|
|
Post by mac on Mar 10, 2014 3:10:52 GMT -6
In battle the Indians did not follow our conventions of command and control, yet they won. Do we underestimate the effectiveness of their traditional fighting style?
For example in the valley they were able to quickly respond to Reno, stop his advance and out flank him; finally forcing him from the field. They were then able to contain him while some went to address the Custer threat. Clearly there was some level of co operation happening which allowed this organisation.
We talk of them taking individual action but I would suggest that while this is so, there were also individuals who made tactical decisions (for want of a better term) in the interest of the "team".
Also we talk of individuals doing things which makes it seem as if they were acting alone.
Crazy Horse had many "followers" I have seen estimates up to 200. I suspect that he "commanded" them by example. If we say Crazy Horse made a run across Battle Ridge we perhaps should say the Crazy Horse battalion charged across battle ridge.
or
The Lame White Man company staged a counter attack against C Company.
Yes they had numerical superiority and they were in a battle space that suited their weapons and style but does that fully account for their sucess?
Cheers
|
|
|
|
Post by Yan Taylor on Mar 10, 2014 5:21:26 GMT -6
Hi Mac, although it looks like the Indians used battle manoeuvres similar to tactics used by modern armies with flanking moves and stuff, a lot of it could be down to the fact that if a large group massed against a smaller group, they could in time envelope them. If for instance the Indians started moving across Ford B or up deep ravine, and as the numbers grew they began to push around both flanks of the soldiers.
Now if the area had what this battle field had, and that was coulees and ravines which offered areas of dead ground and cover then this would give the Indians channels to get not only around the soldiers but closer to their positions and from these positions they could fire and hide.
Indians were also no fools, they didn’t want to be hit, so all this slow build up and using the ground aided the Indians as they pressured any defence and once any resistance broke they would rush any retreat and keep up the pressure, I would say that on foot they would be able to move much quicker than the soldiers so as the troopers ran they were not able to disengage or place any distance between themselves and the Indians, thus we have a long trail of dead men being funnelled into a line stretching all the way from Calhoun’s location to where the fenced area is today.
The two charges or assaults made by LWM and CH, these again could have been made against units on the verge of breaking or units in flight. You also find accounts of the survivors of LSH being shot up before the Warriors delivered the coup de gras.
Ian.
|
|
|
|
Post by tubman13 on Mar 10, 2014 6:32:43 GMT -6
Mac, Ian just about says it all. There is some command structure and some control as well. Witness, warriors following certain leaders, CH, WL, G, and etc.. They also have warrior societies, we cannot equate to Marines, Rangers, or Seals. But these groups are better trained in warfare skills and used tactics that have been successful in the past. They also new how to fight together, and what the men in their group were apt to do given circumstances.
Regards,
Tom
|
|
|
|
Post by tubman13 on Mar 10, 2014 7:10:13 GMT -6
Mac, in answer to your original question, "Are the Indians underestimated"? My answer is yes, not just in this battle. They are underestimated in a number of ways!
Regards,
Tom
|
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Mar 10, 2014 8:03:21 GMT -6
Agree in both that the original question needs to be addressed in more depth and thank Mac for bringing it up, Also I agree with the answers given so far. I am off to a funeral this morning so will post again when I return. There is one factor I wish you would all consider in the meantime, that being interior lines. I know that sounds possibly more advanced tactically than what we normally discuss about Indians, more modern or western, but I don't believe it is. It is more geographic in nature, something any people regardless of state of development can take advantage of.
|
|
|
|
Post by Yan Taylor on Mar 10, 2014 8:03:23 GMT -6
Hi Tom, I was going to try and emulate the Crazy Horse and Lame Whiteman groups and the only thing I can come up with that resembles them is from the John Wayne movie “The Alamo”, when you have Wayne and his boys arriving in one group and Widmark turning up with his crew.
I think that the way they influenced the battle could have been by chance rather than planned, both could have arrived at opportune moments of the battle and adding their weight just at the right moment.
Ian.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on Mar 10, 2014 9:59:36 GMT -6
No, no, no.
Basis for this statement: "But these groups are better trained in warfare skills and used tactics that have been successful in the past. They also new how to fight together, and what the men in their group were apt to do given circumstances." You have to understand that these descriptions of Indian life are from white men who, in trying to understand and explain, tried applying Indian life to white life templates. After, the unwary append white men trivia to white man's initial error of description.
If by 'successful in the past' you mean 'and they lived', fine. But you're implying secret training in skills nobody else had. No. 'Warrior societies', 'chief', 'medicine man' are all terms from Euro society that come with baggage appended on by unwary white readers in error, after which it becomes 'fact.' Crazy Horse, it seems, didn't participate in the sun dance or in many of these societal pastimes, the impression being he thought them stupid, as indeed they were. He didn't like to shoot from a horse, but would get off and aim so as to hit the target. That might also be a white man's template - the insightful loner - appended to a tale.
|
|
|
|
Post by tubman13 on Mar 10, 2014 10:46:02 GMT -6
Re: No, no, no. You have put nothing here that I disagree with. No special training, training cadre, or set regimen. Hunting skills, ie. the buffalo hunt, how to go about it, yes. Be able to turn the herd, single out slow, break up the herd, kill smaller numbers. Previous battle engagements, not only with whites but other tribes as well, yes. We did not come out of caves with the skills of a Roman legion, we learned them, trial and error. They were not trained in flanking movements, but they knew if they could turn an enemy in on itself they could pick them off more easily. Surround/envelop they knew this helped to dilute firepower and cause confusion and fear. Fear is one of the commanders worst enemies.
These guys and some Bedouins, and Cossacks were the best light cavalry of their time.
Crazy Horse is an entirely different animal who was once a shirt wearer, he had no need of it, others needed him to be that. Sun dance he had no need to prove his pain threshold or to use it to induce visions. Some people can meditate and put themselves in a trance like state and commune with other planes. Was he truly ever a chief? No. But there were many chiefs with smaller followings, and they commanded less loyalty. I will not continue down this road, but I think you get my drift.
Regards,
Tom
|
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on Mar 10, 2014 11:06:56 GMT -6
AZ put it best: they swarm as they did when hunting. Nothing more.
"These guys and some Bedouins, and Cossacks were the best light cavalry of their time." Really? Who in 1870 had ever had the ability to see enough cavalry or light cavalry to make such a statement? Who today? It sounded right and respectful and had no chance of being challenged and - coincidentally, of course - might excuse disaster to the public. (And Sitting Bull went to West Point, too.) That was a phrase uttered by people who may or may not have ever seen an Indian, or left the United States, or seen any cavalry in Asia. Or, for that matter, South America, where the horsemanship on the pampas was and is incredible and some of the biggest, bloodiest wars have been fought, to the ignorance of Americans, especially history buffs.
These damned repeated cliches have almost zero basis in truth. For starters, while the Indians may have been great warriors - individual fighters - and horsemen, they were never cavalry. Never. Not once. Cavalry acts under linear command in formations held by order. If Indians produced that, they were no longer Indians but a different culture and society entirely. They swarmed, they reacted as a swarm, they pursued as a swarm. Their one trick - which continually worked - was to pretend to retreat and lead each other or soldiers into an ambush. That was it.
We know zero about Crazy Horse, just a compilation of conflicting tales. What we seem to know is that he would vomit to see a mountain carved in memorial to himself or anyone.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mike Powell on Mar 10, 2014 11:18:06 GMT -6
DC refers to attempts to fit one culture's templates in explanation of a different culture. In this case, the template of the behavior of a bee hive or certain ant species will serve as well or better. With adequate numbers available, and any points from QC re interior lines will help explain such adequacy, aggressive reaction was successful and nothing more was required.
Quite a lot of time is spent on other threads exploring how Custer might have won. This might be a point where a discussion of how the NDNs could have lost would be interesting.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on Mar 10, 2014 11:49:25 GMT -6
Considering they nearly DID lose despite everything, that would be a good thread. They were surprised, and it may be that only village size prevented the predicted, hoped for, essential to success bolting the Army thought 'always' happened.
Still think that admitting the least incompetent side won, and barely won, is the more beneficial template here.
|
|
|
|
Post by fred on Mar 10, 2014 12:03:23 GMT -6
Still think that admitting the least incompetent side won, and barely won, is the more beneficial template here. While I would certainly agree with this, I would not have used the word, "barely." I don't think there was any "barely" about it. They booted Reno up a hillside, despite his protestations that he choose that position, and they did it with fairly good dispatch once they developed the numbers. While we can howl all we want about the fierce resistance put up by Custer's men, once Lame White Man got to work the whole shootin' match was over pretty quickly. And all this with horses a good run away, initially; too many Indians spending wa-a-y too much time in the village emulating peacocks; and about as much organization as AZ's swarm. So if you are talking "barely" in an organizational form, I would agree, but from the mere picture of a fight, I don't think it was even close. I would love someone to start that thread-- how about you, DC... that way you can steer the initial discussion as you see fit-- but at this time, unless otherwise convinced, I still doubt GAC could have brought it off short of bringing in a troop of Abrams tanks. Best wishes, Fred. |
|
|
|
Post by Mike Powell on Mar 10, 2014 12:36:26 GMT -6
But judgements of competent/incompetent or least incompetent implies a common template applied to both sides to enable an evaluation. This thread began along the lines of under rating NDN "traditional fighting style" with suggestions of command and control. If such existed, how could it have functioned less competently resulting in an NDN defeat? Or is the term least incompetent to be applied to some other behavior aspect? I am certain DC does not mean that if the winning group had only fallen off their horses more often they would have arguably lost.
|
|
|
|
Post by fred on Mar 10, 2014 13:08:38 GMT -6
But judgements of competent/incompetent or least incompetent implies a common template applied to both sides to enable an evaluation. Mike, I think you can only apply the term "incompetent" to the Indians when viewing them from our perspective... our, meaning the white/black military organizational style we are used to. I think within their own chosen sphere of battle, the Indians were highly competent, but their fighting style, vis-à-vis, the organized military, was inadequate. At the LBH, numbers won. To my way of thinking-- at least today!-- the comparison of styles is almost fatuous because of the numbers involved on each side. I think, if you want to evaluate within the style, the Indians' actions that day were a lot more competent within their own methodology than the Seventh's were within their methodology. Therefore, if DC feels the Indians "barely" won it is because their style of fighting was "incompetent" relative to an organized military's. So, I agree with your comment above. Best wishes, Fred. |
|
|
|
Post by tubman13 on Mar 10, 2014 13:25:17 GMT -6
DC, first Sitting Bull could not have entered, West Point at the time, no affirmative action programs. I do not remember mentioning him in the first place. So let's take that off the table. Second you brought up Crazy Horse not me.
Try matching the horsemanship, of the 7th or any other of our cavalry units of the day against the ability of the northern plains Indian. Find me one.
Pick one fight at a time, and we will deal with it. Next!
Regards,
Tom
|
|
