korn's Civ3 vs. History Challenge!

[korn469]

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.

You asked for the history buffs to come out. Now you are dismissing the lessons of history. Strange.

You are not going to find more than 2 hand fulls of examples of the primitive/irregular defeating the advanced in a SINGLE battle. These sorts of wars do not work that way.

Salve

exactly

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

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Akka le Vil
What the HELL do we care about how the Americans felt about their deaths ?

Not much really. It just caused them to loose the war, that's all.

You're right, it has nothing to do with depicting warfare in a strategy game spanning years at a turn. Your're right, we should focus on the troopers fighting for their lives in some perimiter or other that was overrun in a matter of days, or not.

The overall effects of all the combat should be of little consequence to us. Or something.

Salve

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by korn469


Salve

exactly

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

Very rarely in a single battle. Verrrrry raaaarrrrrely.

Like I said, less than 2 hands full.

Salve

PS. I've lost less Cav/Tank/ModArm to Spear/Sword/etc. than 10.

[Akka]

Originally posted by notyoueither


Not much really. It just caused them to loose the war, that's all.

You're right, it has nothing to do with depicting warfare in a strategy game spanning years at a turn. Your're right, we should focus on the troopers fighting for their lives in some perimiter or other that was overrun in a matter of days, or not.

The overall effects of all the combat should be of little consequence to us. Or something.

Salve

My god, another troll...
Ok, clueless, I will spell it for you as you seem to have rather low understanding and as it seems you were not able to read my post pas the first sentence.
We be talking about battles. We do not be talking about politics. You to understand ? We be taking examples of units with tech advantage be losing to inferior unit. You still to understand ? We only be talking about fights on the battlefield. You understand ?

[korn469]

here is a little more on the zulu victories but if anyone can find a more definitive source or account please feel free to post it

http://www.anc.org.za/ancdocs/histor...andhlwana.html

By the dawn of January 22, Chelmsford had left his main camp in search of the elusive enemy. Isandhlwana was down to half its strength; that is 2,000 men. While Chelmsford and the other half of the camp's contingent was chasing around the countryside the Zulu force of 20,000 warriors was resting in a steep ravine only four miles from the camp. It was an amazing and brilliant achievement to move an army of this size so close to the British position through countryside which was not exactly covered in forests and which was alive with British scouting parties. One can only marvel at the ability of the commanders; the stealth and discipline of the regiments. Undoubtedly this was the basis for the famous victory, for the attack was launched with great speed and surprise enabling the traditional Zulu "horns" to encircle the camp while the main body — the "chest" — charged at the weakest point. For half-an-hour the British poured out a desperate fire cutting down many warriors. Displaying great velour and determination the impis kept charging the lines of redcoats until they were able to come to close quarters with infantrymen Engels had described as "the best in the world for fighting at close quarters". On this occasion the assegais of African warriors proved too much for English bayonets and after a battle that had lasted little more than an hour there were very few survivors on the British side to tell the tale. Two thousand Zulu warriors had died in defence of their country and Cetshwayo remarked that "an assegai has been thrust into the belly of the nation".

here is about St. Clair's defeat

http://www.noacsc.org/ohiohist/region1/fort/facts.htm

*Fort Recovery is the site of the two largest Indian-military battles in the United States.

*Fort Recovery is the site of the worst defeat of an American army on American soil in the history of the United States. Over 65% of the entire U.S. Army was completely destroyed in three hours. Our country went virtually without an army for two years.

*The first battle at Fort Recovery (St. Clair's Defeat) resulted in the very first U.S. Congressional investigation. St. Clair was blamed for the defeat, but was exonerated of all charges when it was found the Secretary of War, Henry Knox, and his friend, William Duer, stole $55,000 of the $75,000 allocated to buy supplies for the newly formed army and used it to speculate on land.

*St. Clair's Defeat is the greatest victory of a native force (the Indians) over a white invading force (the army) in the history of the world.

http://www.indigenouspeople.org/natlit/turtle.htm

He led the confederation of Indians that defeated General Arthur St. Clair, at Fort Recovery on November 3, 1791. His force inflicted the worst defeat ever suffered by the U.S. Army at the hands of native Americans. St. Clair's army consisted of 1300 soldiers. In the battle, 602 were killed and about 300 wounded. The Indian force consisted of approximately 1000 warriors. Only 66 Indians were killed in this battle! It was the greatest defeat the Americans ever suffered at the hands of the Indians. Even worst than the loss suffered at the Battle of Little Big Horn or Custer's Last Stand. Custer only lost about 210 men compared to St. Clair's loss of 602 killed! Me-she-kin-no-quah lived the village of Ke-ki-ong-a'. Kekinonga means blackberry patch. This was the Miami capitol (Ft. Wayne, IN).

once again a more definitive source or account would be very appreciated

think we will be able to find 20 battles that fit into the criteria?

[korn469]

how about this

Cuito Cuanavale

http://web.syr.edu/~hgcampbe/milit.htm

Between October 1987 and June 1988, in the fiercest conventional battles on African soil since Erwin Rommel was defeated at El Amien, the South African Defense Forces (SADF) fought pitched tank and artillery battles with the Angolan army (FAPLA) and its Cuban supporters at Cuito Cuanavale. This small base located in southeastern Angola became important in the military history of Africa, for there the South African army, supposedly the best on the continent, was trapped with its tanks and artillery and held down more than 300 miles from its bases in Namibia. Failing to take Cuito Cuanavale with over 9000 soldiers, even after announcing that it had done so, losing air superiority, and faced with mutinies among black troops and a high casualty rate among whites, the South Africans reached such a desperate situation that President Botha had to fly to the war zone when the operational command of the SADF broke down.

With Cuban reinforcements, the Angolans withstood major assaults on January 23, February 25, and March 23. The South Africans were repulsed with heavy losses, and the Angolan/Cuban forces seized the initiative. For the first time since 1981, the Angolan army was able to reoccupy the area adjacent to Namibia. So confident were the Angolans and Cubans, that in the space of less than three months they built two air strips to consolidate their recapture of the southern province of Cunene. Trapped by the rainy season, hogged down by the terrain, and encircled, the South Africans made one desperate attempt to break out on June 27 and were again defeated. One South African newspaper called the defeat "a crushing humiliation."

and how about the Chinese entrance to the Korean War (and i am just limiting to their entrance and early victories not the stalemate that finally ensued?

http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/e...in/50-chin.htm

On 25 November 1950, a day after United Nations and Republic of Korea forces began the offensive they expected would complete the unification of Korea, Communist China countered with a terrific, and very successful offensive of its own. Within a few days, the Chinese onslaught reversed the UN/ROK northward drive in central and western North Korea, devastating several South Korean divisions, badly tearing up the U.S. Second Division and forcing the rest of the UN command to rapidly withdraw southwards to escape destruction.

On 27 November, near eastern North Korea's Chosin Reservoir, the Chinese fell on the First Marine Division and a nearby U.S. Army task force, almost wiping out the latter and provoking a Marine response that ranks as one of history's greatest feats of arms. Over the following two weeks, the Marines battled their way to the port of Hungnam, from which they would be evacuated by sea. In their wake were the ruins of the opposing Chinese divisions, which suffered so many casualties from combat and the bitterly cold weather that they were out of action for months.

In the new year, a renewed enemy offensive captured Seoul and drove the UN/ROK armies into new defensive lines in central South Korea. With no prospect of significant reinforcement, facing what appeared to be a total commitment of China's almost inexhaustable manpower, and fearing Soviet air and naval involvement, it briefly seemed that the UN forces might have to evacuate Korea to avoid unacceptable threats to Japan and, perhaps, to Europe.

[Akka]

The St-Clair defeat is a very adequate example. I'm more skeptical about the Zulus, as they suffered quite big losses, but still it's not too bad example.

However, North Korea is not a good example. The whole casualties for UNO troops in the whole three years were 55 000, while the Chinese suffered over 900 000 deaths, and about half as much for North Korea. Chinese were able to pull the UNO back only because of overwhelming numbers (and courage, as waves of infantry were continually crushed under artillery fire, but still kept advancing).

[kailhun]

Originally posted by notyoueither
No, it wasn't nuff said.

American Revolution (War of Independence). An army came from nowhere (from among the civs population) and routed the civ.

But used the same weapons and strategies. The only diff. was in level of training. Besides the colonists did very badly against the british on most occasions and the war was eventually decided by the French intervention, if I remember correctly.

Zulu Wars. Prior to Yorke's drift the Zulu dusted a sizable British contingent.

at Isandhlwana. Minor point: Rorke's Drift.

Any number of occasions in North America when Amerind bands or tribes wiped out European or American military units. Custer anyone (to name the most famous)?

Indians and Americans both used the same guns and horses. The diff. was tactics, ability to replace losses and the fact that the Americans destroyed the Indian homelands while the Indians hardly touched the American homelands (the eastern states).

The battle at little big horn was won by Indian numbers and American mistakes.

If this counts then so does the Soviet's fight against the Germans in WWII. They simply threw their soldiers at them. Some were bound to reach the Germans at some point. It was so bad that the third wave to attack was sometimes not armed (didn't have enough weapons) and told to pick up the weapons from the dead.

Afghanistan (again). That time the Red Army was brought to its knees by the combined arms of what? Devout Muslims from all over the world who went there to fight the infidel.

Again same tech., just diff. in training.

This time the British were annihilated by the Afghans when they tried to annex the country in the 19th (18th?) century. 1 man left the country.

Drawing a blank on this one.

Any revolution that succeeded that you care to name. French, Russian, Cuban, etc. These are all irregular forces that toppled contemporarily armed regimes (well, the French doesn't really fit, but oh well).

Again same tech., just diff. in training.

I will grant that no band of Cro-magnons ever bested a bunch of good ole boys by hurling rocks. But the Palestinians did accomplish a great deal with those same rocks. I guess they knew how to throw them better.

The palestinians accomplished war and the impoverishment of their people. Same with the IRA. The sad state of the Palestinian people and (Northern) Ireland should deter anyone from violence these days. I am of the opinion that if the Palestinian people and the people of (Northern) Ireland has not resorted to violence they would be far better of today than they are.
The question is will non-violence now bring peace after all the bloodshed. Especially since leaders on all sides have based their power on this struggle and so have a vested interest in maintaining it.
BTW. The opposite of violence is not sitting in a corner and being quiet.

Robert

[kailhun]

Originally posted by notyoueither


Yes, there are times when an *ancient* cuture is found by a *modern* culture, such as Columbus bumping into America. However, the majority of human history has ideas and goods moving to and fro far beyond the control of Dictators such as Caeser, Pope, Warlord and President. In other words, there never will be a case of Spearmen vs ModArm, no matter how far you look for it. Even though for Somalia, the Mechanicals cost about the same as a Spearmen.

Salve

This is the problem with finding historical spearmen vs. tanks examples. They don't really happen. Contrary to civ III the AI in reality upgrades and upgrades are sold worldwide as soon as they are discovered (legally or illegaly).

Especially these days as the US is both one of the two biggest armsdealers and one of the most advanced armsdesigners (if not thé) there are.

Robert

[kailhun]

Originally posted by GePap

4. Isandhdlwana: Best example so far. I can't say numbers of my head but the british force was nearly 1000, the Zulu force larger. The Brits had guns, the Zulus didn't (big tech difference), though the Zulus were definitely a trained army with complax tactics. I don't really know about the other two Zulu battles.

Zulu's about 20 000, I think. Although the British should have been able to take them out in about six (6!) minutes if the commanders hadn't ballsed up (It was on TV so it must be true . ). So in this case the low tech. army managed to defeat a high(er) tech army through numbers and mistakes by the loser.
The numbers and training of the Zulu, their complex tactics and their use of wardrugs was cancelled out by the British rifles. But tactical mistakes on the part of British command shifted the advantage squarely back to the Zulu.

Basically the firing line was too far forward, so the soldiers were not standing shoulder to shoulder but with a couple of meters between them. The Martini-Henry rifle was prone to jamming as it was fired more and more. This meant that if a couple a men stopped firing to unjam their rifles that section of the line was undefended. The Zulu broke through these parts and swung around attacking the British in the rear. In hand to hand combat the Zulu outclassed the British and the line fell to pieces.

Robert

[yin26]

Korn: As said above, the Chinese simply used a human wall strategy. Effective in its own way, but has limits, clearly.

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by Akka le Vil


Vietnam
American casualties : 55 000
Vietnamese casualties : more than 1 million
Both used automatics weapons.
USA forced to end the war because of international pressure and civil protestations.


Afghanistan
Russians casualties : between 10 and 30 000
Afghani casualties : more than 1 100 000
Both used automatics weapons.
USSR forced to end the war because of international pressure and cost.

Then the American Revolutionary War doesn't count either. The British didn't lose. They merely decided to make a strategic withdrawal.

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by kailhun

The battle at little big horn was won by Indian numbers and American mistakes.

[b]Of course it was due to Custer's mistakes.[/u] That's the whole point!!

In any human endeavor, mistakes can and will be made. That is why war can be so uncertain, and why sometimes the little guy can still win. Ask the a military commander. Commitment is worth more than weapons.

BTW, at Isandhdlwana the British had Infantry.

[Akka]

Originally posted by Zachriel


[b]Of course it was due to Custer's mistakes.[/u] That's the whole point!!

In any human endeavor, mistakes can and will be made. That is why war can be so uncertain, and why sometimes the little guy can still win. Ask the a military commander. Commitment is worth more than weapons.

BTW, at Isandhdlwana the British had Infantry.

Riflemen, not infantry.

Then the American Revolutionary War doesn't count either. The British didn't lose. They merely decided to make a strategic withdrawal.

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.

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by yin26
Advanced tech in Civ3 should almost alway win because the elements that could contribute to their being rendered almost useless do no exit in the game.

Exactly wrong, Yin26. Those factors do exits. That is what the randomizer does. You slide your cavalry unit over, attacking the primitive Native American unit. Due to circumstances beyond your control (primarily mistakes made by the commander on the battlefield), your Cavalry unit is destroyed. There is an investigation. The politicians in Washington blame Firaxis.

In any human endeavor, mistakes can and will be made. That is the purpose of the randomizer. The most common mistake, maybe the only mistake, is to underestimate your enemy -- hubris.

[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]

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]

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]

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