You completely missed the fact that Napoleon wasn't above a little fighting either. I direct you here http://www.napoleonguide.com/leaders_napoleon.htm . The outcome of this battle is more determined by the age of the two fighters. If there both young then its a toss up. In their older forms Napoleon wins because Hilter was suffering from like 3 different debilitating diseases.

Sidenote: What the hell does the weaponary either of them had have anything to do with this. If their in a cage fighting chances are they don't have any weapons at all or could easly disarm each other. Besides don't you think if Napoleon lived during Hilter's time he whouldn't have had the same weapons. Converserly do you think if Hitler had been in Napoleon's time he whould have somehow had his better weapons. I'll admit Hitler invented some pretty good tactics but Napoleon wasn't bad himself. Also, that kind of strategy has nothing to do with one on one fighting.

edit: Damn you TV you made me put the wrong tag and its a episode I've already seen.

Well, there was the time he fired cannons at a civilian mob from his own country, then there was the whole waging war with his own country thing, then there was how he destroyed quite a few egyptian tombs and artifacts when he attacked them--by the way, attacking egypt at all was pretty amoral considering they weren't even his objective, not that his objective was moral... being world conquest--beyond that there was the executing of his political rivals--when they weren't even able to compete with him any more--without trials... a little like Hitler's night of the long knives only with less reason to it, and that's just what I could find in his biography.

Oh, and Napoleon didn't exactly succeed in Russia either... the Russians beat his forces down to 20,000 and forced him to withdraw from the country, so calling Hitler's loss there against him is rather pointless.

Same with Napoleon.............General Winter and Colonel Scorched Earth Policy wins most of Russia's wars;). Napoleon was able to conquer almost as much as Hitler did, and he would be much more dangerous in an actual fight.

Hitler was nowhere near as willing to risk his own life, which is why he wasn't served out of loyalty (like Napoleon was) but out of fear of his soldiers. Napoleon is also less mentally deranged, he'll still win in a cage match.

Ok, new fight,

Achilles versus Arthur.

You can choose whether its the immortal versions of either or whatnot.

Didn't I already do Achilles vs. Arthur?

Anyway, if we are going by legend/myth versions, then Arthur wins since the Excaliber makes the wielder of it always win. But, if Achilles could disarm Arthur before it's winning affect came into affect, he wins since he is a better fighter, stronger, faster, and invincible in all places but the heel than Arthur is.

Vader wouldn't have to choke her while she's in a ball. Just create a force sheild around himself to protect him from the blast of the powerbomb, and slice her in half with the lightsaber. Or he absorbs the energy from the blast and uses lightning, or a dozen other powers to kill her.

EDIT: Also, Arthur is invincible with Excalibur's sheaf at his side. That isn't much of an advantage, as it could be easily knocked of his belt, but it does exist.

Since when can Vader use Lightning?

Or for that matter, even a Force shield? I don't remember him doing any of that.

Sky City, Vader reflected a blaster bolt with his hand (Shield).

All Vader has to do is choke Samus while keeping her right arm away from pointing at him.

IHMN is correct, that is what I meant earlier when I talked about him deflecting blaster bolts.

Vader could just deflect one of Samus's own shots back at her........and then choke her to death with the force.

All Jedi have these abilities, they just might not choose to use them/have need to use them. There are limitless possibilities when it comes to the force.