korn's Civ3 vs. History Challenge!

[Arrian]

The British had some trouble in Malaysia in the 1950's or 60's- the "War of the Running Dogs." I am not familiar with any specific battles, and for all I know there was no case of an "inferior" unit(s) beating up on a "superior" one. But it's something to check out, as it was similar to Vietnam a couple of ways - lots of jungle, and guerrila tactics.

I assume Napolean's invasion of Russia doesn't count, right? Russia was a bit backward, but the weapons used by each side were not very different.

As for Stirling Bridge - a good example of bad leadership getting a "better" army slaughtered. Not entirely dissimilar to the battle of Agincourt - France, 1415 A.D. The English beat the hell out of an army of French knights which badly outnumbered them, because the French made poor decisions and the English made good ones - and, as everyone who knows the time period knows, longbowmen were pretty impressive (still, the English were outnumbered something like 7 to 1).

-Arrian

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by Arrian
Not entirely dissimilar to the battle of Agincourt - France, 1415 A.D. The English beat the hell out of an army of French knights which badly outnumbered them, because the French made poor decisions and the English made good ones - and, as everyone who knows the time period knows, longbowmen were pretty impressive (still, the English were outnumbered something like 7 to 1). -Arrian

Generally, longbow are not that effective without strong foot soldier support or within foritifications. They are very vulnerable to attack by knights. Among the factors at Agincourt was the rain the night before which left the French knights stuck in the mud. The piety of their leader Henry V is also credited.

The odds were overwhelming. The French knights should have easily destroyed Henry's forces. The French belief in their own inevitable victory led to their downfall.

[Arrian]

Zachriel,

Yep, I totally agree. I didn't get into the specifics in my post, but the French knights did some silly things (primarily attempting to charge across a soggy field to get at a line of pikemen defending longbowmen) and the English fought well. Henry V's choice of battlefield was also pretty good - there were thick groves of trees on either side of that soggy field and forced the French into very tight formation...all the better to rain arrows down upon. The casualties were horrendous for the time period, even if you allow for some exaggeration.

-Arrian

[Trifna]

Let's stop put info everywhere mixed up and make some sort of data file or something. That's what I tried to.

Other than that, looking at what's about it, it seems to me that the only chance in reality to win in such battles is to find a way to trap enemy's troops in minority. Of course, your enemy will do same... If you are technologically inferior, you need even more troops since a 1:1 ratio will most likely result as a defeat to you. The more you have troops, the more you are likely to lose less men.

[TinCow]

Originally posted by korn469
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

Interesting take on the situation, though I disagree. The Aztecs (and later the Incas) were both defeated mainly through the use of technology, albeit in roundabout ways. The 'technology' was most effective in scarling the living shiznat out of the natives (horses, armor, etc) and convincing them that the Spaniards were 'Gods.' Also, the Aztec decimation due to disease could be considered a 'technological' victory by the Spaniards. Had the Aztecs had a greater tech level, they would have either been exposed to the diseases before and thus developed immunity (i.e. from exploration) or they could have developed medicines. They didn't and they died. Just because the Aztecs weren't conquered through sheer force of arms doesn't mean they weren't conquered by technology.

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

I don't mind historical curiosity at all. I was a History major in college actually. The funniest thing is I have a kickass histomap of world history that looks exactly like the power maps in all of the Civ games. I can look at my in-game power graph and compare it to the one on my wall to see who I compare to at various stages of development.

Back to the issue though, the problem with a situation like this is the nature of human development. Throughout the history of the world, whenever two civilizations come into contact, there is an exchange of technology and ideas. This results in the areas sharing technologies on an involuntary and unintentional basis. In fact, there are very few technologies that have ever been subjected to intentional secrecy by a nation. Almost all of these are modern military technologies (some older ones that I can think of are Greek Fire, Gunpowder, Silk, and Longitudinal Navigation). If one culture w/o horseback riding comes into contact w/ another culture w/ horseback riding... it's not going to take a whole lot of brainpower to figure it out. ("Ooohhh... we should RIDE those things, not eat them...") The general result is that the more advanced cultures pull up the lesser advanced cultures by their bootstraps. Areas adjacent to Roman settlements began to quickly use Roman techniques. The primitive Mongol conquerers of China were assimilated because they soon began adopting the Chinese way of doing things. The Japanese were forcibly exposed to Western culture in the mid 1800s. At that time they were still a feudal society with very primitive weaponry. Only 50 years later though, they had developed a modern military force with an outstanding navy that defeated Russia.

I'm not sure whether it's just human nature or the nature of this history of the world which results in such a situation. Regardless, the world in which we live simply does not work in a manner which provides the possibility for large conflicts between technologically mismatched opponents. Perhaps when we start exploring the stars, such examples will occur.

I can't remember what I was arguing in my previous posts now, so I apologize if I have just contradicted myself. If I have, consider this post as a seperate entity.

[korn469]

Interesting take on the situation, though I disagree. The Aztecs (and later the Incas) were both defeated mainly through the use of technology, albeit in roundabout ways. The 'technology' was most effective in scarling the living shiznat out of the natives (horses, armor, etc) and convincing them that the Spaniards were 'Gods.' Also, the Aztec decimation due to disease could be considered a 'technological' victory by the Spaniards. Had the Aztecs had a greater tech level, they would have either been exposed to the diseases before and thus developed immunity (i.e. from exploration) or they could have developed medicines. They didn't and they died. Just because the Aztecs weren't conquered through sheer force of arms doesn't mean they weren't conquered by technology.

i disagree with you on the Aztecs being the primatives, yes they were behind the europeans in certain areas

*europeans had iron armor and swords (technological)
*europeans had horses (not technological)
*europeans had vastly superior navigation techniques (technological)
*europeans had gunpowder (technological)

however the Aztecs certainly had some technological advantages over the Europeans in non-military technology

here is a little info about navigation

click here
and here
and here too

so european navigation was a culmination of various technologies that had all came together not long before Cortez, and afaik Europe never aquired immunity to some dread disease from exploration

additionally Europe had no knowledge of Germs or ways to fight them at the time of Cortez

here is a little about germ theory

http://www.stlcc.cc.mo.us/fp/users/k...story.page.htm

1677
Observed "little animals" (Antony Leeuwenhoek)
1796
First scientific Small pox vaccination (Edward Jenner)
1850
Advocated washing hands to stop the spread of disease (Ignaz Semmelweis)
1861
Disproved spontaneous generation (Louis Pasteur)
1862
Supported Germ Theory of Disease (Louis Pasteur)
1867
Practiced antiseptic surgery (Joseph Lister)
1876
First proof of Germ Theory of Disease with B. anthracis discovery (Robert Koch)

so it would be 156 years after the conquest of the aztecs before anyone even began to have a clube about germs, 275 years before someone developed a vaccine against germs, and 355 years before Germ Theory was actually proved

so the highlighted part of your quote is seems to say that since Aztec medical science wasn't 350 years more advanced than European medical science that made the aztecs completely inferior to the Europeans

http://lsa.colorado.edu/~lsa/texts/Aztecs.html

When the Spanisch conquerors saw Tenochtitlan they called it "The Venice of the New World". At the height of Aztec civilization, around 1300-1500 AD, more than 200,000 people lived in Tenochtitlan. It was bigger than any city in Europe at the time...

For many years, the fierce Aztecs had been warring. They forced conquered nations to pay high taxes. They made slaves of many. Worst of all, they sacrificed thousands to the gods. Conquered tribes were vengeful indeed. Willingly, they joined the Spanish to destroy their captors. With 500 Spanish soldiers and 10,000 Indian allies behind him, Cortés charged the Aztec capital.

i think the Aztec defeat steams primarily from indecisive leadership on the part of Montezuma waiting too late to fight against the Spanish because of his religious beliefs, the arrival of the Spanish in the One Reed Year is so coincidental that we can see why he hesitated, then the devistation that small pox caused the Aztecs (something like 50% of their population died because of it), and finally then would come Spanish military technology and good leadership on the part of Cortez by supplementing his armies with native allies

even without guns if all other factors were the same i think Cortez could have achieved the same results

[korn469]

ok i removed the 1700 requirement and instead divided it up into four categories

current list

Agincourt
1839 Khyber Pass
Sterling Bridge
Battle of Teutoborg Forest
Isandhdlwana
Battle of Adwa
Dien Bein Phu
Little Bighorn
St. Claire's Defeat
Port Arthur
Cuito Cuanavale
Chinese entrance to the Korean War
Napolean's invasion of Russia

also here is a little more about the Spanish versus native forces (Inca in this case)

http://www.antiquityofman.com/Inca_conquest.html

The most cogent argument is that the conquest of the Incas was made possible by the technical superiority of the European weaponry employed by the Spanish: "Metal against stone, steel swords against flint-tipped spears, metal armour against cotton-quilted tunics, arquebuses and cannons against bows and arrows and, above all, calavry against infantry." (Watchel 1977: 24) The Spanish advantage in technological terms was responsible for some of their stunning victories over their Andean foes. In this view, Pizarro realized their superiority was overwhelming and him and his men took measures to utilise this to a degree that has not been fully appreciated; the vulnerability of the Incas to the capture and execution of their emperor being a prime case in point. Thus the shock of military contact across such a vast technological and cultural gap proved to be so great that, before the Andeans could fully adjust, their ultimate sealed (Adorno & Andrien 1991: 50).

However, this is a view which has been challenged by scholars such as Watchel. They raise the objection that the Spanish technological superiority was possibily of limited importance and point out firearms were few in this part of the New World, and couple this with the fact that the weapons were slow both in action and in reloading. The major effect of the arms and horses was psychological. They served, at least in the beginning, to sow panic and discord in the Inca ranks. This phase though was over quickly and the Inca soldiers began to adapt their battle tactics in an effort to counter the Spanish weaponry. However, this argument falls short upon a close examination of the 1536-7 Andean revolt. During the long siege of the Spanish in Cuzco, the Indians showed that although they had learnt something of the methods employed by their adversaries, they had not absorbed the lessons adequately. The Indians still chose to launch their attacks by the full moon and they still underestimated the Spanish horses, arms and deviousness.

[Akka]

Originally posted by korn469
ok i removed the 1700 requirement and instead divided it up into four categories

current list

Agincourt
1839 Khyber Pass
Sterling Bridge
Battle of Teutoborg Forest
Isandhdlwana
Battle of Adwa
Dien Bein Phu
Little Bighorn
St. Claire's Defeat
Port Arthur
Cuito Cuanavale
Chinese entrance to the Korean War
Napolean's invasion of Russia

Mmh, I'm actually feeling a little confused, Korn... At first you asked about battle between armies with technological differences, supposedly to compare it with the results in Civ3 (you said "Ok there has been alot of debate on how often does a forced armed with primative weapons defeat a forced armed with modern weapons").
But by now, you're using as example battle where there just is an underdog, not related to technology at all : Port Arthur, invasion of Russia, Dien Bien Phu, Korea war all saw both side using the same weapons, just a difference in the training, supply and numbers.
If we start to put all the battle in History where there were uneven training or where one side had a supply or number advantage, then we are not talking anymore about the technology impact on fights, and we should include all the battle that happened since the very firt war, except the rare cases where both armies were completely even.
Guess this thread need to refocus a little

[korn469]

Akka le Vil

the reason for the slight refocus is because it is appearing to look like that a well armed force from an industrialized society has NEVER lost to a similar sized force [ie less than twice as large] armed with less advanced weapons in a conventional battle

am i wrong or are we missing an obvious example of this?

if that is the case, then i would like to examine the historical reasons and conditions behind how an under dog force has defeated a superior force

throughout history it looks like there are far more cases of one side with better weapons "running up the score" so to speak, instead of paper tigers losing

[Nakar Gabab]

How about Thermopylae[sic, forgot the correct spelling]?

The Persians and Greeks were on rough par, however, the Persian army had a HUGE numbers advantage and were not at all disorganized.

The small (about 200, wasn't it?) force of Spartan defenders used terrain advantages to channel the Persian forces into a kill zone. Eventually they were wiped out, but they bought the other Greeks a tremendous amount of time and severely hampered Persia's hopes of a land invasion. When the Persian navy was destroyed at sea sometime thereafter, the entire invasion was routed.

Given that the Greeks at the time were not a cohesive nation (city-states and whatnot), whereas Persia most certainly WAS, and considering the military importance of it, I'd call that battle a sort of "10 spearmen beating 50 immortals," pretty good for the ancient world.

[Green Giant]

1)Custers last stand

2)Sparticus's ragtag and outnumbered group of slaves(warriors) defeating a fully equipped professional roman legion(legions)

These are just off the top of my head

[TinCow]

Originally posted by Green Giant
2)Sparticus's ragtag and outnumbered group of slaves(warriors) defeating a fully equipped professional roman legion(legions)

Ah yes, that's an excellent example. While the tech disparity isn't as great as some of the other examples, at the time it was a pretty big thing. In addition, the Slave Rebellion actually had the 'underdogs' winning multiple battles in the conflict. Practically all of the other examples that have been cited are single battles where the 'underdogs' use surprise and/or luck to beat a more advanced enemy on a single occassion.

[korn469]

ok here is the following list

Glorious victories through Superior Technology, Training, Organization, or Industrial Base

Ancient
*Thermopylae and Salamis (480 BC)
Middle Ages
Industrial
Modern
*Desert Storm (1991)

Ruinous defeats in spite of Superior Technology, Training, Organization, or Industrial Base

Ancient
*Sparticus Slave Revolt (71bc)
*Battle of Teutoburg Forest (9ad)
Middle Ages
*Stirling Bridge (1297)
*Agincourt (1415)
Industrial
*St. Claire's Defeat (1791)
*Khyber Pass First Afgan War (1839)
*Little Bighorn (1876)
*Isandhlwana (1879)
*Port Arthur (1905)???
Modern
*Chinese entrance to the Korean War (1950)
*Dien Bein Phu (1954)
*Cuito Cuanavale (1987-1989)???

but still can anyone find even a single example where an industrialized military force lost to a military force of about equal size that didn't use firearms?

[Grumbold]

Re: Re: info

Originally posted by Akka le Vil
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

On the contrary, it allows almost every major campaign the Mongols ever fought to count as low-tech victories.

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by korn469
ok here is the following list
Glorious victories through Superior Technology, Training, Organization, or Industrial Base

Don't forget John Paul Jones capturing a frigate with a refitted merchant vessal. (That's always been a bugaboo of the "it's not fair" crowd when they lose their frigate.)

If anyone has a complaint about the combat system, don't forget the 300 Spartans. Though there was no significant difference in technology, 100-1 odds should be sufficient for any battle. Xerses had a right to expect an easy win with those odds, and has a legitimate complaint against Firaxis for a "poor combat system." Think 50 Immortals, 50 Sword, 50 Spear, 50 Bow versus 2 fortified Phalanx's. Of course, Xerses won, but only after a long delay, through the help of the Greek traitor, and with substantial losses. Xerses, "We will blacken the sky with arrows." Greek commander, "Then we will fight in the shade."

19 men with boxcutters send fear into the heart of the world's most powerful and technologically advanced society. Some have said that wasn't a battle, but the enemy surely believed otherwise. The American president has said it is war.

Recent loss of B1b bomber in Afghanistan (It crashed due to mechnical failure in the Indian Ocean. The flyers who ejected and were rescued will certainly receive combat ribbons.)

Whether the loss is due to incompetence of the commanders, friendly fire, saboutage, sudden death of a leader, or even simple mechnical failure doesn't matter. If the unit is lost, then that is what the game randomizer is all about; it represents all the factors out of our control.

So if you send your advanced B1b bomber to attack primitive third world warriors, and it crashes, well it happens.