korn's Civ3 vs. History Challenge!

[Trifna]

Originally posted by notyoueither
Vietnam. Afghanistan. Nuff said.

Not enough said. We need more information.

Vietnam: field advantage. What korn is searching (thx korn!) is more a in some toe to toe basis. But since environment isn't counting in Civ III... maybe we could say environment changes battle issues? Dunno, I stil prefer some simplified environmental system...

Afghanistan: which Afghanistan war are you talking about??? Just recently, they got 3 wars!! (2 before USA) If you're talking about last one with USA, well their men were simply hiding from bombarding planes, which isn't really anything as what korn wants.

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by Akka le Vil
British DID lose quite a few battle, sieges, naval engagements, and did not killed 20 enemies for 1 casualty. Stop acting childishly.
Amazing how people can't differenciate politics and military battlefield. I did not think the difference was so small that nobody could understand the difference between having a destroyed army and protestations about policy.

The British considered that they had a technological military advantage. The Americans considered that they had a technological military disadvantage, but felt they had no choice. The British consider it a loss. The Americans consider it a victory.

(And do not feel you have to demean yourself and your arguments with ad hominem attacks. It isn't necessary, as your arguments will stand or fall on their own.)

Speaking of naval engagements, how do you like the one where John Paul Jones captures a British Frigate using only a refitted Merchant Vessal?

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by notyoueither
The fact remains that disadvantaged forces do NOT win battles as a general rule. They DO win wars when the advantaged lack the determination or ability (political, economic) to prosecute those wars.

Correct. But if the expected always happened, what would be the point of history? The exceptions are what make history what it is.

More specifically, what good is a military advantage when your commander makes bad decisions, or your men run away whenever the shooting starts?

[Trifna]

info

Went into Britannica encyclopedia and found some stuff. What is not in what I said but would have been interesting simply are things I didn't found in Britannica (such as weapons used).


Isandhdlwana
Jan 22-23, 1879
Zulu (20 000 men) vs British (1700 men)
Zulu lost: 3000 to 4000
British lost: 1580

Notice: Zulu advanced unnoticed
My comment: This is partly because they attacked all at the same time (stack unit someone? )


Battle of Adwa
March 1, 1896
Italy (14 500 men) vs Ethiopia (100 000 men)
Italian lost (killed, wounded or captured): 70%
Ethiopian lost: not said

Notice: Italian columns were disorganized and Italians lack adequates maps of the area. Part of the Italian losts are due to a retreat in difficult terrain, harrassed by hostile population.
My comment: Seems partly due to terrain and number of men all there at same time (almost 1:7 ratio)


Dien Bein Phu
May 7, 1954
France (not said) vs VietNam (VietMinh--> socialists Viets) (40 000 + heavy artillery)

Notice: French taken by surprise. Roads were cut so troops and supplies could only come by air. VietMinh were popularly supported (dunno if it changes anything). Artillery broke French lines.
My comment: I guess 40 000 men is alot, espescially if they had the jungle advantage where French and American were seriously not trained to.


Little Bighorn
June 25, 1876
USA vs Native Amerindians (cleary overwhelming American)
American troops: cavalry
American lost: more than 200 (they only talk of Custer's 7th cavalry who was completely vanquished)

Notice: Part of the cavalry was surprised to see some encampment where they weren't thought to be and it caused some problems to the tactic. Unaware about it, the other part of cavalry arrived alone with the group they were supposed to attack. Lost of strtegic edge that they thought they would have (river). Amerindians were alerted of Custer's attack because of other attacks they already had (Custer is the one that was surprised to see some troops where he didn't thaught). Other than Custer's 7th cavalry, the other retreated (they had attacked before him).
My comment: Here again we see a common factor: more troops at the same place. Also terrain advantage/disadvantage that got a place.



Their all have a similarity: more troops at the same battle at the same time. (stack unit someone? )

That's what I found. You guys should all look at getting this encyclopedia. Encarta is peanut compared to it. It's marvelous

[Argos65987]

I know this may be torn to pieces on detail (like terrain, the chokepoint at the bridge and leadership questions), but what about the Scots defeating the English at the Battle of Stirling Bridge.

Please, no references to the movie "Braveheart", which as we all know has taken liberty with the details for dramatic effect.

However, in reality the Scots were technically more primitive (homemade weapons or farm implements for weapons, no armor, etc.) facing two of the most advanced military units of the time, heavy armored cavalry and longbowmen.

Of course terrain and leadership played a crucial role in the victory (the English deciding to cross the bridge, marshy ground that the horses couldn't traverse easily), but that's life, otherwise combat would be "rocks, paper, scissors", show up with the right one and win automatically.

For anyone interested here's a link Sterling Bridge

Also, the Battle of Teutoborg Forest, where the "barbaric" Germans annhilated 3 Roman legions. Again, leadership and terrain played a factor but...

Check this Battle of Teutoborg Forest

I know this isn't exactly spearman vs tank, but you cannot deny that the Roman legion, Greek phalanx, English longbow, heavy armored cavalry, etc were all very sophistacted weapons of their day and were far superior to the armament and armor used by rival civilizations of that time.

[Grumbold]

Originally posted by korn469
i changed the criteria slightly, i'm only talking about on the battlefield, so i'm certain that battles in each war will count, but not the entire war itself

I think you're moving away from Civ 3 here where turns span years. The underdeveloped side quite often never wins a pitched battle of 100+ soldiers per side. It just picks off the enemy one patrol or supply convoy at a time and doesn't stick around to be hit by the retailatory airstrike. Their advantage lies in partisan/guerilla tactics, not pitched battle unless they outnumber the enemy so massively that they can overwhelm them or run them out of ammo. If combat in the Civ game was supposed to depict active engagements of a few days or less I'd be sympathising a lot more with the 'spearmen cant kill tanks' crowd.

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by Grumbold
If combat in the Civ game was supposed to depict active engagements of a few days or less I'd be sympathising a lot more with the 'spearmen cant kill tanks' crowd.

But that's the beauty of the game! It gives the feel of grand tactics in a strategic situation. So sometimes the moves are depicted as strategic, and other times they feel as if they were tactical.

And remember, it is just a game, after all.

[Zachriel]

The good guys win only if they are very, very careful. If you examine the battles where "superior forces" were defeated, it is almost always traced to over-confidence in the leadership.

"Here comes an old merchant vessal approaching our British frigate. Why worry? We have a superior ship, and everybody knows that the superior technology always wins. Why he's still coming. What gall! Oh my gosh he's grappled onto our ship. Well, we'll let him surrender if he wants to. He better!

"What did he say? 'I've not yet begun to fight!' Oh no! He's not fighting fair."

When leaders underestimate their opponent, or don't respect their opponents, they usually don't send sufficient forces, or don't prepare for an attack. They cry when their plans for world conquest are crushed by a few braves souls who stand up to their tyranny. And then they blame Sid.

[Grumbold]

Originally posted by Zachriel


But that's the beauty of the game! It gives the feel of grand tactics in a strategic situation. So sometimes the moves are depicted as strategic, and other times they feel as if they were tactical.

I entirely agree, but some posters feel that Civ combat is representative of only one type of engagement. So one man with a primitive molotov cocktail or gunpowder grenade can knock out one tank, but that doesn't count because 500 men would still lose to 50 tanks. Likewise nighttime ambushes are not considered legal in their terms, or a year long interdictment of fuel and supplies leaving the tanks immobile or out of ammo. Only if the men could stand in rank and march in formation to victory should they win.

I feel Korn's request for engagements of a certain size after a certain date and of no greater than a certain length is too narrowly defining the field of possible historical events to have any relevance to Civ. If its purely a personal question that is intended to enlighten but not be compared to the game then my comments are of no relevance.

I'd suggest the Mongol invasion of Eastern Europe is another example (if a little early) but I don't have details of specific engagements during the period available.

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by korn469
i'm not dismissing history, i am wondering how many times on the battlefield clearly outclassed armies won through either better tactics, suprise, or overwhelming odds etc, i wanna know how common it is

It's not common, otherwise it would not be so surprising or dramatic when it does occur. But it does happen. We remember John Paul Jones because he did the "impossible."

[Akka]

Re: info

Originally posted by Trifna
Dien Bein Phu
May 7, 1954
France (not said) vs VietNam (VietMinh--> socialists Viets) (40 000 + heavy artillery)

Notice: French taken by surprise. Roads were cut so troops and supplies could only come by air. VietMinh were popularly supported (dunno if it changes anything). Artillery broke French lines.
My comment: I guess 40 000 men is alot, espescially if they had the jungle advantage where French and American were seriously not trained to.

I made some more research to add precisions about Dien Bien Phu :

Main battle during from november 20th 1953 to may 7th 1954.
France : 15 709 men total.
Heavy armament (tanks, artillery, air support), very large munition stocks, fortified.
1800 killed and 5000 wounded at the time of surrender.

Viet-Minh :
Numbers not precisely known, but much more than 100 000.
20 heavy gun (105 mm)
20 guns (75 mm)
Big number of mortars and lighter guns
100 anti-air machineguns 12,7 mm
16 anti-air guns 37 mm + 64 russians guns from China (37 mm too)
Huge munition stock (artillery fired 200 000 shotsl during the siege).
Surrounding the fortified camp on a higher position.
8 000 to 12 000 killed, 15 000 to 30 000 wounded.

I feel Korn's request for engagements of a certain size after a certain date and of no greater than a certain length is too narrowly defining the field of possible historical events to have any relevance to Civ.

Many battle lasted many weeks, even monthes (Leningrad, Stalingrad, Dien Bien Phu, Verdun, Okinawa...). What is, in fact, amusing, is that nearly all the low-tech vs high-tech victory were one-day victory. When it comes to long battles, the already microscopic number of underdog victories reduce even more. I'm sorry for your foot, you just shot in it

BTW, except for Isandhdlwana I'm still waiting exemple of a truly backward unit winning against a truly more advanced one.
Indians vs american cavalry always showed rifles vs rifles or muskets vs muskets (in game terms : cavalry against riflemen, musketmen vs musketmen).
Adwa showed rifle vs automatic weapons (in game terms : riflemen vs infantry).
Dien Bien Phu showed heavy armament for both sides (game terms : infantry + artillery + anti-air unit vs infantry + bombers).

Still waiting any exempe of 1 unit of swordmen/archer/pikemen/horsemen slaughtering 1 unit of infantry/tanks. The closer we have is Zulu vs English, were 10 units of Impi killed 1 unit of riflemen, loosing 2 units in the process.

[Zachriel]

Re: Re: info

Originally posted by Akka le Vil
Indians vs american cavalry always showed rifles vs rifles or muskets vs muskets

Custer had access to machine guns. He just didn't bother. Why should he need them against primitive savages.

[TinCow]

Here's one no one else has mentioned:

The Spaniards and the Aztecs in Tenochtitlan after the Massacre in the Temple. Basically, a large contingent of Spaniards attacked the Aztecs during a holy ceremony within the city (they were formerly at peace) and killed many Aztecs. The Aztecs then retaliated and besieged the Spaniards, killing many of them. The survivors fled and later returned with a larger force, the end result we all know.

In this situation, the Aztecs, with spears and (I think) bows killed most of the Spanish contingent which was armed with muskets, swords, and small cannons.

This is before 1700, but frankly that is a rigged date you chose. After 1700, there were very few 'primitive' civilizations left on Earth, thus there was no one to fight the 'modern' civilizations which were spreading everywhere. The are many accounts of natives of the New World attacking and killing large numbers of Europeans who were equipt with more advanced weaponry. Other than this Old/New World meeting, there have been very few opportunities for developed and non-developed civilizations to even meet, let alone fight. If this is to be a fair discussion, you have to get rid of that rigged requirement.

[Ironikinit]

I don't know about how the Afghans were armed, but here's a quote about the attempted British invasion of Afghanistan:

In 1839, a British attempt to install a puppet Afghan monarch of its choosing ended with the British army's bloody defeat at the hands of Afghan tribesmen. 16,000 soldiers were slaughtered near the Khyber Pass, only one was allowed to survive to tell the tale.

End quote. From: http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/s377718.htm

[korn469]

Tincow

The Spaniards and the Aztecs in Tenochtitlan after the Massacre in the Temple. Basically, a large contingent of Spaniards attacked the Aztecs during a holy ceremony within the city (they were formerly at peace) and killed many Aztecs. The Aztecs then retaliated and besieged the Spaniards, killing many of them. The survivors fled and later returned with a larger force, the end result we all know.

In this situation, the Aztecs, with spears and (I think) bows killed most of the Spanish contingent which was armed with muskets, swords, and small cannons.

here is a more complete account of the Spanish conquest of the Aztecs

http://pc38.ve.weber.k12.ut.us/Reese/cortez.htm

In 1504 Hernan Cortez set sail for the Cuba with Diego Velazquez. Velazquez was the new governor of Cuba. Velazquez commissioned Cortez to go to Mexico and conquer the lands for Spain. By 1519 Cortez had mustered 600 men to help invade Mexico. Diego Velazquez had changed his mind by this time but Cortez went anyway. To make sure that his men would be loyal Cortez sank his own ships after the men had arrived on the Mexican shore.

Upon arrival Cortez was greeted by emissaries of Montezuma that gave him treasures of gold. Stricken by the fever for more the Spaniards asked where the gold had come from. The Aztecs replied that it came from the great city Tenochtitlan. Cortez immediately began his march on into the heart of the Aztec Empire.

Along the way he fought many other tribes but he also made treaties with those that hated the Aztecs. Upon arrival to Tenochtitlan the Spaniards were amazed at the size and beauty of the city. In wonder they stared at the streets and markets that were more populated than any city in Spain. Cortez was honored by a personal greeting from Montezuma himself. The Conquistadors had many wonderful things that were knew to the Aztecs. Things like: guns, cannons, horses, large dogs, and swords. The Aztec king brought many treasures to give to this white stranger. Cortez returned his favors with a necklace of cheap glass beads.

By a miraculous coincident Cortez had arrived in Tenochtitlan during a celebration that only occurred every 52 years or what the Aztec called a One Reed Year. This celebration was to honor the god Quetzalcoatl. Quetzalcoatl had visited the Aztecs many years ago and according to their legends he promised to return again on a One Reed Year. Quetzalcoatl was described to be a white skinned man with a beard, something unusual in Aztec society. Cortez arrived during this celebration and looked like this god.

Montezuma asked Cortez if he was Quetzalcoatl and Cortez replied that he was indeed the Great White God. The Spaniards were accepted into the city. They were given their own quarters and servants. Cortez was given a tour of Tenochtitlan, during which he saw the temples were the Aztecs held human sacrifices. Cortez was stunned and sickened by the barbaric rituals. Cortez commanded his men to thrown down the temples and the statues of the Aztec gods.

The Aztecs were angry with Cortez so to calm them he took Montezuma prisoner in his own palace and forced him to command the Aztecs to leave the Spaniards alone. Cortez found out that the Aztecs had attacked Vera Cruz and killed many of his men. he ordered Montezuma to have all the warriors involved in the attack to turn themselves in. Cortez had them all burned alive.

Cortez had to leave his men in the city to deal with an army sent by Velazquez to bring Cortez's army back to Cuba. While away his men became afraid during a celebration and they opened fire on a large group of 600 Aztecs that were dancing. The Aztecs attacked the conquistadors and cornered them in part of the city. Mean while, Cortez had convinced the army to join him and he returned to Tenochtitlan finding it in chaos. Cortez gets to his men and leads them to in a retreat from the hostile city. Only one out of every four of Cortez's soldiers made it out alive. Many of his soldiers were unable to run, or they drowned in the lake, because they were weighted down with the gold they tried to steal. Disgusted with the Spaniards love for gold the Aztecs forced the captives to drink molten gold.

Cortez retreated and licked his wounds for a time. He made allies with as many of the tribes that he could find. Finally on December 28, 1520 Cortez returned to Tenochtitlan, this time not as its god but as its conqueror. All of this time the Aztecs had been suffering from a weapon the Spaniards didn't even know they had brought with them. The Aztecs were dying from Small Pox.

The Spanish army laid siege to the suffering city for 80 days. August 13, 1521 was the last day of the Aztec Empire. The Conquistadors charged in to the battered city and destroyed the once great nation.

so actually this could probably count as a primative force (the Spanish) conquering an advanced force (the Aztecs), because although they had a slight technological advantage it was more because of coincidence and small pox rather than anything else that ensured victory

This is before 1700, but frankly that is a rigged date you chose. After 1700, there were very few 'primitive' civilizations left on Earth, thus there was no one to fight the 'modern' civilizations which were spreading everywhere. The are many accounts of natives of the New World attacking and killing large numbers of Europeans who were equipt with more advanced weaponry. Other than this Old/New World meeting, there have been very few opportunities for developed and non-developed civilizations to even meet, let alone fight. If this is to be a fair discussion, you have to get rid of that rigged requirement.

it's not rigged, i am just wondering about what happens when industrialized civilization encounters a non industrialized civilization, or under what historical circumstances does an obsolete force defeat a state of the art force

if Iraq had of won the Gulf war in 1991 i would consider that a victory by the an obsolete force, although they [Iraq] had better weapons than any WW2 army

plus this is just for my own historical curiosity