Legionaries vs. Conquistadors

>>3333623
Probably the legionaries because the guns aren't that powerful specially the early ones and the conquerors weren't the tercios. I think it would be a battles minds, both were genius, Caesar as a tacticians and Cortez as an strategist, tough Caesar was a very good strategist too. I think it would be decided be who had most time to prepare, both of them would have strategies to fuck with the other, tough in a full frontal, grassland and temperate cloudy day without rain scenario, I would give it to the Romans because they had the numbers.

>>3333623
Also fun fact, if caesar it's using the X or IX legions, it would be a battle between Iberians, the X was raised in North andalucia.

>>3333623
Romans because it's like 5000 infantry vs 500 archers. Maybe shock tactics disrupt inexperienced legionaries but Rome did fine the first time they encountered war elephants.

And then Rome could have guns forever afterwards if they can extort the secrets to gunpowder from a knowledgeable POW.

>>3333623
I'm tempted to say conquistadors just because the Romans never had any idea about firearms or explosives and would no doubt be superstitious about them, probably thinking they shot thunder or something.

>>3333623
The great leadership of Caesar would negate Cortés ingenuity and the divide and conquer strategy wouldn't work in this white room scenario. At the end it's still 500 vs 5000.

A handful of Spartans supported by allied divisions would smash both of them.

Agesilaos OUT