|
Post by "Hunk" Papa on Mar 22, 2011 8:56:59 GMT -6
3. Indian organization. Indians had an organic organizational design. It is not as simple as Sioux and Cheyenne. a. Circles. The six camp circles formed their basic organization. No one person was in charge of all the circles. No one person commanded the individual circles. Command was executed through a council of leaders. b. Stragglers. Even six circles is too simple. The Indians had a variety of stragglers in camp. These included many non Sioux, non Cheyenne. It also included the agency warriors. Some of these attached themselves to a related circle, many stayed and fought in their own small bands. 4. Command. b. Inspirational leaders. Indian leaders had little command authority. Their ability to lead was based on previous reputation, leadership within a society, and primarily inspirational. It was definitely 'do as I do' leadership. 3a) You are wrong here. The Nakota/Dakota/Lakota tribal construction consisted of seven camp circles. They were the Mdewakantonwan, Wahpekute, Wahpetononwan, Sisitonwan, Ihanktonwan, Ihanktonwanna, and Titonwan. The Titonwan, who became the western plain dwellers, were further divided into seven camp circles. These were, the Sicangu (Brule or Burnt Thighs), Oohenonpa (Boils-twice or Two Kettles), Minikanyewozupi (Plant-near-water or Mnicoujou), Oglala (Cast-on-own or Oglala), Itazipco (No-bow or Sans Arc), Sihasapa (Black-foot or Blackfeet), and Hunkpapa (End-of-Horn or Hunkpapa). 3b) Apart from the 5 Arapaho, there do not seem to have been many non-Sioux or Cheyenne. If you have information to the contrary could you let is have the details please? 4b) Indians followed someone because he was known to have good 'medicine' in either raiding or warfare. It was not do as I do leadership, just the contrary. More 'we will follow you so long as your medicine remains strong.'
|
|
|
Post by "Hunk" Papa on Mar 22, 2011 9:22:38 GMT -6
1) As an example of something I will explore later, the Plains Indians grew from a horseless warrior society. The horse came in with the Spanish, and reached these tribes about 150ish years ago. 2) As an additional note, the Sioux were originally from farther east, Bears country (NFL Bears). SO they also had traditions that made sense in forests. The forced shift west and the addition of horses caused a massive change in the norms and procedures of Sioux (and Cheyenne) society. 3) When is the earliest Sioux known occupancy of the Black Hills? 1800? Respectfully, William 1) Whilst there is argument over when the Sioux obtained horses, their winter counts pictographic records show that they were trading for horses by 1707. 2) Yes, from near Spirit Lake and Knife Lake in Minnesota. They were drive west by the Chippewa, who received guns from the whites. 3) An Oglala party under Standing Bull reached the Black Hills in 1775-6. Regards. "Hunk"
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on Mar 22, 2011 10:30:40 GMT -6
How in the world is the year for a pictograph divined? By what coldly objective source? When, exactly, was the pictograph drawn? It would be a mistake to think these were all churned out on December 31 each year, or that they counted their years the same way. Or that the person doing it was the most informed for the tribe as a whole.
This also applies to 'journals' and 'diaries' which are often written well after the fact, designed to be read by others, and not only a closed window to the writer's soul but manipulative and self serving.
How in the world do we know for fact that someone named Standing Bear reached the Black Hills 1.) at all or 2.) in 1775-1776? What year were the Crow finally driven out to begin the fiction of 'forever' that the Sioux claim for their ownership parameters? Does it coincide with the Crow's recollection?
I noted last year that the European heart symbol of Valentine's Day fame is somehow the Indians' for heart as well, although it could not without corruption from the whites, bearing zero resemblance to a human heart and also was not always granted the same emotional content, either. Also, the sign for horse tracks are horse shoes, also a corruption. These are the things that could disperse thoughts of best evidence to pictographs.
|
|
|
Post by "Hunk" Papa on Mar 22, 2011 15:35:42 GMT -6
How in the world is the year for a pictograph divined? By what coldly objective source? When, exactly, was the pictograph drawn? It would be a mistake to think these were all churned out on December 31 each year, or that they counted their years the same way. Or that the person doing it was the most informed for the tribe as a whole. This also applies to 'journals' and 'diaries' which are often written well after the fact, designed to be read by others, and not only a closed window to the writer's soul but manipulative and self serving. How in the world do we know for fact that someone named Standing Bear reached the Black Hills 1.) at all or 2.) in 1775-1776? What year were the Crow finally driven out to begin the fiction of 'forever' that the Sioux claim for their ownership parameters? Does it coincide with the Crow's recollection? I noted last year that the European heart symbol of Valentine's Day fame is somehow the Indians' for heart as well, although it could not without corruption from the whites, bearing zero resemblance to a human heart and also was not always granted the same emotional content, either. Also, the sign for horse tracks are horse shoes, also a corruption. These are the things that could disperse thoughts of best evidence to pictographs. If you really want some idea of how pictographs are interpreted get "Rubbing Out Longhair" by Rod Thomas and "A Pictographic History of the Oglala Sioux" by Amos Bad Heart Bull and Helen H. Blish and do your own research you lazy slob.
|
|
|
Post by wild on Mar 22, 2011 16:59:19 GMT -6
Hi Montrose Your opus on command and control is outstanding.A must read for all aficianadoes. of military strategy. However I feel that your choice of battle and unit is unsuitable for demonstration purposes. Could I suggest the Battle of Kursk or El Alamain and perhaps the first guards tank division/Desert Rats as better suited to the complexities of command and control. At the LBH there were no strategic hill tops to be held,bridge heads to be established.avenue of approch to be covered,recons to be carried out.Custer was so outnumbered that the terrain took on the appearance of a snooker table. A cavalry regiment is not a stand alone unit with support elements.It has but one shot in the locker and that is massed shock attack.Custer tried this but his 8 troops fragmented due to enemy action and terrain. Custer was defeated as surely as Reno was even though he did not fire a shot.The 5 troops he took North was not his main attack but a fragment of the Custer/Reno failure. Far from being a battle of maneuver the Battle rrdge clash was little more than mopping up
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on Mar 23, 2011 15:25:18 GMT -6
Well, Hunk, since I've had to go to the library a few times to track down your misstatements of fact from the Oxford and endured your sliding away from original positions concerning honor (how appropriate...), and your standard manner when not being able to answer questions about your contentions, and your inability to admit error (apparently this conflicts with the dramatic photo of The Gun and The Books You've Read, just like so many other punks pose with firearms and ski masks and their copy of the Turner Diaries or the Koran) I'll safely assume you don't know, either. Precedent and all. I certainly don't know, and I don't understand how anyone COULD know absent first hand presence at the creation, which I gather is not the case. Perhaps someone else knows and can answer: How in the world do we know for fact that someone named Standing Bear reached the Black Hills 1.) at all or 2.) in 1775-1776? What year were the Crow finally driven out to begin the fiction of 'forever' that the Sioux claim for their ownership parameters? Does it coincide with the Crow's recollection? If it's just because a pictograph or winter count says so, and it appears late in the game, which we might know by the European symbol or two utilized as mentioned, then it cannot be assumed to be worth much. For the record, from Wikipedia's page of the Lakota People, seemingly well done (but who knows, right?), this: In 1765, a Saône exploring and raiding party led by Chief Standing Bear discovered the Black Hills (which they call the Paha Sapa), first the territory of the Cheyenne. Just a decade later, in 1775, the Oglala and Brulé also crossed the river. The great smallpox epidemic of 1772–1780 destroyed three-quarters of the American Indian populations in the Missouri Valley. In 1776, the Lakota defeated the Cheyenne, as the Cheyenne had earlier defeated the Kiowa.[citation needed] The Cheyenne moved west into the Powder River Country,[3] and the Lakota gained control of the land which became the center of the Lakota universe.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lakota_people(So, let's see if Standing Bear's Putter of Discovery was 1775-6 as Hunk says, and not the decade earlier as Wikipedia contends. Of course, no citations here, either. Also, is the contention now that the Crows weren't resident, but the Cheyenne? Or is this just a modern need?) Thanks, Bonehead, the Lazy Slob
|
|
|
Post by montrose on Mar 23, 2011 16:55:43 GMT -6
I am continuing discussion In Indian C2.
First warning. Indian seemed to react to the arrival of US forces about 20-30 minutes out. I base this on the sightings of dust from the pony herds being run in when Reno was approaching Ford B.
My assumption is that Indians in the lower reach of Ash Creek (Vicinity North Fork) saw the column and rapidly went back to the village. Note this means that whoever was with Deeds was almost certainly not the first messenger to raise the alarm. I follow Hardorff in believing Deeds died east of Ford A. The village was already reacting at this same time.
Since six women and 4 children dies just south of the village, the alarm was inconsistent. Some got the word before others. It does appear that the Sans Arc had time to completely evacuate their village.
First warning of Custer's approach appears to be from some women east of the river who were gathering turnips. The fact that they all retreated safely is likely due to US forces stopping to look into the valley and the N/C ridge incident.
Indian tactics, techniques, and procedures. There is an interesting C2 issue that took place in the Reno, Keough, and LSH fights. In each skirmish the Indians rapidly moved to block retreat routes of US forces.
This swarming tactic is fairly sophisticated. It is difficult to control forces that widely separated. You need excellent small unit leaders. They will have to make independent decisions on advancing or retreating, of fire and maneuver.
The Indian attack down the valley past Reno is brilliant. They ignored Reno's position, stayed out of range, and got into his rear. They cut him off from Ford A. Under their highly decentralized system, I would assume most Indians would want to stay between Reno and the village, and execute a much shallower flanking movement. This move shows discipline, courage, and more internal control than is apparent in traditional views of the Indians as savages fighting in mobs.
The Keough fight is also interesting. The first major Indian move was south. Indians rapidly occupied low ground south of Calhoun Hill, blocking US forces from retreating on their back trail. Other forces rapidly filled the area west of Calhoun protecting the village. But this was after the initial move south. Sizable numbers of Indians moved north and south of Keough to get onto his unprotected east flank, blocking US ability to flee in that direction.
Indian actions in the destruction of Keough's force show great agility and audacity of Indian small unit leaders. C CO attack exposed their flank and rear, especially to the north. In addition, C CO attack went too far, exposing Calhoun's rear. Lame White Man and others saw this opportunity and exploited.
When Calhoun changed his companies front to face west, the Indians to his south and east immediately attacked. From their positions, they could not see the LWM and others attacking on the other side of battle ridge. They reacted to what they saw US forces doing. Another brilliant move.
Respectfully,
William
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on Mar 23, 2011 17:26:18 GMT -6
Your praise and descriptions are like AZ's, although he credits Indian actions of swarm and surround to hunting tactics of any predator, not to a central command, or even necessarily an insightful blocking of retreat roads, but just superior numbers expanding round to be in on the kill.
We cannot know what Calhoun and Keogh did, although the scenario could be true, but attacking when the enemy turns its back on you might be better characterized as wolf like than especially brilliant. That's not a slam against the Sioux and Cheyenne, but that's how they'd kill bison or mammoth. Like good, efficient predators, they don't waste motion or opportunity.
|
|
|
Post by wild on Mar 23, 2011 17:34:47 GMT -6
What year were the Crow finally driven out to begin the fiction of 'forever' that the Sioux claim for their ownership parameters? There was no recognised right of ownership.Ownership was what you could hold by force of arms.Anyway is Ownership of territory by a hunter gatherer society not a contradiction in terms? Did hunting grounds not shift with the changing seasons? Ownership is too strong a word for the relationship Indians had with any piece of real estate. Indians were as likely as not to up and leave their "ancestral" home on a whim.
|
|
|
Post by wild on Mar 23, 2011 18:04:09 GMT -6
Montrose Your knowledge of the minute details of the unfolding massacre are astonishing. You know that a particular company changed front ?
This move shows discipline, courage, and more internal control than is apparent in traditional views of the Indians as savages fighting in mobs. But they missed an opportunity to destroy Reno.Reno's withdrawal of the skirmish line left him open to a sudden charge when he was changing formation.
Indian actions in the destruction of Keough's force show great agility and audacity of Indian small unit leaders. Keogh did not even command the ridge in front of him. unfortunately the 7th made the Indians look good.The Rosebud is the battle if you want to give examples of Indian tactics
|
|
|
Post by bc on Mar 23, 2011 21:43:29 GMT -6
I am continuing discussion In Indian C2. First warning. Indian seemed to react to the arrival of US forces about 20-30 minutes out. I base this on the sightings of dust from the pony herds being run in when Reno was approaching Ford B. My assumption is that Indians in the lower reach of Ash Creek (Vicinity North Fork) saw the column and rapidly went back to the village. Note this means that whoever was with Deeds was almost certainly not the first messenger to raise the alarm. I follow Hardorff in believing Deeds died east of Ford A. The village was already reacting at this same time. Since six women and 4 children dies just south of the village, the alarm was inconsistent. Some got the word before others. It does appear that the Sans Arc had time to completely evacuate their village. First warning of Custer's approach appears to be from some women east of the river who were gathering turnips. The fact that they all retreated safely is likely due to US forces stopping to look into the valley and the N/C ridge incident. Respectfully, William William, I am with you on this regarding driving some NAs down Ash/Reno creek. Everything just adds up and falls into place when you consider the testimony. Same for in MTC. bc
|
|
|
Post by "Hunk" Papa on Mar 24, 2011 5:59:07 GMT -6
Well, Hunk, since I've had to go to the library a few times to track down your misstatements of fact from the Oxford and endured your sliding away from original positions concerning honor (how appropriate...), and your standard manner when not being able to answer questions about your contentions, and your inability to admit error (apparently this conflicts with the dramatic photo of The Gun and The Books You've Read, just like so many other punks pose with firearms and ski masks and their copy of the Turner Diaries or the Koran) I'll safely assume you don't know, either. Precedent and all. I certainly don't know, and I don't understand how anyone COULD know absent first hand presence at the creation, which I gather is not the case. Perhaps someone else knows and can answer: How in the world do we know for fact that someone named Standing Bear reached the Black Hills 1.) at all or 2.) in 1775-1776? What year were the Crow finally driven out to begin the fiction of 'forever' that the Sioux claim for their ownership parameters? Does it coincide with the Crow's recollection? If it's just because a pictograph or winter count says so, and it appears late in the game, which we might know by the European symbol or two utilized as mentioned, then it cannot be assumed to be worth much. For the record, from Wikipedia's page of the Lakota People, seemingly well done (but who knows, right?), this: In 1765, a Saône exploring and raiding party led by Chief Standing Bear discovered the Black Hills (which they call the Paha Sapa), first the territory of the Cheyenne. Just a decade later, in 1775, the Oglala and Brulé also crossed the river. The great smallpox epidemic of 1772–1780 destroyed three-quarters of the American Indian populations in the Missouri Valley. In 1776, the Lakota defeated the Cheyenne, as the Cheyenne had earlier defeated the Kiowa.[citation needed] The Cheyenne moved west into the Powder River Country,[3] and the Lakota gained control of the land which became the center of the Lakota universe.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lakota_people(So, let's see if Standing Bear's Putter of Discovery was 1775-6 as Hunk says, and not the decade earlier as Wikipedia contends. Of course, no citations here, either. Also, is the contention now that the Crows weren't resident, but the Cheyenne? Or is this just a modern need?) Thanks, Bonehead, the Lazy Slob Daicee, your trouncing on the 'Honor' thread still rankles I see. Get over it and move on, though I doubt you are capable. Wikipedia? A prime source if ever there was one! Especially compared to the Center for the History of the American Indian, Newberry Library and authors such as W.W. Newcomb Jr., and John C. Ewers. Intelligent Anglo
|
|
|
Post by AZ Ranger on Mar 24, 2011 7:46:09 GMT -6
My thought is that their tactics were studied from the successes in wildlife survival. I believe the hunter gatherer societies needed low populations in order to survive. Therefore they were always fighting for habitat to elimate other predators.
Since I have not spent a lot time in studying the Indian societies it may be a shallow thesis. I do work with Hopis and Navajos and see a connection with wild animals.
Take for instance the bear. That reminds me of the Indian staking himself to the ground and defending it. There is also territorial behavior of predators and some prey species where they apparently defend habitat.
So my thought is that emulated those tactics they observed as being successful. Usually in nature the predator are fewer in number than the prey species. When the predators are large in number they compete for habitat and destroy the other predators.
So I agree with Montose that the Indians showed "discipline, courage, and more internal control than is apparent in traditional views of the Indians as savages fighting in mobs."
So normally the Indian would run when attacked by the military predator. At LBH they acted more like a predator defending its territory so we got see those tactics.
Just my thoughts
AZ Ranger
|
|
|
Post by AZ Ranger on Mar 24, 2011 7:51:26 GMT -6
3a) You are wrong here. The Nakota/Dakota/Lakota tribal construction consisted of seven camp circles. They were the Mdewakantonwan, Wahpekute, Wahpetononwan, Sisitonwan, Ihanktonwan, Ihanktonwanna, and Titonwan. The Titonwan, who became the western plain dwellers, were further divided into seven camp circles.
I thought Montrose was talking about the cicles at the LBH.
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on Mar 24, 2011 9:55:34 GMT -6
Sorry, won't be called a liar by one. Hunkpapa's lies and inability to admit error are all here: lbha.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=basics&action=display&thread=3228Second, Wikipedia isn't a primary source, it's only the aggregator of sources offered, just like a printed book, which the Lakota, who likely but not surely oversee their entry, list and reference by footnotes. As with the Oxford for 'honor', you here trot out an impressive (sounding, to you) source which, as then, you either may not have actually read at the time or just lied about. Then you tried to substitute another source when it looked like I was going to check and didn't say what you claimed. No admission of error. Then the hissy fit. It's all still there. Or, you could be right, but when asked you seem unable to cite page and quote, and with the precedent you've established, there is ample cause for concern. If you posture as an authority on the American West and Native America, and picture yourself quite literally as such, you can admit no error. Atop this, and far more important, I still have hesitations about applying the terminology of the Army to the Sioux as Montrose does. "This swarming tactic is fairly sophisticated. It is difficult to control forces that widely separated. You need excellent small unit leaders. They will have to make independent decisions on advancing or retreating, of fire and maneuver." Is that true? Did the Sioux have small unit leaders in the sense of the army? Why is that necessary for swarming if individuals, who want in on the event for combat recognition, would act the same way? Street mobs swarm, lynch mobs too, and shopping mall hysteria follows much the same pattern, all without notable chains of command.
|
|