Sioux Indians Vs Zulu warriors!
Printed From: History Community ~ All Empires
Category: All Empires Community
Forum Name: Historical Amusement
Forum Discription: For role playing and alternative history discussions.
URL: http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=1539
Printed Date: 09-Jun-2024 at 09:51
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 9.56a - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Sioux Indians Vs Zulu warriors!
Posted By: TMPikachu
Subject: Sioux Indians Vs Zulu warriors!
Date Posted: 12-Dec-2004 at 20:28
|
Who would win!? Pre-European colonization. North American horse nomads vs African tribal warriors! |
Replies:
Posted By: Gubook Janggoon
Date Posted: 12-Dec-2004 at 20:29
|
If it's pre-europe colonization the sioux wouldn't have horses...
------------- |
Posted By: Tobodai
Date Posted: 17-Dec-2004 at 15:56
|
okay i figured it out. What both sides have in common: both beat a major western nation in at least a few battles in the 1870's how they stack up: pre -contact, the Zulu win. They have their oen ability to make iron, an ability to stockpile surplus agricutlure, and a better tactical grasp on things, probably a larger population too. Pre contact Sioux have no horses or guns they were so good at using, no iron. post contact: the Souix win easily, they ride circles around the Zulu with horses and shoot the crap out of them with repeating henry rifles whiel the Zulus only have those spears still, or even if they had Britihs guns they would still be only single shot. ------------- "the people are nothing but a great beast... I have learned to hold popular opinion of no value." -Alexander Hamilton |
Posted By: Cywr
Date Posted: 17-Dec-2004 at 19:43
|
Pre-Columbian Souix weren't even nomadic IIRC, its only after they got horses that they changed their lifestyle no?
-------------  Arrrgh!!"
|
Posted By: Gubook Janggoon
Date Posted: 17-Dec-2004 at 22:36
|
I think you're right. They lived near or in canada at that time I believe.
------------- |
Posted By: Tobodai
Date Posted: 18-Dec-2004 at 02:20
|
no they were still nomadic, the tepee for which they are famous is perfectly designed nomadic living structure. They just didnt seem as nomadic because they couldnt cover as much ground, but they still were because before the horse they still hunted and followed the buffalo, and killed them by scaring them into running off of cliffs, but once that herd was dead and used up you have to move on... ------------- "the people are nothing but a great beast... I have learned to hold popular opinion of no value." -Alexander Hamilton |
Posted By: Belisarius
Date Posted: 25-Dec-2004 at 09:18
|
The Souix were always nomadic as they source of life was the buffalo. In a battle the Zulu would completely crush the pre-colonization Souix. The Zulu were able to field an army of several thousand against the British. The Souix had to ally with numerous other tribes just to break fifteen hundred. Also the Zulu used primitive, albeit effective, tactics, such as the buffalo horn technique. Perhaps if the Souix had their horses, it would be a fairer fight. |
Posted By: chessrook1
Date Posted: 28-Dec-2004 at 22:31
|
Zulus might win if its foot infantry vs foot infantry because they have those steroid hallucegenic drugs they took before taking on the British in the 1900’s. It made them go crazy, increased their strength and their fighting ability. I watched this show about how in this battle which the British were defeated against the Zulus were trying to figure out what happened. It was a combination of gunpowder from their firearms and the drugs the Zulu took. They recreated the drug, gave it to one Martial Arts student against one who didn’t take the drug. The dude went fast and brought his sparring partner down. He said he felt a rush taking those stuff or everything went fast for him and he felt physically strong when he took his partner down in one move. Now, if the Sioux had those horses that the conquistadors left behind, then it would obviously be the Sioux since they can shoot their rifles while riding like the steppe people of Asia as Tobodai mentions. |
Posted By: Degredado
Date Posted: 09-Jan-2005 at 06:59
|
I'm going for the zulus. There is something about the sioux that few may know: though they fought well against the U.S. cavalry, they were afraid of the 'walk-a-heaps', the infantry. ------------- Vou votar nas putas. Estou farto de votar nos filhos delas |
Posted By: Tobodai
Date Posted: 09-Jan-2005 at 19:32
|
yes but cavalry armed primarily with multiple shot repeating rifles (if were going post contact) defeat spears even better than the single shot britihs henry-martini ------------- "the people are nothing but a great beast... I have learned to hold popular opinion of no value." -Alexander Hamilton |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 18-Jan-2005 at 21:35
|
I can really strongly decide. For post contact, the Sioux had repeating rifles and horses, but the Zulus did have that crazy powerful drug, but im leaning more towards the Sioux. For pre contact, definatly the Zulus, they had iron, which will always be better in combat than stone. ------------- |
Posted By: Mangudai
Date Posted: 05-Feb-2005 at 16:01
| If the sioux fought as riflearmed cavalrymen as at Little Bighorn they would surely win despite being heavily outnumbered, as their tactics would be similar to those of the boers - who defeated the zulus at many occasions. All they have to do is to fire and retreat if the enemy comes to close. But it's also a matter of terrain - the zulus did defeat the mounted british at Hlobane where they could exploit the rocky terrain. If the sioux fought on foot they would be swept away by the zulu torrent just like the british |
Posted By: Tobodai
Date Posted: 07-Feb-2005 at 14:41
|
even without horses and in bad terrian the Siooux would probably have a btter time than the British due to their guns. The Britihs henri-martini rifle was a breechloader, but still a single shot, the Sioux were armed primarily with 16 round winchester and Henry rifles and could definately fire at 3 times or more of the speed. I dont think the Ilkwa could stand up to that. Even in the big Zulu victory of Isandlwana they almost broke on approach due to Britihs firepower. The British were also probably not great shots being trained to fire off those silly volleys in general directions anyway. Add that to thier big goofy red suits that stick out like a nightclunb in Kansas and its amazing they did as well as they did! ------------- "the people are nothing but a great beast... I have learned to hold popular opinion of no value." -Alexander Hamilton |
Posted By: Mangudai
Date Posted: 07-Feb-2005 at 16:27
|
Well now I think you're wrong pal. The Martini-Henry did fire at a slower rate than the Winchester, but there are other factors to count: 1. The Martini could fire at a far greater range and made greater damage 2. The Winchester took a long time to reload as all 16 bullets had to be inserted each at a time 3. The sioux had limited ammunition and a limited supply of Winchesters. Many of the braves fighting Custer actually had army carbines of the same type as the 7th cavalty used 4. The british were in fact highly trained marksmen and wolley fire was not a bad choice (if you ask dr. Ian Knight). Bur a rapid fire is not neccessarely a guarantee for hitting more enemies |