Plains Indians army list

Is this a an arguement? I thought it was a discussion. This is one of the discussion parts of the Forum. It seems like a good discussion to me.

[Chris Brantley]

Here is my idea of how to proceed. We need a precedent. Someone needs to put together an army list (for Plains Indians or others) and append as much historical support/references/rationales as possible. If we were smart, we would pick the most compelling possible historical list as our first submission.

Then email it to Phil Barker and ask him if he will sanction it as an "official" list for DBA 2.0 tournaments.

I don't think anyone has ever asked, and we are currently operating under the assumption he would say no.

If he says yes, then we have a process for getting new army lists approved.

If he says no, then we are no worse off than we are now....we can play variants in friendly games and stick to official lists (in the book) for tournaments.

Chris,

Before someone goes to all the trouble I think there are some things we can look at first.

#1 What does the text portion of the DBM army list say about the North American army lists?

That will probably answer the question of 'Does the Pueblo and Dog Cultures list cover the Plains Indians tribes during the period covered by DBA?'

#2 Email Phil and politely ask if you can contact his source or expert on the Amerind lists.

#3 Start a separate thread on 'Overlooked Armies' where we can nominate candidates for research.

Now if as I suspect, Phil rejects any lists developed in this manner and people still want to play them perhaps NASAMW can open another 'group' during the 'Periods' events for these armies.

How's that?

Marty

In the Pueblo Cultures, 1492-1692 list in the DBR army book, Phil says: "The list ends with the Spanish defeat of the Pueblo Rebellion of 1692, before the acquisition of horses and firearms that was to enable the formerly pedestrian tribes such as the Comanche and the Sioux to dominate the Great Plains"

This leads me to think the Pueblo peoples are the predecessors of the plains peoples. The DBR list is of the same makeup as the DBM list and so the DBA one -- bows and psiloi and warband

[Chris Brantley]

"Predessors" in the sense that the Pueblo Cultures were ascendant before the rise of the Plains Indians cultures, but not "Predecessors" in the sense that the Pueblo Cultures somehow morphed into the Plains Cultures (such that one evolved into the other).

The Pueblo Cultures were ascendant well before horses, and were on their last legs even as the Spanish appeared. At their heighth, they lived in urban areas with thousands of residents. Then something happened and they pretty much disintegrated. Many migrated south (chicimec). Others dispersed into smaller (less urban) groups, the ancestors of the modern Hopis, etc.

Horses spread from the Utes in Utah/Nevada areas and then to plains.

New tribes (e.g. Apaches from Canada) migrated southward across the plains and started competing with the remnants of the Pueblo Cultures.

I think what Phil is sayng is simply that the Pueblo Cultures had ceased to be of military significance (as an army list) before the Plains Indians Cultures arose. I don't read this as suggesting that the same list represents both cultures.

I wouldn't expect a Pueblo Culture army list (representing a highly organized, agriculture-based society) and a Plains Indians army list (loose nomadic society of hunter-gathers) to look substantially similar apart from a similarity in arms (bows, spears, etc.)

[ September 04, 2002, 17:34: Message edited by: Chris Brantley ]

I like Chris Brantley's ideas about submitting a new army list to Phil Barker for approval to establish a precedent. The Plains Indians will be a tough sell and need research. I will attempt to compile that. Anyone out there with data on the Plains Indians can e-mail it to me off list at nordwind44@aol.com. Please! As far as a good candidate for a test submission to Phil Barker, wasn't there some info on a South American tribe that fought the Spanish on horseback and that are not included in DBA? I think it is on the Armies of the Americas theme page on this site....That research seemed to be further along and might make a good test candidate!

How about this one from the SOA page?

A DBM army list for Mapuche and Araucanians 1460AD - 1553 AD
to be converted to DBA.

http://www.soa.org.uk/main/rules/dbmaraucanian.htm

Originally posted by Martian:
[QB....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[/QB]

Sounds like a fun army to me, especially against LH/AX/Ps Sioux army. I may have to try this out.

Note: If we're referring to Custer (and that certainly should be the case) it was the 7th Cavalry. Garry Owen!

I've been picking up lots of research material on this project. The cavalry version of this army will be too late for DBA purists, but I think it will be great fun for the occasional non-tournament game (or maybe some folks will allow it in their tourney??).

I don't think the option of dismounting light horse//bow elements works for this army. The bow of the Plains Indians seems to be a shorter range weapon....it was shortened from earlier foot versions to facilitate its use on horseback. It is also not constructed in such a way as to make it a long range weapon. Therefore, a bow element for this army seems to be inappropriate. Light horse dismounting as warband might be appropriate, but since warbands (3 WB for example) contain more men than 2 Lh elements there is a problem of scale. Perhaps only a few elements should be allowed to dismount as warbands to simulate this?? Another alternative is to allow other Lh units to dismount as psiloi...this makes some sense with the weaker bow, but I think it gets away from the nature of Plains Indian warfare. The warband option seems more appropriate.

So far, I am leaning towards an army shaped this way:

1 X 2Lh//3Wb(Gen), 2 X 2Lh//3Wb, 7 X 2Lh,
2 X 2Lh//2Ps

For Plains Indians armies that conform to the DBA period, one should probably use the Eastern Forest American army list. It seems that many of the Plains Indians started out this way...after migrating on to the plains from previous village life. These would be the so-called "dog days" when the Plains Indians used dogs to pull their worldly goods along. They hunted buffalo in this period, but on foot (lots of work, I am sure!)! The horse did so much for the Native Americans!

An interesting tribe is the Apaches. They probably would use the Mound Builder list for the DBA period, but went to the horse much sooner (some documentation I've seen quotes the late 1500's. They were responsible for spreading the horse to many other tribes in trade....The Apaches were tough opponents for everyone; Spaniards, other Native American tribes and then the US government! They might need their own list....more work to do!!

Originally posted by Hannibal Ad Portas:
So far, I am leaning towards an army shaped this way:

1 X 2Lh//3Wb(Gen), 2 X 2Lh//3Wb, 7 X 2Lh,
2 X 2Lh//2Ps

A disadvantage of choosing this approach is that it might be difficult for the players to keep track of which Lh is which... The General needs to stand out anyway, but you would need some very clear way to distinguish the others.

Tim