Poll: How far do the Lakota and allies make it?
You do not have permission to vote in this poll.
Round 1
0%
0 0%
Round 2
0%
0 0%
Round 3
0%
0 0%
Round 4
0%
0 0%
Round 5
100.00%
2 100.00%
Clear it
0%
0 0%
Total 2 vote(s) 100%
* You voted for this item. [Show Results]

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Lakota and allied tribes run the gauntlet
#1
2000 Lakota and allied tribes, led by Sitting Bull, run the gauntlet
[Image: 450px-Charles_Marion_Russell_-_The_Custe...903%29.jpg]

Round 1: A Macedonian Army of 10,000 led by Alexander the Great
[Image: Facts_Alexander_the_Great_Macedonian_army_3-770x437.jpg]

Round 2: A Roman Army of 10,000 led by Julius Caesar 
[Image: RomanArmy.crop_709x532_90,0.preview.jpg]

Round 3: A samurai army of 2000 led by Oda Nobunaga
[Image: dscn4110_1024.jpg]

Round 4: A French Army of 2000 led by Napoleon Bonaparte
[Image: french-actor-franck-samson-with-soldiers...CY8H2Y.jpg]

Round 5: A Confederate Army of 2000 led by Nathan Bedford Forrest
[Image: 1.jpg]

This is not an endurance gauntlet. The Lakota and allies are back to full health at the beginning of each round. Each round takes place in an open field with the two sides starting 10 miles apart.
[-] The following 1 user Likes Lightning's post:
  • Kazanshin
Reply
#2
If I understand well, this Lakota army has access to 19th century firearms and such, right? That would make a big difference.
[-] The following 1 user Likes Kazanshin's post:
  • Ausar
Reply
#3
(07-09-2019, 10:58 AM)Kazanshin Wrote: If I understand well, this Lakota army has access to 19th century firearms and such, right? That would make a big difference.

Yeah, like in the Battle of Little Bighorn in real life, most of the Lakota and allied warriors are carrying muzzleloading cap-lock smoothbore guns, some are carrying Enfield and Springfield rifled muskets and few (roughly 1/10, thus 200 individuals) are carrying metal cartilage guns (which can fire 15 to 30 rounds per minute) such as Spencer rifles, breech-loading Henry rifles and Winchester rifles. And a few Native Americans, the young ones, carried bow and arrow rather than guns to show off their bravery.

Imo, this is how the gauntlet would go:

Round 1: Alexander marches into the field expecting an easy victory as always. But smug soon turns to dread. The charging Macedonian cavalry get decimated by gunfire and, then, the Native Americans have a turkey shoot at the Macedonian infantry massed together in formation. Most Macedonians become overwhelmed with fear of what they're witnessing and stop trying to resist. Lakota win

Round 2: same as above. Lakota win

Round 3: The Native Americans outgun and kill the samurais armed with guns because Native American guns here are superior to the matchlock tanegashimas and also because almost all of the Native Americans are carrying guns whilst, for the samurai, it's only around half of them. Additionally, it's considerably easier to shoot at foot soldiers standing in formation than it is to shoot at horsemen constantly moving around at high speed. Most samurai cavalry and infantry armed with melee weapons would just get shot dead before getting close enough to the Native Americans to be a threat. Horsemen carrying the yumi would fare slightly better but would still be defeated due to being outnumbered, because guns are superior to bows and because the Native Americans would be better adapted to this type of fast paced warfare. The samurai artillery might to some damage but would be unable to defeat the Native Americans because it's hard to accurately shoot at dispersed groups of fast moving horsemen. Lakota win

Round 4: The French infantry would be duly defeated because the Native American guns are superior to the French flintlock muskets and because, again, it's easier to shoot at foot soldiers standing in formation than it is to shoot at fast moving horsemen. And any French who try to close the distance to use their melee weapons would just get annihilated before they get to their target. The French artillery might be able to use canister to devastate any Native Americans who come into range though. But, overall, the Native Americans have a significant advantage in guns and canister shot has a short range, so the Native Americans come out on top. Lakota win

Round 5: For the first time, the Native Americans don't have a massive technological advantage over their enemy. Most soldiers from the two sides are using the guns of similar quality. A few Native Americans are using metal cartilage guns which are superior to anything the Confederates have but, at the same time, few Native Americans are carrying bow and arrow which are far inferior to the Confederate weapons. Also, Forrest's unit was mainly cavalry-based. Weapons aside, Forrest was a very good general who smashed up or bruised Union Armies several times, including when he was  (badly) outnumbered. On a sidenote, Forrest is said to have killed around 30 Union soldiers himself during the duration of the war. Sitting Bull only fought in and won one battle and, that too, with a huge numerical advantage. Some of Sitting Bull's officers, like Crazy Horse, have more experience but even they haven't done anything as impressive as Forrest. Thus, this is where it ends imo. Confederate win

The Lakota and allies stop at round 5.
[-] The following 2 users Like Lightning's post:
  • Ausar, Kazanshin
Reply
#4
@Kazanshin, how far do you think the Lakota would make it?
Reply
#5
I would love to make a long, detailed vote, but I'm afraid I'd just end up copying exactly what you said. Superior technology allows the Lakota to bulldoze their way through all rounds except the last one, where they get stopped dead in their tracks.
[-] The following 1 user Likes Kazanshin's post:
  • Lightning
Reply
#6
^ Actually, AFAIR, since being well equipped - with late-model .45 cal Winchester 73 lever-action magazine rifles,
& Colt revolvers rapid-firing the same powerful cartridges - with such firearms had duly enabled the Native American tribes
to humiliate the US Cavalry commanded by G.A Custer, at the battle of Little Big Horn,
(& where the US 7th Cav were sorely armed with single-shot rifles), I'd expect they'd really ought to clear this altogether.

The CSA outfit is unlikely to be much better armed than the US Cavalry was, over a decade earlier.
(No Winchester 73's for them, either).
Reply
#7
(07-11-2019, 05:40 PM)Mondas Wrote: The CSA outfit is unlikely to be much better armed than the US Cavalry was, over a decade earlier.

The thing is, the CSA aren't outnumbered 7 to 1 here like the US Cavalry was in real life. Also, only 1/10 of the Native American forces have Winchesters and similar quality guns. Moreover, Forrest was better than Custer.
[-] The following 1 user Likes Lightning's post:
  • Kazanshin
Reply
#8
So... all of the select number of enaging Lakota tribesmen may be assumed to be equipped with the best weaponry?

& the detachment under Custer was utterly destroyed, with 100% fatal casualties, not simply swept aside...

(Custer did ok in the USA/CSA conflict, but fatally underestimated the firepower available to these Indigenous warriors, ).
Reply
#9
I'm just going to leave this here:


Quote:The Lakota and Cheyenne warriors that opposed Custer's forces possessed a wide array of weaponry, from war clubs and lances to the most advanced firearms of the day.[164] The typical firearms carried by the Lakota and Cheyenne combatants were muzzleloaders, more often a cap-lock smoothbore, the so-called Indian trade musket or Leman guns[165][166] distributed to Indians by the US government at treaty conventions.[167] Less common were surplus .58 caliber rifled muskets of American Civil War vintage such as the Enfield and Springfield.[168] Metal cartridge weapons were prized by native combatants, such as the Henry and the Spencer lever-action rifles, as well as Sharps breechloaders.[169] Bows and arrows were utilized by younger braves in lieu of the more potent firearms; effective up to 30 yards (27 meters), the arrows could readily maim or disable an opponent.[170]

Of the guns owned by Lakota and Cheyenne fighters at the Little Bighorn, approximately 200 were repeating rifles[174] corresponding to about 1 of 10 of the encampment's two thousand able-bodied fighters who participated in the battle[175]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_...d_Cheyenne

(07-11-2019, 06:50 PM)Mondas Wrote: So... all of the select number of enaging Lakota tribesmen may be assumed to be equipped with the best weaponry?

So you're suggesting that only the 200 Lakota armed with the repeating rifles should engage the CSA force of 2000 whilst the other 1800 Lakota armed with different weapons should just stay faraway and watch? I don't think that would turn out too well for the Native Americans.
[-] The following 1 user Likes Lightning's post:
  • Kazanshin
Reply
#10
^ No, since the wiki entry you link also has another reference (#172) which considers arms of the combat braves, & that:

"25-30%... were armed with modern 16 shot Winchester & Henry repeating rifles."

If we also include the firearms duly captured from the 7th Cavalry as well, thats a significant advantage.

& further, most CSA rifles were muzzle-loading/single-shot weapons.
Reply
#11
But #174 says that: "It has been estimated that perhaps 200 repeating rifles were possessed by the Indians",

so I don't know which to believe.
Reply
#12
That's wiki for ya!

But hey, all them ah, savagely kill'd, 'Long-knives/Blue-bellies', at L-B-H...

They sure didn' jest fall down dead, from no good cause at all now, did they?
Reply
#13
Hey Mondas. I really don't care about your opinion on this matchup, but there's a question I've wanted to ask you for longer than I can remember. What the blaze does "duly" mean?
Reply
#14
I'm not Mondas, but it basically means fittingly/properly or as expected. So if you command an armed force largely equipped with lever action rifles, you will 'duly' (fittingly/expectedly) destroy one with muzzleloaders.

One nitpick, though. While the native Americans certainly won that battle, the 100% kill count on the U.S. Army's side seems to be a myth (source).

Quote:In all, 268 soldiers and civilians are known to have lost their lives in the Battle of the Little Bighorn. This amounts to about 40 percent of the 675 men of the Seventh Cavalry who made up the expedition led by Custer.

Edit: it seems that the 7th Cavalry were indeed outgunned in terms of firearm technology.

Quote:When all the firearm data are taken into account, it becomes readily apparent that Custer and his men were outgunned, if not in range or stopping power, then certainly in firepower. U.S. Army ordnance reports (War Department 1879) comparing the Springfield carbine to a surrendered Sharps and a repeating rifle clearly demonstrate that the Springfield was superior in stopping power, range and accuracy. However, the repeating rifles would have been very effective, perhaps even superior in firepower, to the single-shot Springfield carbines as the Indians drew progressively closer to the cavalry positions.

Archaeological Perspectives, pp. 119, 121

https://www.quora.com/What-weapons-were-...le-Bighorn
[Image: 9wf8nho.png]
[-] The following 2 users Like Ausar's post:
  • Kazanshin, Mondas
Reply
#15
^ Yeah, I did note that 100% troopers killed ratio, was applicable to Custer's 'detachment' force ( & ok, a couple of scouts escaped).
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)