The actions depicted in the movie are probably not unrealistic, but remember that they are based primarily on a work of fiction.
Here are some factors that may have affected the outcome of such battles in real life:
Initiative: The Native Americans in the movies seized it with both hands. They chose the time & place of the fight. More than that, they chose to make it an ambush, so they had total surprise on their side. Had the british been prepared & fighting on ground of their choosing, they no doubt would have faired much better.
Tactical purpose of the troops: The british troops seen in the movie were regular infantry, trained to fight and manuever in large formations and to deliver volleys of shot with a lot of killing power for the day. They were most effective when facing troops that were similar to themselves. The Native Americans were trained to fight as skirmishers, and highly skilled at individual combat. They were much more experienced with guerilla-style warfare. Given the point above about initiative, it is little wonder if the Native Americans would have enjoyed an overwelming victory.
Command structure: The British were specifically trained to fight in rigid formation and to stand & escew their natural impuses in favor of following commands given by their superiors. The Native Americans , as skirmishers were the exact opposite. They depended heavily on their own individual judgement and would have had difficulty taking orders & acting in unison as a large force.
Weapons: The British were armed with state of the art firearms for their time. While slow, short ranged and & inacurate by today;s standards, they were none the less deadly when correctly deployed in the hands of a properly trained soldier. Additionally, they had several advantages of more archaic wepons, like a bow & arrow. One is that while the weapon itself was much heavier than a bow, the ammunition was emminently more portable. A bundle of just 20 arrows is a bulky thing to carry around, while hundreds of rounds of powder & shot can fit in a small box. Next is training; it can take years of training to become proficient with a long bow, while a soldier can become competent and efficient after a few weeks of training with a gun. Also, with the addition of a bayonet, the rifle becomes an effective short spear for close-in fighting. Most importantly, is the relative damage that a firearm is capable of combared to a bow and arrow. In a battle field situation, I doubt that a bow is ver much more accurate than a gun, but when they connect, thaere is no doubt that a large bore musket of the day does a tremendous amount of damage, even up to severing a limb. While it is certain that you would know you had been wounded when an arrow hits you, it might not put you out of action.
As you can see, this sort of thing depepnds in large amounts on the situation. If it is an ambush on a narrow road surrounded by cover of regular soldiers trained primarily to fight in formation at a distance, by a guerilla force of skirmishers skilled at close quarters hand-to-hand combat, then it will probably be a rather lop-sided victory for the guerillas. If you move the battle to an open firld with no surprise on either side, then the regulars will almost certainly mow down the skirmishers handily.
If you want a real-life example of this, I can think of none better than the battles of Isandlwana and Rorke's Drift from the Anglo-Zulu war at the end of the 19th century.
Two forces, one British regulars with state of the art firearms, one Aboriginal with spears, shields & a few antiquated firearms.
The battle of Isandlwana found the british surprised and the Zulu's able to use dried-out watercourses as cover. It was a humiliating defeat for the world's mightiest nation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Isandlwana
The very next day, at Rorke's drift, the british were ready, and fighting from a prepared position of their choosing. A little under three hundred men fought off a force that numbered between 3000-4000 Zulu Warriors.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Rorke's_Drift
Battles are much more about initiative and the proper use of force than they are about anything else. If you choose bad ground, or your troops are not suited to the job at hand, you are much more likely to lose the fight.
Regads, CanisStatistics: Posted by caniswalensis — 06 Mar 2011, 03:31
]]>