Board Thread:The Heroes of Olympus/@comment-27235002-20160206172921/@comment-10353303-20160207163232

In terms of favour and help from the gods, I doubt it would matter which side received it more in the past, as the gods would be rendered unable to act for the most part due to conflicting Roman and Greek aspects (as seen in HoO).

In terms of cohesion, discipline, and sheer reserves of manpower, the Romans win without at doubt. They have a much larger pool of manpower from which to draw soldiers, given the size of New Rome.

In terms of tactical flexibility, the Greeks would win. They rely a lot more heavily on magic and the use of powers than the Romans (or from what I've seen). This is a boon in itself, as it allows a commander quite a lot of flexibility in terms of the strategies he/she can form.

Since a hypothetical battle's outcome depends heavily on the terrain, I can't say for sure who'd win. If it were a siege or defence of a location, I would have to hand it to the Romans. Siege warfare and fortifications is their forte, and despite what we saw during the Camp Jupiter's version of "CTF", I am sure they would excel in this area. On the open plain, surprisingly, I would argue the Greeks would win. They would have supremacy over the skyies (Festus, the Argo II, and warriors mounted on pegasi versus eagles), which already in itself dictates the battle before it even begins. The side with aerial superiority is undeniably the side that wins. The Greeks would not even have to fight in phalanx or a single line and could disperse in a loose skirmishing formation and disperse so as to surround the enemy and to lure them out of formation. Roman cohesion was and in Riordan's universe, is, an essential component in how the legion operates and breaking that cohesion would cause legionaries to be more susceptible to being overcome by the Greeks, who are better trained at individual combat.Through the use of things such as Greek fire pots, chariots, etc, the Greeks would make it a living hell for the Romans on the open battlefield. Urban combat is a unique place, as the limited mobility would entail that primarily fighting with melee weapons would occur. Given this, I'd say it could quite possibly be a close draw. Roman soldiers fought better in a unit, that much is true, but it doesn't mean they were totally incapable of holding their own in a one on one fight. This is especially the case given how much thicker their armour is and how large their shields are (they were so large that you could hide your sword behind them before attacking so as to make the enemy guess whether you would jab underhand over overhead or swing at them).