RAR: Little Bighorn vs. Rorke's Drift

[Elheru Aran]

Oy. I watched that paragon of colonial glorification cinema, 'Zulu' the other day. Been thinking about it and doing a bit of wiki-walking since. Little Bighorn and Rorke's Drift share similarities-- outnumbered white soldiers being attacked by a large group of native warriors. But the setting is rather different, as are the combatants. So that got me intrigued thinking about the possibilities.

A few different scenarios came to mind.

--Custer and the ~600 men and officers of the 7th Cavalry face down a Zulu impi of roughly equal numbers to the Native warriors they faced that day, at the Little Bighorn battlefield. Custer and company are per history (Springfields, revolvers, no sabers per Custer's orders); the Zulu have marching order of shields, iklwa (assegai) and knobkerries with a scattering of rifles. Numbers of the Natives at the Greasy Grass are regrettably vague, going from as little as 1 thousand to as much as 7, but the latter number is much more likely a total of those in the village. Actual fighting men would have been more around 1,500-2,000. Custer's troops are arranged upon a ridge above the native village. The Zulu have from mid-afternoon to nightfall (about four or five hours) to defeat Custer by killing ~200 men. Victory for Custer will be driving the Zulu into a retreat. Who wins?

--Lieutenants Chard and Bromhead and their ~150 troops defend the hastily fortified mission at Rorke's Drift against the ~3-4,000... Native American warrior cavalry. Martini-Henry rifles and bayonets for the redcoats, and a number of Winchesters, Springfields, the odd trade musket and revolver, as well as traditional melee weapons and bow and arrow on the Native side. The Native Americans have roughly 24 hours (midday to midday) to take the mission and defeat the British before withdrawing.

--Roughly equal forces of Zulus and Natives, say 5,000 strong, face each other on... for the hell of it, let's say Gettysburg battle-field. Zulus are north of the town (Confederate positions) and Natives are arranged along Cemetery Hill. The Natives have no re-mounts. They have from sunrise to sunset to finish the battle.

What do you lot think?

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Custer and his men are profoundly unsuited for defending Rourke's Drift. I mean, profoundly. They are cavalrymen. They could avoid battle by falling back, however, as it is a regular infantry assault -- give the Zulus credit for that. The battle lasts until Custer gives up and runs, in short. Expect him to not fortify, to advance, to get his troop ravaged -- but unlike where he perished, he isn't facing cavalry pursuit when he tries to run away, so most of the force will escape just like the British cavalry did at Isandhlwana--General Horace Smith-Dorrien, a profoundly malaligned and one of the better British Army commanders of the first part of WW--owed his life to a Natal Native Horse trooper, one of the black soldiers who escaped in about the number of 200 on horseback, the primary British survivors, and rescued many of the others by letting them ride double. So the Zulu are profoundly unsuited to pursuing horse. The problem is that Custer will go and get his command thoroughly mauled first due to his aggression in conducting assaults and the likelihood of conducting inadequate reconnaissance in the circumstances. He does not have the force to break an Impi--that is not the job of cavalry of his type--and he possesses no ability to deliver shock to them that would be required to achieve success in breaking their lines.

As for Chard and Bromhead, their situation is very favorable. They must only maintain their post until Lord Chelmsford's column returns and assuming the Sioux dismount they will only need to deal with detached infiltration attempts instead of a general assault. Losses may actually be heavier due to the higher-quality and larger quantity of supporting fire, but as long as they maintain the line and a reserve against small groups infiltrating, especially in the night, it will be bloody but unremarkable.

At your Gettysburg scenario, the Sioux will ride out from the city to fight in the open plains. A Zulu advance across them will see them cut off under continuous and constant harassing fire for hours. Thirst will do most of the work. I cannot speculation on whether or not the Zulu would be able to muster the discipline in the circumstances to carry through to the town, which easily held due to the narrow streets and with sources of water, would allow them a stalemate. They could, of course, never drive the Sioux from the field, just from the town itself.

This is unimaginably silly I must say -- one was a cavalry battle and one was an infantry battle, and the mismatch largely removes the "native" factor. Skirmishing cavalry cannot take fortified positions except in the most absurd blunders; regular infantry blocks like the Zulu's very well organized formations are not meant to defeat cavalry, but nor can they be defeated by it unless the cavalry is capable of delivering shock.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

More entertaining would be to bring up the Light Brigade as reinforcements for Durnford and see if they manage to get themselves massacred too.

[Elheru Aran]

Point of order; Custer isn't at Rorke's Drift, he's at the Little Bighorn.

Apart from that I tend to agree with the conclusion that his cavalry couldn't have hurt the Zulu much, and vice versa. What, if any, effect would a charge have had against the Zulu (and upon the cavalry in their turn) on the open grassland should Custer attempt this in the hypothetical? I suspect that given that the 7th Cavalry only had single-shot breechloaders and revolvers, it would not do them much good without their sabers as the Zulu might be able to stay out of the horses' way.

As for Rorke's Drift: You don't think that the Natives would attempt a direct, overwhelming attack with their horse? Is it too likely that the British will be able to see off the light cavalry with bayonets from behind a lightly fortified position? I do suppose that the Native Americans were too attached to their horse to really consider an infantry charge, so that improves the 24th's odds.

Native vs native: That was mostly a 'throw it in'. I know it's silly, that's part of the fun So light cavalry like the Sioux cannot match (moderately) heavy infantry like the Zulu? Interesting. You don't think their better firepower would give them any advantage?

[The Duchess of Zeon]

First point: The analysis stands in open grassland all the better. The Zulus might do more hurt where Custer is in confined spaces. Custer might try to keep them off of water, but tactically he was never the kind of careful man to engage in such a patient strategy.

Second point: You do not attack a fixed, fortified position with cavalry. I actually expect, and said as much that the Sioux would dismount -- and that it would do nothing at all, because they won't have sufficient mass to threaten to overwhelm a properly tended line. Western plains peoples did not generally attack fortification--for good reason. They had plenty of other ways of fighting back, and used them to avoid wasting people. And you just can't attack a very well prepared position like that with cavalry when you have no artillery to soften it first, if even then.

Third point: One, the Zulu had plenty of guns, and two, I gave the advantage to the Sioux -- they could prospectively annihilate the Zulu force, and they can't be defeated by it. However, the town is an easy, obvious objective which totally negates the combat effectiveness of the Sioux -- and there's no way for them to defend it. They just have to go fight the battle in the open where light cavalry can surround and harass infantry to death. If you force the cavalry down a narrow constricted path like inside of a town--or the Mongols trying to cross the Tisza (what made the Mongols different from those who had come before and what let them win was their ability to integrate artillery and military engineering into the mix)--infantry will always predominate.

[Elheru Aran]

Ah, I misread "A Zulu advance across them will see them cut off under continuous and constant harassing fire for hours"-- it was not immediately clear to me which 'them' was meant...

Certainly the Zulu had guns but my understanding of the situation there was that they were unpopular due to cultural reasons, their troops had near to no actual ability with the guns (aiming being a matter of pointing, closing their eyes and pulling the trigger) and their supplies of powder and ball were of poor quality and quantity. Do you have anything that indicates otherwise?

This has been quite instructive, especially in regard with cavalry.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

The Zulu deemphasized firearms because they thought a quick rush with the spear into close range could negate them, not because they were completely inept with them. Properly handled this was true. This was not merely a Zulu idea, either; the French bayonet charge of the Second Empire in columnar formation that was their de rigeur through their defeat in the Franco-Prussian War was exactly the same conception. Though unlikely to hit anything except massed formations, their fire could and was used for suppression to support the spear charge -- as a great deal of modern fire is--performing a valuable function even though it is not meant to kill.

[Elfdart]

The Sioux had over 200 lever-action rifles and at least as many Civil War era breechloaders, plus huge amounts of ammunition. Bags of corn, a few overturned wagons and a single farmhouse aren't going to withstand that kind of firepower. Chard and Bromhead get scalped in this scenario.

[Simon_Jester]

The Zulu deemphasized firearms because they thought a quick rush with the spear into close range could negate them, not because they were completely inept with them. Properly handled this was true. This was not merely a Zulu idea, either; the French bayonet charge of the Second Empire in columnar formation that was their de rigeur through their defeat in the Franco-Prussian War was exactly the same conception. Though unlikely to hit anything except massed formations, their fire could and was used for suppression to support the spear charge -- as a great deal of modern fire is--performing a valuable function even though it is not meant to kill.

It's amusing to think that 'first rate' European armies of the 19th century advocated tactics which would put them at, functionally speaking, equivalency with a Zulu impi whose equipment and social milieu is thoroughly Iron Age in character.

So much for Europeans being 'advanced' in any meaningful sense personally, as opposed to technologically...

The Sioux had over 200 lever-action rifles and at least as many Civil War era breechloaders, plus huge amounts of ammunition. Bags of corn, a few overturned wagons and a single farmhouse aren't going to withstand that kind of firepower. Chard and Bromhead get scalped in this scenario.

Debateable. There are roughly 140 British regulars on the scene, with broadly comparable weapons. The Sioux riflemen outnumber them roughly three to one... but it is debateable whether that is enough to allow the Sioux to simply outshoot even a lightly-dug in force. Ultimately the Sioux would probably still have to rush the position and clear it in hand to hand, and unlike the Zulus, they have neither the training nor the doctrinal inclination to do so.

[Elheru Aran]

The Sioux had over 200 lever-action rifles and at least as many Civil War era breechloaders, plus huge amounts of ammunition. Bags of corn, a few overturned wagons and a single farmhouse aren't going to withstand that kind of firepower. Chard and Bromhead get scalped in this scenario.

Debateable. There are roughly 140 British regulars on the scene, with broadly comparable weapons. The Sioux riflemen outnumber them roughly three to one... but it is debateable whether that is enough to allow the Sioux to simply outshoot even a lightly-dug in force. Ultimately the Sioux would probably still have to rush the position and clear it in hand to hand, and unlike the Zulus, they have neither the training nor the doctrinal inclination to do so.

I'm with Simon on this. Digging in is an incredibly effective way-- not 100%, but pretty good-- to keep from getting shot up, and 19th century repeating rifles don't have the firepower to just blast through layered stacks of maize sacks like modern guns do.

Add to that the fact that it takes far fewer men to defend a dug-in position than in open country, and you are talking the historical scenario-- hand-to-hand combat at the walls, because otherwise the British get to just sit there and wait it out while firing back. This is not something that Native American warriors in the West ever excelled at. They were great fighters on an individual basis, but when it came to working together in groups larger than a few men, they weren't particularly good. Their tactics were more run-and-shoot than actually getting stuck in and they simply didn't care to really commit to fights that had uncertain outcomes unless they were seeking glory or death.

The British are a little more pragmatic than that, and fully aware they have no options but to stick it out. In this situation, the Zulu are almost better off than a battalion of Sioux would have been...

[Simon_Jester]

Definitely better off than the Sioux, in all respects except the inferiority of their firearms.

The Zulu impi were in the process of evolving into something analogous to the Roman legions; a finely disciplined and coordinated fighting force that excelled at using shock tactics and high operational mobility to break their foes.

When it comes to the task of carrying a fortified position at spearpoint (or in European terms, at the bayonet) I'd bet on the Zulus any day.

On the other hand, for open-field warfare, I'd bet on the Sioux, who were among the best light cavalry in the world.

[Esquire]

I'm curious about that last claim - not that I disagree; I've got no expertise on 19th-century light cavalry, but I'm wondering why you say the Sioux were among the world's best?

[Elheru Aran]

I'm not Simon, but I'll take a bash at it.

Light cavalry fill a somewhat unique role. They don't pack the heavy armament and equipment of heavy cavalry or infantry. Their place is in carrying messages, scouting, harassment/raiding, and maneuvering. The latter, especially, requires excellent horsemanship (not so much these days, it's more likely a light IFV or a Hummer... or a helicopter). They don't fight the enemy very directly; rather, they stand off at a distance, with the occasional harassing charge that's not intended to break heavy formations but to corral them and whittle them down. If they close, they lose one of their biggest advantages, which is speed, so they tend to run in briefly, exchange blows, and run back out of range. Once the enemy is broken, then they take the role of pursuers and ride them down.

Say what you will about the battle prowess of the Native Americans, but one thing was for certain with the Plains tribes: they were very good horsemen, and had a good understanding of how to use those horses in light combat. As far as that goes, they are up there with (for example) Cossacks and Mongols (with the caveat that the latter two had heavy cavalry as well as light, IIRC).

[Bedlam]

I'm not Simon, but I'll take a bash at it.

Light cavalry fill a somewhat unique role. They don't pack the heavy armament and equipment of heavy cavalry or infantry. Their place is in carrying messages, scouting, harassment/raiding, and maneuvering. The latter, especially, requires excellent horsemanship (not so much these days, it's more likely a light IFV or a Hummer... or a helicopter). They don't fight the enemy very directly; rather, they stand off at a distance, with the occasional harassing charge that's not intended to break heavy formations but to corral them and whittle them down. If they close, they lose one of their biggest advantages, which is speed, so they tend to run in briefly, exchange blows, and run back out of range. Once the enemy is broken, then they take the role of pursuers and ride them down.

Say what you will about the battle prowess of the Native Americans, but one thing was for certain with the Plains tribes: they were very good horsemen, and had a good understanding of how to use those horses in light combat. As far as that goes, they are up there with (for example) Cossacks and Mongols (with the caveat that the latter two had heavy cavalry as well as light, IIRC).

I've always wondered why they were such good horsemen? Horses hadn't been native for millennia since they became extinct in the new world (probably helped by the Native American's ancestors) so the culture of horsemanship sprung up in a few hundred years at most, how did that happen? Was it just because the terrain favoured the skills?

[Elheru Aran]

Yes-- open grasslands are extremely conductive to horsemanship. Most tribal cultures noted for horsemanship come from such open terrain-- Mongol grassy deserts, Russian steppes, Kentucky, and so forth.

As well, it turns out that a hunter-gatherer culture actually has a surprising amount of free time once their needs are taken care of. That means that the warrior society of the Native Americans had little better to occupy their time than hunting, fighting each other, and honing their skills. Lots of practice time-- their fighting style was their hunting style writ large. They were fast learners and they made good use of their time. The biggest flaws they had was a lack of training with modern weapons (though they made up for that quickly, their drawback there was a lack of regular supply) and a lack of co-ordination and unity between the various tribal factions.

[Simon_Jester]

Once horses that are fit to be ridden become available, it really isn't going to take that many generations for good horsemanship to develop. After all, one person can learn all there is to know about horsemanship in a decade or two; even if a lot of it has to be figured out from scratch a few centuries is plenty of time.

Remember that the Plains Indians were taming wild herds of what were, genetically speaking, modern domesticated horses released onto the plains. Many of those horses' ancestors already made perfectly suitable cavalry stock.

The natives did not have to laboriously breed viable horses from the tiny pony-like root stock... and that is the part that took thousands of years of development in the Old World. The hard part is genetically tinkering via selective breeding to go from relatively tiny and weak horses that were unfit to be used in warfare in ancient times, up to the heavy, tenacious warhorses of the medieval period.

[Sea Skimmer]

The advantage went even further then some respects. They not just had horses of modern sizes and only slightly removed from domestication, but the most favorable types. In the process that centuries of tinkering you got two main branches of development, warm vs cold breeds, the later being where you find the most giant of war horses that soon turned into draft horses and artillery horses. The Spanish were however champions of the lighter, faster warm breeds, which by this point had gotten large enough for lightly armored men anyway, and were more or less ideal for Indian needs. Those horses also tend to be very free spirited and while highly trainable, need a lot of specific attention the way a draft horse does not. Which really bundles right into forming a rapid horse culture as opposed to just using animals for transport.

You can also make mixed bloods via the obvious means to do so, but they generally had specific purposes and appear as far as I'm aware to be more relevant to 19th and 20th centuries military needs and modern random 'lets make new horse breed for the fuck of it it' stuff.