vs Pong Krell
*Saren vs Radec
*Garrus vs Sev
*Kaidan vs Sky
*Zaaed v Canderous
It's always good to see new blood on Deadliest Fiction, and I certainly admire your enthusiasm. However, rematches are generally only granted to users who have already proven that they can handle making and following up on battles. You have yet to gain any experience in that regard, so I'm afraid I can't support your request.
Our goal with these rematches is to improve on the original, and we don't know what to expect from you at this point. I recommend that you make an original battle of your own first, and we can go from there.
Please note that this thread is over eight months old, and the fact that the OP has been banned for sockpuppeting.
You know those videos are pure theatrics, right? It's just for show. Additionally, Tybalt already explained that the Native Americans who defeated the Vikings aren't at all comparable to the Shaolin. What's your point in repeating a dead argument?