AH challenge- US Army suffers bigger defeat by Indians than Wabash River 1791

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Wabash

OK, St Clair's defeat at the Wabash in 1791, which resulted in the loss of 800-900 American soldiers & camp followers to Little Turtle's Indian warriors, was the most catastrophic defeat ever inflicted by hostile Indians against US forces- far greater than the 220-odd men of the 7th Cav who perished with Custer at the LBH in 1876. Now, where & when could an alternative have occurred for an even greater defeat & loss of life among American forces, have occurred, during the course of the Indian Wars, at any time before 1890 ?
 
COuld the Indians summon up a Zulu-sized army? Did the US Army operate in large scale against them (1000+ troops)? Could the Indians change to a more rifle-based form of warfare (IIRC they often had better individual weapons than troopers)?

If so, maybe something similar to Isandhlwana in 1879, due to poor tactical positioning, underestimating the enemy and dodgy rifle ammunition.
 
COuld the Indians summon up a Zulu-sized army? Did the US Army operate in large scale against them (1000+ troops)? Could the Indians change to a more rifle-based form of warfare (IIRC they often had better individual weapons than troopers)?

If so, maybe something similar to Isandhlwana in 1879, due to poor tactical positioning, underestimating the enemy and dodgy rifle ammunition.

It's doubtful that Zulu-sized numbers are possible even with a unified tribal front. NA populations were too small and far to divided.

More rifles might help in the late 1800s (with repeaters), but prior to that the bow held a better rate of fire and was in many ways superior for woodland combat.

I figure underestimation is very much a possibility (see Custer, George A.) and a major ambush is possible under the right conditions.
 
That's what I was thinking.

Maybe you need to have a largish force, rather complacent, being led by a dipshit OC who doesn't fear his enemy, heading through terrain that favours hit-and-run tactics. I'd assume also with very little/no cavalry screen.

OR - What about derailing a big troop train taking troops across country - over a bridge or in a tunnel - then kill off the survivors? Not quite the same, but surely best conceivable way in which it could occur?

Did any of them run through such places - cos I'm relying on Around the World in 80 Days for the scenario! :D
 

MrP

Banned
That's what I was thinking.

Maybe you need to have a largish force, rather complacent, being led by a dipshit OC who doesn't fear his enemy, heading through terrain that favours hit-and-run tactics. I'd assume also with very little/no cavalry screen.

OR - What about derailing a big troop train taking troops across country - over a bridge or in a tunnel - then kill off the survivors? Not quite the same, but surely best conceivable way in which it could occur?

Did any of them run through such places - cos I'm relying on Around the World in 80 Days for the scenario! :D

Had me thinking of Quintus Varus with that woodland ambush! :D
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Wabash

OK, St Clair's defeat at the Wabash in 1791, which resulted in the loss of 800-900 American soldiers & camp followers to Little Turtle's Indian warriors, was the most catastrophic defeat ever inflicted by hostile Indians against US forces- far greater than the 220-odd men of the 7th Cav who perished with Custer at the LBH in 1876. Now, where & when could an alternative have occurred for an even greater defeat & loss of life among American forces, have occurred, during the course of the Indian Wars, at any time before 1890 ?

In order for such an event to occur, you have to have 1) a sufficiently large number of U.S. troops gathered in one place to be killed and 2) enough Native Americans present to carry out the slaughter. There were relatively few cases where such large numbers were actually to be found, gathered together in one place, during the Indian Wars.

Probably the best chance for something like that occurring would be during the Cherokee Removal in 1838. Winfield Scott led a force of 7,000 troops (regulars and militia) into Cherokee territory in May 1838. The Cherokee lived in the rugged northern mountains of Georgia, and there are many places in that region where a large column of soldiers could be ambushed. There were enough Cherokees that a force of 2-3,000 warriors could probably have been raised, had the decision been made to violently resist the removal. Given a good ambush position, they might well have inflicted well over 1,000 casualties on Scott's force, and indeed, with luck, might have pretty much annihilated it.

Of course, then the Cherokee removal would have become the War of Cherokee Extermination. But Native American victories always turned out badly for them in the end.
 
Last edited:
Top