Ancient vs modern warfare

[Daryl Hunt]

With modern small arms, a few soldiers could hold off hundreds of ancient soldiers.

The British lined the dead Zulu up like a cord of wood

...actually the Zulus killed all the Brits at Isandlwana...the Brits had firearms and the Zulus mostly spears

The battle was in 1879. Hardly modern firearms.

Also, the Brits were not sure where the Zulus were, or how many. Modern warfare includes intell that could not be gotten with ancient armies.

Plus, being able to move an entire army via mechanized means, would make the modern army even more invinceable.

..the German and Japanese WW2 main rifles were single shot like the Brit weapons were single shot
...the Native Americans massacred Custer and they used mostly non-firearms against firearms
..WW2 K98 15 rds pm
..Martini Henry 12rpm

Wrong, the Battle of Custer was won mostly by the introduction of the Winchester 1973 and others of that type that the Indians had. It proved to be superior to the Breech Loaders Custers forces used. Even then, less than 200 well trained Army Troops killed over 2000 Indians. But there were over 4000 Indians involved. Normally, the Indians would not have gone into that battle but the hatred they had for the destruction of the Women, Children and Old that Custer had been doing was the last straw. Custer was NOT really a hero when you look at it that way.