Native American command and control

[jag]

"The hereditary chief was always recognized, reverenced, and obeyed, as soverign ruler (even though his age or temperament unfitted him for duties in the field.) The head chief of each tribe was a despot, with absolute and unquestioned power over the life and property of each and every individual of his tribe. Each petty chief was in like manner the despot of his band, and each head of a family of the members of that family."

"Each sub-chief kept his band as much as possible away from others and their tribes, and ruled with absolute sway. A change of allegiance from one sub-chief to another was always attended with great danger of loss of property or life, possibly of both. The rule was that if detected in an attempt to change his allegiance, he might be stripped of his property, whipped, or even put to death; but if he succeeded in making the change he was thereafter absolved from blame and secure from punishment."

"In 1867, the Cheyennes were waging bitter war against the U.S. This tribe and the Sioux are very warm friends, and a portion of the Brule band of Sioux were anxious to join them. Spotted Tail, at that time, head chief of the Brules, did all in his power to prevent this. In spite, however, of his influence, his power, and his most peremptory orders, it was one morning discovered that twenty or more lodges of the malcontents had decamped during the night. Assembling his "dog-soldiers," Spotted Tail pursued the fugitives, overtook and captured them. Every deserting warrior and many of the women were terribly whipped, their horses were killed, their arms broken or confiscated, all the lodges, robes, clothing and property of every kind ruthlessly destroyed, and the miserable band driven back to camp, naked beggars, powerless for evil. The attempted desertion was to a different tribe, and with the intention of taking part in a war against the U.S. Such action was likely to compromise the whole Brule band, and possibly involve it in the war..."

[rosebud]

I see where some think that C&C was nothing but bickering.
I think it was one of the better exchanges of views with more positive results than any of the bickering we have seen in the past.

The views some- many- most , that give the Indians ZERO ability for any C&C, was probably shared by many in the military at that time. Fetterman and his views mirror that of Quinn and others.
They are steadfast in their disrespet of the fighting ability by the enemy.
Giving an enemy ZERO chance of C&C only shows arrogance and disrespect of the enemy.

Yep.....Custer and Fetterman were known to have these views. Fetterman more than Custer.

I think this has been a beneficial exchange of beliefs.

[Dark Cloud]

I can only speak for myself, but that's an inaccurate summation. You and jag have beliefs, the others have facts. You're redefining C&C so that vague organization can be included, but that's not C&C.

Jag doesn't give the source for his quotes. That it has a source doesn't make it true, and you can find many contrary accounts of the powers of a chief, itself a white man concept and not exact to the reality.

In any case, that isn't C&C in a military sense. That's because they did not have a military, they had gangs of warriors. They didn't envision what they did this year as continuing next year, they had no logistics, they had no real 'tail', just camp followers. They thought as Europe and Asia all thought at one time in cycles, and not in a linear frame. That's because, without writing, it was hard to keep track of linear events. Everything in their time scale of nature was cyclical, so that's how they thought.

[fuchs]

Sept 2, 2012 4:45:08 GMT -6 jag said:

"The hereditary chief was always recognized, reverenced, and obeyed, as soverign ruler (even though his age or temperament unfitted him for duties in the field.) The head chief of each tribe was a despot, with absolute and unquestioned power over the life and property of each and every individual of his tribe. Each petty chief was in like manner the despot of his band, and each head of a family of the members of that family."

"Each sub-chief kept his band as much as possible away from others and their tribes, and ruled with absolute sway. A change of allegiance from one sub-chief to another was always attended with great danger of loss of property or life, possibly of both. The rule was that if detected in an attempt to change his allegiance, he might be stripped of his property, whipped, or even put to death; but if he succeeded in making the change he was thereafter absolved from blame and secure from punishment."

Uhh, ohh

I would rather trust modern scholarly literature over some contemporary "Popular Account".

It would appear that pretty much the opposite of your quote would have been the general rule.

And common sense would indicate that a "dictatorial" rule above the "band" organizational level would have been impossible, as most of the year those bands would roam the country independent of each other.
What's to stop a band from simply moving out of reach of the "sovereign ruler"?

And on the band/tiospaye/lodge level, it doesn't make much sense either, unless you would have a permanent state of "martial law".

Yes, under certain circumstances the "camp police" had the authority to impose a kind of curfew, but this would have been impossible to enforce as a permanent state.

And in any case, I do not see how this relates to the question of battlefield "command and control"? As that quote correctly notes, those "chiefs" whatever their degree of control of their "subjects", would usually not have been active warriors anymore.


I also suspect that there was much more structure in a Plains Indian fighting force than what was apparent to the conventionally trained military observer, though I very much doubt that there was much of a top-down component in it after the engagement had started.
Rather something along the line of bottom up self organization, guided by a common set of tactics and a high degree of situational awareness, with recognized war leaders suggesting, but not ordering, movement and positioning by example.

[rosebud]

You are defining C&C as strict obedience and that is also a belief and not a fact.

Football teams have command and control. So do Basketball teams. The Football coaches have more C&C than the basketball coach because of the stoppage of play and they can send in a play to micro manage the game.... The army is more like the Football team and the Indian are more like the basketball team. More freelance style tactics.

The Football team(army) could not get the basketball team (Indians) to stop and play a game. The Indians kept running off and playing basketball where ever they felt like it.

Along comes Crook and he brings in a Hockey team. This puts an end to the basketball team.

C&C is not limited to ONLY military........THAT is a fact.

Rosebud

[rosebud]

I also suspect that there was much more structure in a Plains Indian fighting force than what was apparent to the conventionally trained military observer, though I very much doubt that there was much of a top-down component in it after the engagement had started.
Rather something along the line of bottom up self organization, guided by a common set of tactics and a high degree of situational awareness, with recognized war leaders suggesting, but not ordering, movement and positioning by example.


We agree..........Very low grade command and control

[fuchs]

Sept 2, 2012 12:00:27 GMT -6 @rosebud said:

C&C is not limited to ONLY military........THAT is a fact.

Maybe much of the problem here is indeed the lack of a consistent definition of "Command and Control" in the context of the discussion?

What would be the definition from a modern military point of view, preferably formulated in a highly abstracted form (around information flow and processing maybe?).

I have the impression that C&C is considered by some of the members here as roughly synonymous with military discipline, or strict command/obedience relationship between military (sub)units. Surely there is more to it than just that?

Rosebud, what would your definition of C&C be?

[rosebud]

To put it in the most simple terms. A boss of any company needs command and control to have success. An expectation of what the workers will do and the ability to accomplish the task. I think this would include making chage when you see problems, when things are not going as planned.

There is no need for the threat of shooting reluctant workers. It is not a qualification of command and control. It is military obedience and that is a separate matter all together.

While I agree with Jag on the principal of Indians having C&C.
I do not agree with the ammount he gives to the Indians. He is pushing it to limits I can't see.

[jag]

Sept 2, 2012 11:55:32 GMT -6 fuchs said:

Sept 2, 2012 4:45:08 GMT -6 jag said:

"The hereditary chief was always recognized, reverenced, and obeyed, as soverign ruler (even though his age or temperament unfitted him for duties in the field.) The head chief of each tribe was a despot, with absolute and unquestioned power over the life and property of each and every individual of his tribe. Each petty chief was in like manner the despot of his band, and each head of a family of the members of that family."

"Each sub-chief kept his band as much as possible away from others and their tribes, and ruled with absolute sway. A change of allegiance from one sub-chief to another was always attended with great danger of loss of property or life, possibly of both. The rule was that if detected in an attempt to change his allegiance, he might be stripped of his property, whipped, or even put to death; but if he succeeded in making the change he was thereafter absolved from blame and secure from punishment."

Uhh, ohh

I would rather trust modern scholarly literature over some contemporary "Popular Account".

It would appear that pretty much the opposite of your quote would have been the general rule.

And common sense would indicate that a "dictatorial" rule above the "band" organizational level would have been impossible, as most of the year those bands would roam the country independent of each other.
What's to stop a band from simply moving out of reach of the "sovereign ruler"?

And on the band/tiospaye/lodge level, it doesn't make much sense either, unless you would have a permanent state of "martial law".

Yes, under certain circumstances the "camp police" had the authority to impose a kind of curfew, but this would have been impossible to enforce as a permanent state.

And in any case, I do not see how this relates to the question of battlefield "command and control"? As that quote correctly notes, those "chiefs" whatever their degree of control of their "subjects", would usually not have been active warriors anymore.


I also suspect that there was much more structure in a Plains Indian fighting force than what was apparent to the conventionally trained military observer, though I very much doubt that there was much of a top-down component in it after the engagement had started.
Rather something along the line of bottom up self organization, guided by a common set of tactics and a high degree of situational awareness, with recognized war leaders suggesting, but not ordering, movement and positioning by example.

I would rather trust modern scholarly literature over some contemporary "Popular Account".

Nope Fuchs no such thing. It was neither "contemporary" nor particularly "popular" today or we wouldn't feel the need to diss the works of a General who happened to have written that account. A General who by the way happened to have fought those same Indians as General Custer did.

[jag]

Sept 2, 2012 13:03:26 GMT -6 @rosebud said:

To put it in the most simple terms. A boss of any company needs command and control to have success. An expectation of what the workers will do and the ability to accomplish the task. I think this would include making chage when you see problems, when things are not going as planned.

There is no need for the threat of shooting reluctant workers. It is not a qualification of command and control. It is military obedience and that is a separate matter all together.

While I agree with Jag on the principal of Indians having C&C.
I do not agree with the ammount he gives to the Indians. He is pushing it to limits I can't see.

No, I'm not exactly pushing it to the limits. Just discussing this to see if "some" C&C would be an agreeable term we could all find consensus on. It is the absolute nature of the terms by those opposed use that I find particularly unappetizing. The absolute terms such a "NO", "None" etc that preclude the remotest change that it could have been "some".

[jag]

Sept 2, 2012 11:45:07 GMT -6 Dark Cloud said:

I can only speak for myself, but that's an inaccurate summation. You and jag have beliefs, the others have facts. You're redefining C&C so that vague organization can be included, but that's not C&C.

Jag doesn't give the source for his quotes. That it has a source doesn't make it true, and you can find many contrary accounts of the powers of a chief, itself a white man concept and not exact to the reality.

In any case, that isn't C&C in a military sense. That's because they did not have a military, they had gangs of warriors. They didn't envision what they did this year as continuing next year, they had no logistics, they had no real 'tail', just camp followers. They thought as Europe and Asia all thought at one time in cycles, and not in a linear frame. That's because, without writing, it was hard to keep track of linear events. Everything in their time scale of nature was cyclical, so that's how they thought.

As always a true camp follower. Faithful to the very need of answering lieu of "the man" with all the answers. No disrespect intended here at all to the writer or the lazy reader. Just saying. Now I think I'll go get a beer, maybe a 6 pack of Hefe Weissen and chase it down with a Boulder Smasher.

[benteen]

Jag,

I have no source, or manual to quote from, but my opinion which can certainly be disputed is that command and control equals authority. It is absolute. You cant have a little authority over your forces, you either have it or you dont

An example would be when Custer sent Benteen off to scout. Benteen said "General dont you think we should keep the regiment together" Custers reply "Colonel you have your orders" That is command, It is absolute authority

Be Well
Dan

[quincannon]

My goodness this does have a life of it's own. Montrose and I disagree, and both of us were from the same background, different branches but essentially the same overall structure. I don't know who said it above. I am to lazy to look back. It was here or the other thread. I think though given Montrose and I cannot completely agree, Fred is to damned smart to get involved in this fracus, Dan went to Mass this morning and is still in the effects of the afterglow of what I am sure was a good sermon, we should all give some consideration to the following.

I also went to Mass and the topic was doing the right thing for the wrong reasons. In the spirt of that in depth look at my immortal soul, let me suggest that to all here the term Command and Control has differing meanings based upon our own view and experience. Thus I think those views should stand, each to his own. Next week we'er going to discuss the Ten Suggestions given to Moses. I shall post back on this topic then and if you guys have not calmed down I may in fact shatter the tablet that contain the Ten Suggestions of your collective heads.

[Dark Cloud]

Okay, from Wiki. Where is this wrong?

"The US DoD Dictionary of Military and Associated Terms[3] defines Command and control as "[t]he exercise of authority and direction by a properly designated commander over assigned and attached forces in the accomplishment of the mission. Command and control functions are performed through an arrangement of personnel, equipment, communications, facilities, and procedures employed by a commander in planning, directing, coordinating, and controlling forces and operations in the accomplishment of the mission. Also called C2."[4]

Commanding officers are assisted in executing these tasks by specialized staff officers and enlisted personnel. These military staff are a group of officers and enlisted personnel that provides a bi-directional flow of information between a commanding officer and subordinate military units.

The purpose of a military staff is mainly that of providing accurate, timely information which by category represents information on which command decisions are based. The key application is that of decisions that effectively manage unit resources. While information flow toward the commander is a priority, information that is useful or contingent in nature is communicated to lower staffs and units.

Nothing like that within the tribes. If there were, there would have been organized scouts and the 7th would never have gotten near the village.

[wild]

The effective application of command results in control.
This can only occur if there is a two way feed of intell.
The degree to which control is successful depends on the speed of communication.
We have discussed ad nauseam Benteen's actions.His failure to communicate with Custer was a breach of the command and control system if it ever existed in the 7th.