Hey!

As said above, that strategy didn't work as well at Rorke's Drift (or O'Rourke's Ford, but that's a fictional battle)

I think all this shows a great amount of eurocentric, modern bias.  A toaster oven is more advanced than an assegai, but nobody ever writes stories about brave men striding boldly into combat with their small kitchen appliances at the ready.

A toaster oven is more advanced than an assegai

Incorrect

Quote from: 17 November on November 09, 2011, 12:23:24 AM

Shaka Zulu (1787-1828) dismissed firearms as ineffective against the quick encirclements of charging spearmen. This successful military tactic preserved the Zulu state and outlived Shaka himself by over fifty years.  It did achieve ominous success against a British military force of 1,800 men (and 400 civilians) equipped with state of the art rifles at the Battle of Isandlwana in 1879 in which 1,300 of those British died while only 1,000 out of 20,000 Zulus died.

This is all lies. Michael Caine killed a bunch of them.

They found his leg later. And they also revealed the meaning of life. All-together, I consider that a win.

Quote from: EireEngineer on February 03, 2012, 05:43:33 AM

A toaster oven is more advanced than an assegai

Incorrect

Ok...lets hear your semantic dithering.

Custer paid for the sin of hubris.  Native Americans would have done the same or worse had geography not been against them.

Wow....work on the reading comprehension. Custer paid for his OWN hubris, as many combat commanders before him (Quintilius Varus comes to mind).  The second part of my statement refers to the supposed "sins" of the whites, to which I argue that all humans are nasty, brutal en-slavers, Native Americans included.

I don't think that Native Americans were using bows and arrows in the 1800s.

I don't think that Native Americans were using bows and arrows in the 1800s.

They used crossbows, obviously. Hard to load, terrible aim, and all around just a bad idea. Perfect for them, when you think about it.

No, they used modern (for then) technology.  It's not like they wouldn't be able to get their hands on guns.

I believe the Sioux at Little Big Horn actually had better rifles than Custer's troopers. The former had repeaters while the cavalry had single-shot carbines.

That is true.  While the Army was looking for the rifle which was cheapest to manufacture and most economical on ammunition, the Lakota and Cheyenne were more concerned with that terribly silly notion: Being able to hit your target.  Adding rapid fire certainly helps that equation, which is why every modern combat rifle (except those used for sniping, and sometimes even then) is at least semi-auto.