Plains Indians army list

Well, I am putting together a Plains Indians army list. I know it needs to be added to DBA, so might as well work on it. It is a list that is every bit as valid as Vinlanders, or Hawaiians and other such tenuous lists. Many of the lists in the book go into the 1700's, so what is the problem?

I think that the primary troop types would be light horse (2Lh), Warbands (3Wb) and Psiloi (2Ps). The list would have to be broken down by tribe(s) and period. I imagine that light horse would not be widely available until the mid to late 1500's after the horse begins to spread throughout the new world. Some research I've done on the net suggests that the Commanches took to the horse early, so they might field more light horse sooner than others. I really don't know where to start on the numbers though. Probably the Plains Indians would be half and half Warbands and Psiloi till the later 1500's...At that point, anywhere from 2-12 light horse elements might be fielded. Anyone have any good data on the Plains Indians??

From: Histories of the Utah Tribes
http://www.utah.gov

Anthropological evidence reveals that human beings have inhabited the Salt Lake area for over 11,000 years, perhaps beyond. The Anasazi, "The Ancient Ones," first appeared in this area in approximately 1000 BC and mysteriously disappeared in 1300 AD At about 1150 AD, another group called the Fremont culture, which resembled the Anasazi, emerged. This Fremont culture ceased to exist at about the same time that the Anasazi left the area, circa 1300 AD (Source: Utah Historical Society, Robert S. McPherson) By 1000 AD groups/bands of Indians which belonged to the language family of Uto-Aztecan, which part of the Numic speaking branch, entered the area. By 1300 AD, they had spread into Utah and Colorado. The Ute, Shoshoni, Goshute, and Paiute were part of the groups which entered this area, hence these latter tribes have inhabited this area for at least 1000 years. The Dine´ (Navajo) believed that they emerged through four worlds into their present location in the Four Corners area, between their Four Sacred Mountains. Archaeological findings show that the Dine´ people were in the area as early as 1300 AD The Dine´ are a part of the Athabaskan speaking people who range from Alaska and Canada through the United States to Mexico. The Spanish were the first Europeans to enter Utah. Their physical presence was limited to an occasional entrada of exploration, Juan Maria Antonio Rivera (1775) and Catholic Fathers Fray Francisco Anastasio Dominquez and Fray Silvestre Velez de Escalante (1776). It was from the Spanish that the Utah Indians first acquired the horse. The Utes were some of the first American Indians to acquire the horse as early as the 1650s. By the early 1700s, all the tribes in Utah had access to the horse, some adopting it as a means of transportation, primarily the Ute and Shoshoni, others accepting it as a source of food.

Since the focus of DBA is 3000 BC to 1485 AD (Introduction Pg 1) no Amerindian list should include mounted troops. Those lists extending beyond 1485, start before that year and remain unchanged until the later date.

So your Plains Indian list already exists, III/41. Dog Peoples and Pueblo Cultures. 800AD-1500AD.

Martin is right on regarding the timing. Even the DBR lists do not include Pre-columbian native peoples with horses. Firearms and horses went together also. If one did a hypothetical list, like the one for the Zulu, it seems to me that after horses, it would just be 1x 2LH(gen), 11 x 2LH.

The Pueblo Culture armies of DBA are just about the same as those of DBR. Mostly Bows and a bit of Wb. Maybe the horse era armies would be
1x2Lh//3Wb (Gen), 11 x 2LH//3Bw or 2Ps

That would be a very interesting army.

[ September 03, 2002, 12:17: Message edited by: xes*** ]

I understand that DBA was set to go up to 1485 AD, but then why do so many of the lists go far beyond that?? Also if we are such purists, then why do we allow non-historical matches in tournament play? A stark contradiction exists here.....I see no reason why one would not want to allow a Plains Indian army to be fielded, but the same folks are just fine with the knights of the Italian Condotta having a scrum with the Late Hebrew army of King David! I shall field my Plains Indians as Tribal Mongolians then....it really is the same "army", just with a different paint job. DBA battles are not even close to giving a historical simulation anyway. Battles weren't often fought on fields between evenly matched opponents who had to stay within a "box" of terrain. It is more akin to chess than it is a simulation of actual warfare. It is more of a mental dual between two players than any kind of reflection of history. I know I am beating a "dead horse" (pun intended...), but jeez, can't we lighten up here? I like the inclusion of Zulus and other primitive style armies as well. They sure will be more interesting pitted against Romans than modern artillery and automatic weapons!! And I think that Zulus versus Romans is just as historical a match-up as any other that I typically see on a DBA table.

Originally posted by Hannibal Ad Portas:
jeez, can't we lighten up here? I like the inclusion of Zulus and other primitive style armies as well. They sure will be more interesting pitted against Romans than modern artillery and automatic weapons!! And I think that Zulus versus Romans is just as historical a match-up as any other that I typically see on a DBA table.

So let me paraphrase your point, as I understand it: since non-historical matchups (of historical armies) are allowed, therefore anything should be allowed? Does that go for Orcs, Klingons, Gatling guns, Barsoomian skyships?

My point is that every game system draws some lines about what is included, and what is not included. For DBA, that line is the end of the Middle Ages and the beginning of the "Pike and Shot" period. There's nothing wrong with playing any army you want, of course. But if you're trying to convince people that Shaka Zulu and Sitting Bull are covered (or should be) by DBA, just because Alexander the Great might fight a battle against Charles the Bold in Midnight Madness at Historicon, I think your argument is pretty weak.

This isn't meant as a criticism of using DBA for other things -- I use it as the main engine for my Orc Army, for example. DBA is a great, simple system. If you want to paint up a Zulu or Sioux army, I'll be happy to pit my Orcs against them. But if I'm running a "DBA" tournament at a convention, your Zulus, Sioux, and my Orcs won't be in the allowed army lists.

Ahh yes, the slippery slope argument. If Plains Indians are allowed, next it will be Orcs and Goblins....oh please, that is not a fair argument. You of course can run games anyway you see fit, but that goes for all others as well. I just wonder why there is resistance to adding some color to a game that is a great game, but is not full of historical reality by a longshot.

Perhaps this is a good time to try a poll?? I would ask for a poll on Zulus and Plains Indians lists. They would not be allowed in a tourney unless all of the participants agree. I don't think that is too much to ask? I wasn't asking for a game with orcs and such. There are too many of those already.

Originally posted by Hannibal Ad Portas:
I understand that DBA was set to go up to 1485 AD, but then why do so many of the lists go far beyond that?? Also if we are such purists, then why do we allow non-historical matches in tournament play?

Robert,

Most players will tell you they prefer historical match-ups and in open events you'll usually find the later period armies in the finals.

The armies extend beyond the 1485 date because those nations and armies remained unchanged in composition for that time period. You'll note that no army list or option starts after the 1485 date so any list starting after that does not fit into the DBA frame work.

So if your premise is to come up with new lists that don't exist WITHIN DBA then you are on the wrong path. What is your goal?
New armies for DBA?
Alternate armies for a special DBA variant event?

That being said I have no problem with talking about and developing a potential list for Plains Indians cir 1800-1900 AD as well as a US 6th Cav (it was the 6th wasn't it?) to oppose it.
1x3Cv Gen, 10x3Cv//3Bw(Rifle), 1xArt or 2LH (Indian Scouts).

Marty

[ September 04, 2002, 07:44: Message edited by: Martian ]

Originally posted by David Kuijt:
[QBSo let me paraphrase your point, as I understand it: since non-historical matchups (of historical armies) are allowed, therefore anything should be allowed? Does that go for Orcs, Klingons, Gatling guns, Barsoomian skyships?

My point is that every game system draws some lines about what is included, and what is not included.[/QB]

"Every" game system? I think not, amigo. Hordes of the Things (aka HOTTs or The One Game ) has no such restrictions. There are players out there with a LOT of different armies - and they make sense. (Except of course to the completely unimaginative wargamer.)

A couple of local gamers have armies representing Plains Indians and their white foes. And it is amazing how often Custer still fails.....

Today is a good day to dice!

[ September 04, 2002, 08:50: Message edited by: Basil Bulgar-Slayer ]

Originally posted by Basil Bulgar-Slayer:
"Every" game system? I think not, amigo. Hordes of the Things (aka HOTTs or The One Game ) has no such restrictions.

You're right, HOTT has fewer restrictions than most games. But it still has a version of the 12-element restriction (24 army points?), and it has limited size mapboards, and you're not allowed to take an army with six Gods, and some other things like that. But yes, HOTT is what I'd recommend to anyone who wants to play Custer vs. Crazy Horse using something like DBA.

Why are we having this discussion? Either an army list is included in the DBA 2.0 rules or it's not. Those that are included are allowed in tournaments. Those that are not included are not allowed in tournaments.

Outside of tournaments, it's all up to you. Alternate lists are good. We all like them. Why are we arguing?

- Jack