korn's Civ3 vs. History Challenge!

[Zachriel]

A good example of destroying an enemy in detail is the Battle of Austerlitz, between the French and the Prussians. (This forces in this case have similar tech levels)

Napoleon was outnumbered, but he succeeded in splitting the Prussian forces through a deception and a superb movement of artillery. The French descended on the smaller half of the enemy and the slaughter was immense. Then, and only then, did he put chase to the other half of the Prussian army.

When Custer split his forces, the Indians took advantage of this fact to pounce on the vulnerable splinter force.

[gaikokujin]

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.


I don't see any primitive weaponry defeating any modern army here. Political defeats, military victories. Russians and Americans were NOT vanquished on battlefield.

This is just plain false. The U.S. was forced out because it was militarily defeated by the Vietnamese. This was reflected in the plummeting morale of its ground troops. Destruction of the morale of the enemy is the very definition of military victory. Washington didn't give a crap about domestic anti-war opposition - it was willing to jail, beat up and kill that forever. The same goes for the virtually non-existent 'international pressure', of which the supply of Soviet arms was the only real instance.

As a result, to this day the U.S. has been careful to avoid lengthy ground wars (as in the Persian Gulf War, where the U.S. feared to cross the Euphrates) and this only got worse with the sharp little military defeat it suffered in Somalia (as in "Black Hawk Down"). Since then, the U.S. has been reduced to relying on "barbarian auxiliaries" (as currently in Afghanistan), with its "elite forces" carefully slinking along, taking up the rear. Worse yet, it relies on the auxiliaries of another big power, Russia! That's like the ancient Romans relying on auxiliaries supplied by the Parthians to intervene in a local border conflict!

Sorry to burst any propaganda induced militaristic fantasy bubble, but these are the military symptoms of a decadent, dying empire. If the volunteers to its mercenary army ever had to face the prospect of a prolonged period of death in substantial numbers, they'd "desert" (not sign up) in droves. They signed up for the guaranteed paycheck, not to die, and the Pentagon knows it. And despite all the post - 9/11 flag waving, there's not been a big groundswell of volunteers to the military.

Don't think so? Then read Machiavelli on the evils of reliance upon mercenaries and auxillaries.

But, to the point of this thread, the Vietnamese do not qualify as the equivalent of "spearman" - they at least had automatic rifles, and they had much more.

[korn469]

Zachriel

boat was just a boat filled with explosives which they acquired from us, but the Cole was destroyed just the same.

the cole wasn't destroyed, just damaged it didn't even sink and it will return to service they are repairing it now

Of course, the Zulus outnumbered the British on the battlefield, but isn't that the point. The British split their forces.

the British split their forces and was outnumbered 10:1 and hit by a suprise attack by a well trained though poorly armed force, even if they hadn't of split their forces 20-22k against 4k in a sneak attack would still probably allow the Zulus to win

Why do you want to fit reality into this jaundiced view that the technology is the only relevant factor?

while technology certainly isn't the only factor, there still hasn't been a satisfactory example of a military force that didn't have fire arms at all beating a similar sized military forced armed with at least percussion cap type musket firearms or better, so technology does appear to be one of the major factors in determining victory

also Zachriel the Battle of Chancellorsville is another great example of a smaller similarly armed forced (Lee had about half cas many troops as Hooker's 130k) splitting their forces and defeating a larger opponent

gaikokujin

can you give examples of where the US military either retreated, surrendered or was just completely decimated on the battlefield at the conclusion of any major action? just a few of those and i'll agree with you on Viet Nam

[Akka]

Zachriel : it was Austro-Russians, not Prussians.
Napoleon convinced his ennemies that they would be 100 000 against 50 000, while they were 90 000 against 65 000.
Then he pushed their center with a surprise attack, and isolated the army in some segments, like you said.

The Cole is NOT a military battle, it's a terrorist action, exactly like the one that could perform a diplomat in Civ2. If you build an unit that is called a "terrorist" and that work like a missile, I won't feel cheated if it damage or even sink my ship. But a galley sinking my submarine, sorry, it's not acceptable.


Gaikokujin : it's not on the battlefield that the men gave up the war, it's on the civilian way. Protestations and international pressures forced the USA to retreat, NOT defeats on the field. It's represented in the game by the war weariness, not by your units being destroyed by another.

[Trifna]

When Custer split his forces, the Indians took advantage of this fact to pounce on the vulnerable splinter force

This is the case of numerical superiority in a battle.

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by korn469
Zachriel
the cole wasn't destroyed, just damaged it didn't even sink and it will return to service they are repairing it now

The Cole is totalled for all intents and purposes. They may repair it. Bush has stated we are at war. It was a military target. You can discount anything by saying it wasn't really a war. That what they said about Vietnam for years. It was a "police action."

Who says the size of the units must be the same? A B1b bomber has a crew of a handful, an impi may be 10,000 men, an armor unit may represent 20 tanks plus support. If the peasants rise up and kill their Llords by overwhelming them, it would still be a victory, would it not? Of course, the Lords would say it was unfair, a massacre, etc.

Remember, the little colored icons on your computer screen are just abstractions.

[Zachriel]

When Custer split his forces, the Indians took advantage of this fact to pounce on the vulnerable splinter force

This is the case of numerical superiority in a battle.

Of course. Isn't that the idea? To gang up; to take advantage of the mistakes of your opponents?

I reread your original post and you are adding criteria as you go along.

Now you insist the forces are to consist of the same number of men. If they attempt to destroy their enemy in detail, that's not really fair because they're ganging up. If they sneak in and blow up your sub, that terrorist act doesn't count -- even though in this situation they are outnumbered.

Custer didn't really lose, he was overrun. The British didn't lose to a bunch of spearmen. Mistakes were made. The U.S. didn't "lose" the war in Vietnam. It was a "police action." The British didn't lose the American Colonies. They made a strategic withdrawal. The U.S. didn't lose a B1b bomber fighting in Afghanistan. The plane was on a pleasure cruise over the Indian Ocean. John Paul Jones didn't take out a frigate with a merchant ship, the British captain was taking a nap and Jones should have sent an invitation to battle first. Peasants in Paris didn't really storm the Bastille.

And so on and so forth.

[korn469]

The Cole is totalled for all intents and purposes. They may repair it. Bush has stated we are at war. It was a military target.

Ingalls Shipbuilding is repairing the Cole
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/s...g51-001109.htm

and it should be ready to return to service soon

here is a link for a picture of the Cole on Sept 15 2001, after they relaunched it
http://www.hazegray.org/features/cole/cole-launch02.jpg

Who says the size of the units must be the same? A B1b bomber has a crew of a handful, an impi may be 10,000 men, an armor unit may represent 20 tanks plus support. If the peasants rise up and kill their Llords by overwhelming them, it would still be a victory, would it not? Of course, the Lords would say it was unfair, a massacre, etc.

of course units woun't be the same size, but lets say a carrier is just one unit, that means the 180 shields it cost to build a carrier is in the 2-4 billion dollar range, so if each F-15 cost 35 million, then a fighter unit probably has between 30-60 fighters in it, but thats just my take on it

hehe and don't worry i may sound serious but i haven't forgot that civ3 is a game

anyways, i've searched some more and still haven't been able to find a satisfactory example of a non fire arms force defeating a similar sized fire arms force in a conventional pitched battle

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by korn469
Ingalls Shipbuilding is repairing the Cole
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/s...g51-001109.htm

and it should be ready to return to service soon

here is a link for a picture of the Cole on Sept 15 2001, after they relaunched it
http://www.hazegray.org/features/cole/cole-launch02.jpg

That's good! A little luck of the randomizer. Came very close; down to one hp, but they made it home.

[Zachriel]

anyways, i've searched some more and still haven't been able to find a satisfactory example of a non fire arms force defeating a similar sized fire arms force in a conventional pitched battle

I still can't figure out why the Zulu doesn't do it. I just don't get it. My God man! they used pointy sticks (albeit a lot of them).

Why does it have to be a pitched battle again? Why can't they sneak up again? Is that cheating? No ambushes? Oh right, cheating. No lighting their fuel dump on fire? Terrorism, you say. No killing anybody because their tank broke down. Really should help them repair it so that we can have a fair fight, my molotov and his tank on an urban street. Ah, those were the days.

Oh, I remember now. You can't shoot the officers. It's not sporting.

Originally posted by korn469
hehe and don't worry i may sound serious but i haven't forgot that civ3 is a game

Very wise for a civfanatic.

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by korn469

of course units woun't be the same size, but lets say a carrier is just one unit, that means the 180 shields it cost to build a carrier is in the 2-4 billion dollar range, so if each F-15 cost 35 million, then a fighter unit probably has between 30-60 fighters in it, but thats just my take on it

So, a spearman unit would be about $200,000,000. That would field a lot of spearman. That's why there are so many spearmen in an Impi unit compared to let's say an infantry unit.

It is so abstract, but it does give a semblance of a world where Impi can beat Infantry sometimes; where a Phalanx can stop an army 100 times its size, and then only lose because of betrayal; where a lucky air-launched torpedo hits the rudder of the enemy battleship; and a game where my tanks will roll reliably over the enemy, because if I attack, I use overwhelming force;

but a game where there's always that one loony tank unit that gets lost, stuck in the mud somewhere, and overrun by villagers with gas cans (maybe the villagers mixed up the street signs);

and if you actually built your battle plans on the result of a single combat -- no matter the odds -- then your plans might just fall apart and the villagers will remember that day for generations.

[korn469]

I still can't figure out why the Zulu doesn't do it. I just don't get it. My God man! they used pointy sticks (albeit a lot of them).

Why does it have to be a pitched battle again? Why can't they sneak up again? Is that cheating? No ambushes? Oh right, cheating. No lighting their fuel dump on fire? Terrorism, you say

the zulu example is a good example, but the reason i would like to see an equal number of troops on both sides is because i'm thinking of this as an experiment with a series of variables in question: military hardware for the first, training for the second, logistics for the third, etc.

if all things were about equal except one side has better tech, then will that side win every time?

or if i was asking a civ3 question, if a unit is two eras ahead of another unit then should it automatically win? if a tank faces off against a spearman should it automatically win? if a moder armor unit faces off against a pikeman should it automatically win? etc.

(in my opinion they shouldn't win, but industrial and modern era units should have better stats, or at least more hitpoints)

also guerrilla warfare doesn't win every time and even when it is successful it usually takes a long time and extracts a heavy toll on the victor, so just because you have a molotov it doesn't mean that the attacker won't decide to level the city with artillary instead of risking their tanks (like russia did the last time they attacked Grozny) or bakc them up with infantry

from the examples in this thread, most of the victories goto the better armed better trained side

Very wise for a civfanatic.

ahhh but aren't we all

(wise or civfanatics...you make the call )

EDIT:

So, a spearman unit would be about $200,000,000.

well if you figure in inflation from 3500bc then that's not many spearmen at all

[GePap]

I don't think measuring the number of shields it takes to build a unit is a sensical way of measuring the size of a unit.

Let me start by saying that what the actual size of units are is a mystery, which the game itself only makes worst- for example, a city of 3 is what, 60k and a city of 2 30k? Well, if you draft one population point from a city of 3 you get 1 unit and go down to 2, so 30k pop. was turned into one 2HP unit. Do it again and you get one unit with 2HP and the city is only 1, or 10k. This means that the second unit, which is identical to the first, only took 20k, not 30k, to make. Obviously the game has made an oversimplification for the sake of having simple rules.

If we are really going to have this discussion, a standard must be choosen. I say that all land units are of equal size, PERIOD.

So at Insandhalwana, we have 1 rifleman vs. 20 impis. In real life, the impis won, and in the game, with the rifleman in open ground, the impis would most likely also win- remebering that impis get to retreat so that none of them might actually be killed.
As for the new requirement that the inferior, superior engagement be between units of about equal strenght, I think it is asking too much. the only possible way in which the trully inferior force might win that is if the
1. know the terrain better and surprise the enmy in terrible territory or 2, the enemy makes some huge blunders and is unalbe to bring to bear everything that makes them superior. The only example yet given in this thread of such seems to be St. Claire's defeat, since, if I remember right, the Indians actually had about as many, or less men than Claire, yet suffred only about 1/10 the casualties and this clearly fits into the first category.

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by korn469

also guerrilla warfare doesn't win every time and even when it is successful it usually takes a long time and extracts a heavy toll on the victor, so just because you have a molotov it doesn't mean that the attacker won't decide to level the city with artillary instead of risking their tanks (like russia did the last time they attacked Grozny) or bakc them up with infantry

from the examples in this thread, most of the victories goto the better armed better trained side

Exactly! A smart commander who takes war seriously will plan and prepare and he must plan and prepare for events which are unforeseeable. In your given situation maybe he should have bombarded first. But he didn't, and the rest becomes a glorious victory for the other side, told through the ages.

Of course, most battles are won by the superior force. But tanks do break down. Men do flee or desert. Commanders may mistakenly send their men to their death. Or traitors may sell the keys to the gates. And definitely beware Greeks bearing gifts!

The unknown is represented by the randomizer. As every military man knows, there is no "win every time." Euipment is very important, but without highly motivated troops, equipment means nothing.

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by GePap
I don't think measuring the number of shields it takes to build a unit is a sensical way of measuring the size of a unit.
If we are really going to have this discussion, a standard must be choosen. I say that all land units are of equal size, PERIOD.

1. know the terrain better and surprise the enmy in terrible territory or 2, the enemy makes some huge blunders and is unalbe to bring to bear everything that makes them superior.

Glad you decided that 1. a standard MUST be chosen and 2. you will choose and 3. they are of equal size. Unfortunately, it just doesn't fit the model very well. Army size has changed dramatically over the centuries. In the Middle Ages a lot of very substantial armies were only 2000 strong. Just one Roman Legion was 6000 strong. Napoleon had a million men in the field.

yes on 1 and yes on 2. And guess what, nearly all examples discussed on this thread were due to 1 or 2, usually both.

Don't worry too much about it. It's just an abstraction. But it is fun to think about.

[Trifna]

Originally posted by Zachriel



Of course. Isn't that the idea? To gang up; to take advantage of the mistakes of your opponents?

I reread your original post and you are adding criteria as you go along.

Now you insist the forces are to consist of the same number of men. If they attempt to destroy their enemy in detail, that's not really fair because they're ganging up. If they sneak in and blow up your sub, that terrorist act doesn't count -- even though in this situation they are outnumbered.

Custer didn't really lose, he was overrun. The British didn't lose to a bunch of spearmen. Mistakes were made. The U.S. didn't "lose" the war in Vietnam. It was a "police action." The British didn't lose the American Colonies. They made a strategic withdrawal. The U.S. didn't lose a B1b bomber fighting in Afghanistan. The plane was on a pleasure cruise over the Indian Ocean. John Paul Jones didn't take out a frigate with a merchant ship, the British captain was taking a nap and Jones should have sent an invitation to battle first. Peasants in Paris didn't really storm the Bastille.

And so on and so forth.

I didn't sai it wasn't valuable... I just said that cases of winning with lower techs are with more men. In the post, I'm just including what Korn asks. Don't bother myself more than to compilate, get info and give my comments. (no time for more)

[korn469]

come on people!
the inflation joke was funny

civ3 is so abstract that an infantry unit could be several different units all in seperate chains of command fighting at different times, since each turn is a year or greater...in Civ3 iirc it would have taken Ghengis Khan three turns to conquer all that he did, while the various conflicts in Viet Nam would have been like 27 turns i think (46-75) while Alexander the Great would have rose to power, conquered the known world and died in one turn

how is that for scale?

but in all of history i was just wondering if there was one really quirky battle where like 20 headhunters armed with poison darts ambushed 500 Rangers and won or something as unusual as that
even if there isn't there are still so many interesting battles, MANY of them i hadn't even heard of before

so i'm having fun and even learning a little, how about the rest of you?

[Ironikinit]

It is interesting to think that the Viet Nam war would last more turns than the 100 years war or whatever, and excellent observation about the length of Alexander the Great's rise and fall.

As a recreation/simulation of history, Civ really isn't much. It's a good game, though.

[notyoueither]

korn469

Good on ya. I'm glad you are having fun pursuing a productive path (learning).

But you are not going to find the examples you want of Spearmen beating Tanks. Human history does not work that way.

The problem (for your project) is that people are like rats (in some ways). They do not confine themselves to your (or anyone else's) strict limits demarcating where they should live, what they should do, and what they should use as tools.

Human beings squirt around the edges of the confines of any arbitrary set of rules and regulations. Like rats.

*Your majesty, we have just discovered a continent of ignorant savages that do not know anything of value.*

Plus 5 years

*Your majesty, the ignorant savages appear to have acquired fire arms from some ill-begotten son of an ethnic trader*

Plus 10 years

*Your majesty, horses that escaped during that storm 5 years ago seem to be perfectly adapted to the Northern Plains of our new territories.*

Plus 10 years

*Your majesty, our mission at Sid ***** has just been wiped out by the natives. This is intolerable! Action must be taken immediately to put them in their place! Of course we have no clue as to how the savages may have done it. They must be in league with the devil.*

Of course my scale is wrong, but it illustrates that knowledge and technology (and some resources) will spread unbidden by states and rulers. It will spread due to the very natures of chance and of human beings. Humans are more curious, more industrious, and prolly more intelligent than rats.

The point is that in the age of the Tank you are not going to find more than a few thousand primitive (?) peoples still wielding spears and living in tribes. None of them are going to be in any kind of close contact with advanced (?) civs. Isolation is the only reason why they do not have guns, if not RPGs and shaped charged weapons.

Yes, you will find some instances of technologically backward peoples defeating *modern* units in a single afternoon or over some days on some field somewhere. However, these instances will number very few. As I have said, prolly less than two hands full (20). The reason is that technology spreads among common, ordinary people. Technolgy spreads, faster than you can, or would want to sell it to every other civ.

If you repeal your law of technology and look for the disadvantaged, by number, or politics, or, or, or, then you will find many instances of human beings overcoming difficult (or impossible) odds in the face of a superior foe. That is what human beings do after all. They seek, they strive, they refuse to yield. And sometimes, they win.

Salve

[Akka]

As everyone seems to have his way to explain what he's doing in this thread, I'll put my 2 cents too.

I personnally takes this thread as a way to find any example of the boggus Civ3 fight system. People argued over months that the results, while suprising, were not that much unrealistic, saying like Zachriel that tanks broke, men fled and so on.

What I'm looking for here is examples of historical events that would be the same as in Civ3. This means : a unit of low-tech level (particularly pre-firearms) beat another unit with modern weapons. I'm ready to accept battle like the Zulu vs British, but in this case it's not 1 riflemen unit vs 1 impis, it's 1 riflemen vs 10 impis. What irks people is not to lose 1 modern unit against 10 old, it's to lose 1 modern unit against 1 or 2 old. Hence the "same numbers" requirement that Korn asked.

Of course, I am pretty sure that we will find at best one or two example of this, if any. That is because, even if people rationalize until nausea, we are not in fantasyland, tanks does not broke every mile, submarines commanders think to close their hatch before diving, and from time to tome, some generals happen to not being completely dumb.

[Akka]

Yes, you will find some instances of technologically backward peoples defeating *modern* units in a single afternoon or over some days on some field somewhere. However, these instances will number very few. As I have said, prolly less than two hands full (20). The reason is that technology spreads among common, ordinary people. Technology spreads, faster than you can, or would want to sell it to every other civ.

This is why, in Civ3, the price of a tech diminish with each civ that know it. It then already represent the spreading of tech in world.
Though, native Americans were in contact with Europeans for four centuries, and still never learned to build firearms.
African empires were trading with Europeans for three or four centuries, and never learned to build firearms either.
Basically, in fact, NOBODY learned the Europeans technology unless conquered by them (all the colonial empires), which make them part of the civilization in game term, or being beaten so bad that they chosed to learn this technology to be strong enough to never be humiliated again like that (Japan and China).
Just a reminder : with the exception of these both countries, Korea, Afghanistan, Turquia, and perhaps Iran (don't remember), ALL the countries of the world were conquered and annexed at one time or another by a European country. Hence the diffusion of technology and occidental mentality.

[Willem]

Originally posted by korn469
Ok there has been alot of debate on how often does a forced armed with primative weapons defeat a forced armed with modern weapons

So i am challenging all of you history buff to find examples in history of where a force is either considered to be primative/irregular/obsolete defeats a force considered to be modern/technologically superior within the following criteria

*four different categories
4000bc-499ad
500-1799
1800-1949
1950-2002+
*the smaller force must have at least 100 soldiers
*the inferior force must have either won or virtually anihilated the superior force on the battlefield if it lost for it to count
*i am only concerned with military and not political victories

a force is considered inferior if it meets the following criteria

*when a nation cannot produce its own advanced weapon systems, and the quanity of advanced weapons it can provide is spread unevenly throughout a small percentages of its forces
*when a nation can produce advanced weapons which are spread throughout its forces but they are a generation or more behind the nation its at war with
*when a force is armed with comparable or better weapons systems buts its forces are not organized as a conventional force and they operate using guerrillas methods usually because they have a significant size disadvantage (in this case if a group of green berets, SAS commandos, etc defeated a conventional force it would count)
*when a force although it might have comparable weapons, organization, logistics, and size is generally perceived [at the time] by the great majority of its opponents to be inferior until it humiliates them on the battlefield (this is what i was thinking with Port Arthur)

please list the battle, and the give details about it such as the size of each force, causulties, tactics used to win etc.
please site a source, and link to it if possible

so lets see how history stacks up against civ3 shall we?

Anyone remember Vietnam? Or how about the Soviets vs Afghanistan, that should be somewhat fresh in people's minds.

[Akka]

Originally posted by Willem


Anyone remember Vietnam? Or how about the Soviets vs Afghanistan, that should be somewhat fresh in people's minds.

Read the thread rather than throw in subjects that were already treated ten times in a row in it (and are counter-examples moreover).

[Willem]

Originally posted by Akka le Vil


Read the thread rather than throw in subjects that were already treated ten times in a row in it (and are counter-examples moreover).

Well then how about the Indian independence movement. They defeated the British with no weapons whatsoever. Some British regulars would disobey orders rather than fire on unarmed people. Winning a battle isn't always about superior weaponry. If the ones wielding the firepower don't have it in their heart to kill, they're going to lose everytime. That's one of the reasons why the Americans lost in Vietnam, and the Russians in Afghanistan. No matter what the differences in firepower, a demoralized force will almost always lose to a determined enemy.

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by Akka le Vil
I'm ready to accept battle like the Zulu vs British, but in this case it's not 1 riflemen unit vs 1 impis, it's 1 riflemen vs 10 impis.

Glad you agree. History is full of examples whereby a force which clearly believes it is superior loses because of that belief.

Quoting again from Ben Franklin's conversation with the British officer, "He smil'd at my ignorance, and reply'd, 'These savages may, indeed, be a formidable enemy to your raw American militia, but upon the king's regular and disciplin'd troops, sir, it is impossible they should make any impression.'"

The officer and his men were soon to be slaughtered in the American wilderness.

[Immortal Wombat]

When did Italy vs Abyssinia fall off the list? There's the old legend of Italian tanks were fitted with 5 reverse gears going into that war

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by Immortal Wombat
When did Italy vs Abyssinia fall off the list? There's the old legend of Italian tanks were fitted with 5 reverse gears going into that war

It didn't. There are many examples, for instance, of Indians successfully attacking frontier forts. But they ganged up on the poor settlers. Not fair, not fair, they cry, even though the population density of the colonialists was much higher than that of the Native-Americans. The colonialists were ambitious and took chances by (over)extending the frontier, so they lost sometimes. And of course, the economic advantages of the Euro-Americans dominated in the long run, despite those setbacks.

There is rarely, if ever, going to be a consensus on a forum of this sort.

[Argos65987]

How about the Ewoks defeating the Imperial garrison at the Battle of Endor's Moons?

Just kidding

Although, after all the thought I've put into this topic, that's the only thing I think completely fits the example of spearman vs tank

[korn469]

Zachriel

Quoting again from Ben Franklin's conversation with the British officer, "He smil'd at my ignorance, and reply'd, 'These savages may, indeed, be a formidable enemy to your raw American militia, but upon the king's regular and disciplin'd troops, sir, it is impossible they should make any impression.'"

The officer and his men were soon to be slaughtered in the American wilderness.

do you know which battle Ben Franklin's conversation pertained to? it was probably in reference to General Braddock's defeat in the French and Indian war (Seven Years War) of which the North American Theater was only part of entire thing but in which the British still managed to come out on top, winning all of the French Colonial possession east of the mississippi

anyways here is a link to that particular battle

http://www.digitalhistory.org/braddock.html

but in that particular battle French forces and their Indian allies managed to route the british army and its colonial troops after they ambushed them even though the british had a 2:1 advanatge...this would make a perfect example except the Indians in this case were supplied with modern weapons by their french allies

Argos65987

How about the Ewoks defeating the Imperial garrison at the Battle of Endor's Moons?

Just kidding

Although, after all the thought I've put into this topic, that's the only thing I think completely fits the example of spearman vs tank

what i'm wondering is this

WHAT IN THE HELL IS STORMTROOPER ARMOR MADE OF?!?!

it doesn't stop blasters, and it doesn't stop rocks, every stormtrooper hit in the head with a rock was either knocked out or killed, and princess leia could take a blaster shot to the arm, while if a storm trooper with armor was hit in the arm he would die

plus as the emperor said, it was a legion of his best storm troopers and they were even waiting in ambush, knowing that a rebel special forces team would try and blow the shield generator

even worse is that the ewoks were worshipping C-3PO as a god one day, then the next day they were ready for war, plus the had seige weapons when it appeared that they were the only "intelligent" species on the planet and it looked like for the most part they were one group, so why would they develop siege weaponry?

this is when i realized that although i think the idea of starwars is great, George Lucas is an idiot, he made the odds too great and then still let the rebels win with barely a loss

[Argos65987]

I believe their armor is manufactured in France by one-armed circus midgets. (no actual offense intended to one-armed circus midgets by associating them with France)

Not to mention that stormtrooper strategy consists of firing as many shots as possible at the ground directly in front of the enemy and then, no matter their numerical superiority, charging one by one at the enemy. The three stooges were a better organized fighting force than the Imperial Guards!