In History and in Off Topics you can find a lot of threads that compare and contrast the skills of generals or civilizations from different eras be it Romans vs. Mongolians, Romans vs. Zulus, Romans vs. Chinese, or Romans vs. Medieval Armies. Who do you think will win a war between Scipio Africanus and "Desert Fox" Rommel assuming they have access to the same weapons? Advantages: Scipio: -Defeated a long feared enemy, and good general, Hannibal. This would give morale boost to his troops. -The Roman army had the best logistics of their time and well pass their time. -The Roman army were the masters of adaptation. They can figure out how to defeat any enemy very quickly. Rommel -Considered one of the best tank commanders. Emerged victorious even after initial set backs. -The Blitzkreig was so fast that it makes it hard for the enemy to adapt before they were defeated. -Was admired even by his enemies. This is hard pitting the master of adaptation against the master of speed. Scipio will give his troops extra morale, but the fact that Rommel earns the respect of even his enemies might neutralize that. I think in the end though Scipio would win because the Roman Empire had the political structure to support a lasting empire (comparing the duration of the Roman empire to the Third Reich). The Romans were very good at defense too, so they can hold back the enemy long enough to discover the enemy tactics. This would neutralize the advantage of Blitzkrieg. What do you think? Discuss.