OK. So you have the single most advanced weapon in military warfare up to the date - a Gatling Gun - and instead of using that first - you send in your 200 riders. I mean isn't this the worst strategical decision in any military encounter ever. I mean I get ego etc; but wtf!?!?
shareNo.
That weapon cost more than all of those hired dead men. In those times you do NOT waste an asset such as that.
Yes i think that's the first reason.
Second it's easy for us to say because we know who hides where from this 7 men. We know their traps, but attackers don't.
What if 1-2 men from seven hide well far away and attack from behind, with dynamit? or how do they know where possibly they planted explosives?
You always can find hired guns but i don't know if it was even legal to have such weapon for normal(even rich but normal) citizen. that's a pure army weapon.
I would agree with you but the antagonist is portrayed as extremely powerful and wealthy and 200 mean realistically probably cost more to pay. Ammunition is expenisve but having a reputation for letting your 200 men die to save costs does not make you a man other men would follow again. Sure he can pay them to follow him, but you cant send money when you are dead. Men break ranks. I doubt this guy has infinite access to more men like the british governent/military had. So losing all if his men would would cause work stoppages if they were his workers, and a depletion of mercenaries if they were hired guns. I doubt there were thousands upon thosands of mercenaries yoy could raise i to an army at a moments notice. Even if we are calling the men expendable do you know how many horses would have been lost. Those wouldnt have been cheap either. All in all i doubt ammunitin cost would cause someone to be that reckless with his reputation and resources.
sharePeople sneaking up on the gun with dynamite while 200 men protect it does not make any sense. The gun can take care of anythinng in frint of it, and 200 men can protect the sides abd rear against a smaller enemy force.
shareA gatling is good against massed infantry, or calvary, at close range. It fires a large relatively slow moving projectile.
What you saw a gatling do in this movie is fantasy.
____________________________
Death is the road to awe.
Imagine how much he was saving in pay checks this way.
My take: yes, it was terrible strategy as the Gatling would have softened up any resistance in the village before sending in his riders. To use it late in the fight was meant to underline that Bo was an overconfident antagonist who didn't even care for his own troops.
shareI always thought in any siege it was artillery first, skirmishers 2nd then send in the infantry / cavalry. They had a tiny village with about 100 people living in wooden houses.
I'm sure they brought more than two cartridges for that gatling, I would have just spewed my lead all over that place!