Plains Indians army list

Originally posted by Hannibal Ad Portas:
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!!

The Apaches are an interesting tribe. Thier use of the horse is quite different from that of the more Plains-oriented tribes. They should be in consideration as some of the finest guerrilla/light infantry troops in history.

In addition, the Apache had bows that were much more powerful than those of other Native Americans. The trees that they used to make their bows were like yew trees. IIRC, springy in the center and stiff on the outside. (Or is that vice versa.) There are records of Apaches accurately potting - and dropping - enemy targets at about 150 yards.

Originally posted by Basil Bulgar-Slayer:
In addition, the Apache had bows that were much more powerful than those of other Native Americans. The trees that they used to make their bows were like yew trees. IIRC, springy in the center and stiff on the outside. (Or is that vice versa.)

I believe it's vice versa, FWIW.

Why are we even considering asking The Barker about such things? If one wants to play with alternate lists -- a fine, fine idea, IMNSHO -- do so. If one wants to play with such lists in a tournament, promote the idea of setting up HotTs tournments that exclude the fantasy elements. So long as it's HotTs, it should be quite clear that those who are feeling picky about "ahistorical match-ups" shouldn't come anywhere near, and the rest of us (who may well enjoy historical match-ups but don't get hung up on it) can have our fun uninterrupted.

I think a Zulu army is a reasonable inclusion in DBA. I think plains indians are not.

Why?

Although I agree with David that DBA must have lines drawn somewhere, I think those lines should be drawn according to which armies in history it can accurately represent. Zulus fought in coordinated bodies of massed troops, fighting primarily hand to hand in pitched battles with lots of people involved. So even though they are 400 years after the arbitrary cut-off date for DBA, I believe DBA rules simulate them quite well.

Plains indians on the other hand, do not appear to have ever fought pitched battles with large numbers of combatants. They are much more correctly simulated with smaller scale skirmish type games. This criticism applies to most of the American armies in DBA, excluding I suppose Incas, Aztecs, and the like.

[ October 12, 2002, 05:33: Message edited by: Ivan ]

Plains indians on the other hand, do not appear to have ever fought pitched battles with large numbers of combatants. They are much more correctly simulated with smaller scale skirmish type games. This criticism applies to most of the American armies in DBA, excluding I suppose Incas, Aztecs, and the like.

I think Custer and his army buddies would disagree with you! The Little Big Horn was definitely a pitched battle and it involved plenty of Indian combatants. I can't help it if Custer decided to split his force in enemy territory! I don't think the style of Aztec warfare makes their list valid either....No rules for taking ceremonial prisoners and such.

If we can have armies of Vinlanders, a fantasy Persian list from the Xenophon, Mound Builder armies, and the like, then I see no problem with Plains Indians armies or Zulus! In tournament play we allow totally ahistorical match-ups anyway (and great fun they are!!). Furthermore, all DBA games are between perfectly balanced armies on a table giving totally secure flanks (unless your enemey is littoral!) and that is totally unrealistic anyway. More often than not, battles occur between opponents who are unevenly matched! In fact, opponents I have talked to have no more fear of my proposed 12 X Lh armies of Indians than they do of my Mongol armies that already consist of 10+ elements of the same thing!

I am continuing to do research on the Plains Indians, but the material I've found is somewhat repetitive. Here are some things I have found:

The Indians typically organized in warrior groups (similar to knightly orders, in a way!) within their tribes. Some of these groups have unusual practices. Many Indian tribes have groups of warriors who did everything backwards??! The Cheyenne called them Contrary Ones and the Commanches called them "pukutsi." They were recklessly brave in battle though!

Many tribes form alliances with other tribes. There is Indian lore of such alliances leading to "large" battles before the day of the horse, but rarely are specific numbers mentioned. I did see an account of a great war party in 1853 involving 1,500 warriors from the Commanches, Kiowas, Arapahos, Osages and Cheyenne. This groups sought to wipe out all frontier Indians (settlers from the east displaced by the whites) found on the plains. They received a humiliating defeat from a force of 100 Sauk and Fox armed with rifles...The Plains Indians had few firearms themselves and most of these were inferior types.

Most Plains Indians had a peculiar practice of counting coup, whereby a warrior would receive honors for touching his opponent (rather than killing him outright). The number of times coup could be counted on a particular enemy warrior varies from tribe to tribe.

The most common form of Plains Indian warfare seems to be a raid. This really picked up once the horse was available and obtaining horses was often the objective of the raid.

Feathers, war paint, scalps, shield designs etc are indicative of a warrior's prowess in battle or of "visions" he has received. The large war bonnets don't always indicate a chief (like in the movies). In fact, they are every bit as likely to indicate a highly successful warrior (of course, such a man could easily rise to be a chief).

My research points to keeping the Plains Indians a foot army till the 1700's at least. Their units would best be represented as psiloi, bow (this might not be a good choice though...their bows are low-powered and they didn't fight in ranks....I would lean toward psiloi here) and warband. After the arrival of the horse, the Plains Indians would convert to a mounted force of 12 x 2Lh in DBA terms. I think the force should be able to dismount, but I think that option should be limited. Dismounting would occur in the final stages of the battle as some warriors would seek greater glory from hand to hand combat with their foes. Perhaps, the Indian "general" stand should dismount as a warband (many warrior would doubtless cluster around their leader in battle...), and up to 3 more stands should be allowed to dismount as psiloi??

a fantasy Persian list from the Xenophon

I hate it when I have typos....It should read a fantasy Persian list from Xenophon (the author of the book about the 10,000 Greeks and their journey home through hostile territories after the battle of Cunaxa...I have seen a couple of titles for this account...)

Xenophon, spouting fantasy?!? Good god man, compared to Herodotus, he's the very soul of veracity!

Seriously though, I don't think Little Big Horn refutes my claim that the Plains Indians didn't fight pitched battles, because it was fought with rifles on both sides. Clearly then, it is a battle that falls outside of the technological scope of DBA, which limits itself to primitive, un-rifled firearms at best, and in addition, nearly always simulates battles where missile fire was merely an auxiliary to melee. (Agincourt, Crecy etc standout out in history precisely because they were such unusual exceptions) Little Big Horn was decided pretty much entirely by ranged weapons. DBA would be a thorougly inaccurate ruleset with which to represent Little Big Horn.

Since North American natives did not leave written records of their wars, we have to view the archeological evidence. Ohio has several impressive Mound-builder site, all large and very defendable. The Iroquios / Timucan / Guale / Caddo / Cherokee / many other tribes built walls and palisades around their villages to protect themselves. Cahokia in Southern Illnois was a Mound Builder city of 30-50 thousand with huge mounds and a 20 ft log wall enclosing the city. These people did put those defenses up for fun, and they are far more than is needed for raiding parties or glory-seeking coup hunters. Prior to the introduction of european-introduced illnesses of measles & smallpox, the population of N America supported large Amerind armies (several thousand on each side at least), and these guys meant business. Most popular histories of the N Amerinds are sappy, romantic, and totally ahistorical. They fought wars, they exterminated entire populations, in short, not that different from Europeans. When european vistors began writing about tribes, 75-90% of the Amerinds were dead from infectious disease.

Originally posted by orca:
Since North American natives did not leave written records of their wars, we have to view the archeological evidence. Ohio has several impressive Mound-builder site, all large and very defendable.

Actually, the Ohio "forts" are not as defendable as one might think. There are numerous gaps in the earthen walls, and the pits to build these walls are on the inside of the "fortification" not the exterior. Most archaeologists now believe these "forts" were more ceremonial in purpose. Fort Ancient (built by the Hopewell, not the Fort Ancient peoples) is on a plateau above the Little Miami River and can easily be attacked from the east. Fort Hill however rises 400 feet above the valley around it (just climbed it two weeks ago), but has over 40 gaps in the walls.

[/QUOTE]Actually, the Ohio "forts" are not as defendable as one might think. There are numerous gaps in the earthen walls, and the pits to build these walls are on the inside of the "fortification" not the exterior. Most archaeologists now believe these "forts" were more ceremonial in purpose. Fort Ancient (built by the Hopewell, not the Fort Ancient peoples) is on a plateau above the Little Miami River and can easily be attacked from the east. Fort Hill however rises 400 feet above the valley around it (just climbed it two weeks ago), but has over 40 gaps in the walls. [/QUOTE]

I live very close to these sites-I've seen most of them, and I can vouch for this. I wouldn't want the task of defending Fort Ancient--Particularly not against an opponent who's even heard of firearms.

Nate

[ October 20, 2004, 13:06: Message edited by: Aethelfrith ]

I think Chris has posted my DBA Native American Army lists on this site. We also did a history of the Muskogees (Creeks in SE) in an Article of Time Portal Passages which can be found on the Magweb.

In regards to written records, few, oral traditions were strong. Paintings of actions do exist especially among the great Plains Indians.

Early Colonial etchings and descriptions are pretty good since the Indians had not had time to change their primary weapons and tactics during early contact.

I must say that Barker's troop types often bear no relation to the weapons and tactics described by the French and Spanish.