|
Post by quincannon on Mar 12, 2014 18:39:37 GMT -6
Mike: Human reaction is to react to the greatest perceived threat. I think you called it correctly.
|
|
|
Post by fred on Mar 12, 2014 18:43:22 GMT -6
Still recall CH was referenced as worm. See if I can find it. The notes I have show that Worm was his father's name and was a very early name given to Crazy Horse. The problem I have is that I don't have the source, so I don't know how accurate it is or even the context. I will keep looking. Best wishes, Fred.
|
|
|
Post by fred on Mar 12, 2014 18:51:14 GMT -6
... does anyone believe that the sudden death of any, or say the top five, most respected, most forward individual warriors (Chiefs or otherwise)would have had much effect on the outcome? I don't think it would have.... I agree. I think the masses would have followed anyone who led the way, especially that day. And again, these guys were used to fighting one-on-one. That's why numbers were so important. Best wishes, Fred.
|
|
|
Post by mac on Mar 12, 2014 19:54:22 GMT -6
Fred said "I think the masses would have followed anyone who led the way" and I completely agree. My point is that there were people leading the way and although the Indians action can look random from our military view point so we just say "there were lots of them" in fact there were individuals who made tactical decisions and these were executed by their followers. Here is an example of a situation where despite the command structure being gone a tactical decision was made and carried through. It is taken from WW2 and the Kokoda track (the 39th referred to are the gentlemen in my avatar).
On Wednesday the 26 August as the 2/14th arrived at Isurava, Major General Tomitaro Horii the Japanese commander flushed with the successes his troops had, had at Guam, Rabaul and Salamaua was ready to overrun the 300 remaining men of the 39th and advance to Port Moresby. Twelve rifle platoons of the 2/14th formed a solid defence around Isurava, and waited with the knowledge that they were out numbered by the Japanese six to one, Horii’s artillery increased its bombardment which continued throughout the night. Early on the morning of 28 August, Horii released the full strength of his offensive, the Japanese attacked in waves, some despite the efforts of the Australians broke through their lines and engaged in hand to hand fighting. On the 29th due to the death of their Lieutenant and subsequent serious wounding of Sgt Jock Lochhead, command fell to Lindsay ‘Teddy’ Bear who was acting as Bren gunner, following ‘Teddy’s’ withdrawal due to his multiple wounds. Bruce Kingsbury who had distinguished himself as a rifleman found himself with the Bren gun, fighting side by side with his mate Alan Avery who was armed with a Tommy gun. As Kingsbury was checking the Bren gun the Japanese made a further attack, he immediately raced toward the enemy, shouting, "Follow me! We can turn them back!" inspired by his action his men followed him. Alan Avery watched in awe: ‘He came forward with this Bren and he just mowed them down. He was an inspiration to everybody else around him. There were clumps of Japs here and there and he just mowed them down. He just went straight into them as if bullets didn’t mean anything. And we all got a bit of the action, you see. When we saw him - when you see a thing like that – you sort of follow the leader, don’t you?” They succeeded in slowly forcing the Japanese back to their lines. As the Japanese withdrew to the shelter of the jungle, Kingsbury stood relieved for the moment that the fighting was over. A Japanese sniper unnoticed by the Australians from atop of a 4 metre rock fired a single shot which found its mark in the chest of Private Bruce Kingsbury. Despite the efforts of Alan Avery who carried his mate back to the Regimental Aid Post Kingsbury was dead. His Victoria Cross was the first gained on territory administered by the Australian Commonwealth. It was also the first one awarded in the South-West Pacific Area.
This is of course leadership rather than command but it is a tactical decision carried through by group action. Say we substitute the name Lame White Man, we may still have a swarm but my point is there is some tactical decision making happening and perhaps we underestimate this. Cheers
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on Mar 12, 2014 20:49:03 GMT -6
Hardly underestimated; we lionize stuff like that, true and not. But it isn't due to training, is it? It's a surprise and brazen move. But it's likely most of those attempts are failures. When the Somme attack was launched, these were hoped for incidents that would inspire the men and make good photos. Officers brought soccer balls and kicked them towards the Germans, and if the attacks had succeeded that day, that would have been an iconic image for generations. But they were near all killed instantly as they walked forward. Soccer balls saved for local museums, I read, though.
The Indians depended on that sort of stuff - bravery runs - but I wouldn't imagine soldiers do. They respect it when seen, and if it has worked, but as often or more such manly displays merely attract fire and cause more grief than any possible benefit. I don't know, of course, but there are guys here who do.
I don't want the issue of these societies meaning much about the quality of the warriors therein and the idea of Indian warfare training to melt away into vague asides. It's been my contention that people try to inflate the abilities of the enemy they've beaten because it's an easy way to brag without bragging, given the fact they won. Beating the Best Light Cavalry In the Entire World sounds better than we collapsed the freezing, starving village of Colic Cough by attacking them at night in January when they had to protect infants and had no wood for fire.
In contrast to the Occam's razor of the simplest explanation that meets all evidenced criteria is probably/often the truth - but not necessarily - there is a concurrent need among some to filter any description of people doing random stuff including just running around in combat into a Tactic displaying past Training. They get near orgasmic if it can resemble something a dead Greek or Roman General did or somebody did to the Greeks or Romans. I think of the tribes under consideration as street gangs and the cavalry as SWAT teams more than as Armies and Insurgents and all that. These were police actions.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Mar 12, 2014 21:02:33 GMT -6
It sure as hell is due to training, and I have no intention of arguing the point. How it applies to the American Indian may be disputed, but in the instance cited it was instinctive reaction and that is what training is all about, instinctive reaction in high stress situations.
|
|
|
Post by mac on Mar 13, 2014 2:28:59 GMT -6
Don't get me wrong here, I am not suggesting that the Indians were tactical genii, just that they are perhaps underestimated in that regard. If we just consider the Reno part of the fight, because we have a better idea what happened there. They out flanked their adversary, infiltrated his position and forced a break out during which they inflicted heavy casualties. They found high ground from which to fire into his position and attempted to infiltrate his position. To me this is not a swarm but rather a case of them applying simple tactics to the situation. Are they underestimated? Perhaps they are if we prefer Reno was drunk and all his weapons jammed. I know DC will not see much point to going past MTC but perhaps the reason the bodies were strung out along the ridge was that those untrained Indians had already executed a tactical movement to the East. Cheers
|
|
|
Post by tubman13 on Mar 13, 2014 4:09:59 GMT -6
I think Mac deserves The Thread of the Month Award, so far!
Regards, Tom
|
|
|
Post by tubman13 on Mar 13, 2014 5:33:46 GMT -6
Hardly underestimated; we lionize stuff like that, true and not. But it isn't due to training, is it? DC, it may say a great deal about training. The Japanese, training, lack of training, or command and control structure and their ability, to contingency plan. It may be one mans OODA. York and the Germans the same deal. I assure you York had many of those skills that he used before he ever entered the Army. Chuck, has said give me men with the right life experience and skill set and he will turn you out a fine fighting man/machine/soldier. Rough translation.You do not get trained soldiers from 8 weeks of basic training and 6 weeks of advanced school. You do not get qualified leaders from OCS or straight out of West Point. Ask Fred or anyone who has fought, training is an ongoing process, even under fire. I don't want to put words into anyone's mouth, but unless you are getting 2nd or 3rd tour troops or Rangers, or veteran Force Recon Marines, your replacements can die quickly and take you with them. Training can only go so far, you need good material in the first place. If you are lucky you get one chance to teach a newbie, a lesson under fire. I can not get this computer to play ball, can't separate your statement from mine, tried 4 times.Regards, Tom
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on Mar 13, 2014 8:43:21 GMT -6
mac,
What I resent greatly is the inflation of terminology because it's from two bad inclinations. There are some who find solace in near gobbledegook that allows one to employ military shorthand with actual soldiers. They do so because it makes them feel near equal, despite all evidence. The other bad inclination is that by keeping the definition of something at issue and variable, they cannot lose an argument and just select the definition that works for the moment. Both have appeared in this thread.
The issue here became hinged on what were called 'military societies' that even cursory reading shows were just clubs, with nothing to suggest that competence was a criteria, but connections, 'bravery', and luck. There has never been records of Indians having minimal physical achievement criteria or phys ed, or Champion Archer or any of that. There is nothing to suggest the best warriors were members of these pretty vague and temporary societies. But, there is a certain logic in thinking so because it allows the Indians to become more like 'us.' Then, the shape of command and control comes to be seen, with military tactics that, actually, are just hunting variations. They didn't have to obey each other, they could leave whenever, they could pointlessly do a bravery run to group detriment, and this is not the group discipline required of military tactics. They were individual warriors, not soldiers. There is nothing demeaning or condescending about that.
When al Quada released, early on, that video showing their pudgy if enthused masked members doing obstacle courses and group exercises and trying to look like Paris Island, I thought they looked like idiots. It was a remarkably unconvincing attempt to show how organized and serious they were, but it sure had the opposite effect to me, just like the masked cowards with guns behind hostages they're about to behead only underlines what inferior people and soldiers they are. The attempt to drape military strategy and tactics over the Sioux always makes them look silly to me, because what they actually did, they did well and sometimes successfully.
One of the reasons I dislike and discourage discussing of movies and novels is this. From the start of films, Romans have been played by tall Nordics looking blonde and German while the supposed Gauls and Germans are played by short dark people except for the principle villain, a huge beserker type. In reality, the Romans were shorter, darker, and better soldiers than the enemy, and fought as a trained unit. But people hear Romans talk with British accents, and its so successful they vary the printed words in novels to blend with BBC delivery, and staccato Latin of Caesar is lost. For example, "Veni, vidi, vici" is often pronounced - because Italians would - as 'veni, vidi, vichi.' But all wrong. That sounds like it should be followed by a "Yoo Hoo!" and a fluttered hankie.
Caesar wrote and said 'weni, widi, wicki', which sounds far more ominous and in character because v's were so pronounced, and w's didn't yet exist in Latin. Romans were social climbers and wanted to sound Greek, and Greeks hardened their consonants, and therefore Romans began to as well.
When we try to make the Indians more compatible to our concept of how things were/should be done, we run the same risk of grave distortion. If they were as organized and structured as some would make them, they would have ceased to be Indians. The culture that allows efficient militaries dealing with logistics, strategies, and tactics cannot emerge from cyclical thinking and a refusal to subjugate themselves to another, even one of their own. It's the same failure the Scots, Irish, Confederates, and Indians shared but the English and Lincoln managed.
|
|
|
Post by fred on Mar 13, 2014 9:47:04 GMT -6
Mac,
I agree almost completely with this last post by DC. The only area where there might be some disagreement is with the Cheyenne warrior societies. There was a modicum of structure within each society and within the grouping as a whole. For example, these "societies" acted as camp police and rotated turns in controlling a tribe's movements from place to place, and woe betide any who went outside the bounds of the society's strictures. In the 1860s, the most prominent, the most militant, and the most "elite"-- if we can use such a word-- was the Dog Soldiers: the Hotamitanio or Hotamitaniu. This group, as a society, was virtually wiped out at the battle of Summit Springs, July 11, 1869.
In the 1870s-- at the time of the Little Big Horn, anyway-- there were three identifiable warrior societies in the Cheyenne structure: the Elkhorn Scrapers or Elk Soldiers (Himoweyuuhki); the Kit Fox Men (Wohksehetaniu), commonly known as Fox Soldiers and sometimes referred to as Coyote; and the Crazy Dogs or Foolish Dogs (Hotamimassau). Each of these societies had a "chief man" and generally about nine "headmen." Every ten years the entire tribe would gather and "elect" 40 "big chiefs." These forty would then select four "old man chiefs." The general order of seniority within the overall tribe was, (1) the "old man chiefs"; (2) the forty tribal "big chiefs"; (3) the three "warrior chiefs"; and (4) the approximate 27 "little warrior chiefs."
So there was some semblance of an organization, but in a general melee like the LBH, that entire structure seemed to evaporate and I doubt there was even the remotest structure. In the battle, for example, Lame White Man was disputably the lead "warrior chief," and unless the source paid no attention to terminology that rendered him about 45th in the hierarchy. Others will claim Two Moon(s) was the lead man at the battle, but it seems he was merely a "headman" or "little chief," one of the nine or so in the Kit Fox Society. That would place him well below Lame White Man in the structure. It has also been said after Lame White Man was killed, Two Moon(s) took charge, but I think-- as I would guess DC might agree-- that would be wishful thinking. Let's face it, the battle was mayhem, and in all likelihood Two Moon(s) may have played a more bombastic role than any tactical leadership position he would have wanted us "white eyes" to believe; and the confusion was so great, one Indian supposedly scalped Lame White Man thinking him to be a soldier scout.
Little Wolf was an "old man chief" and the head chief of the Elkhorn Scrapers society and they damn near shot him because he arrived after the Custer fight was over and some suspected him of being some sort of "traitor." So even the highest in the echelon were not above suspicion... and possibly even jealousy. Some consider him one of the greatest of the Cheyenne chiefs, despite disgracing himself some years later.
Best wishes, Fred.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Mar 13, 2014 10:13:29 GMT -6
DC Makes some good points, however two random thoughts may be appropriate
We pronounce it be-serker, but it really should be pronounced ber-serker and spelled in that manner BERSERKER. I know I had to look it up myself when I used the word the other day.
Hunting variations: Well tactics seem that way because that is what they are. In its most simple application tactics are nothing more than hunting and killing what you hunt. Hunting is the particular chicken that laid the egg of tactics.
Now please continue about dogs and foxes as I am "hunting" for answers.
|
|
|
Post by Yan Taylor on Mar 13, 2014 13:07:09 GMT -6
I think what DC has described there is “Hollywood” and how a bunch of guys fuelled with cash and artistic licence, choose to portray any individual that has ever existed in the history of mankind to talk English with an American accent, we all fell for it as kids and enjoyed it, so I just thought I would throw that in to show where the blame should lie.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Mar 13, 2014 14:40:59 GMT -6
Actually I tend to agree with DC that movies and novels tend to skew the thought process on military matters. They are designed to entertain, not teach. Therefore they do have value, but accurate history, and a schoolroom for the tactician are not included in that value.
One of my favorite movies "She Wore a Yellow Ribbon" has a scene toward the end, where Brittles tells Cohill, - take two squads and hold that crossing, Buy me a long day. Next time you watch the movie ask yourself why. Hold the crossing yes, as a means for the main body to break contact. But for a day - nonsense. Once broken the ford crossing could be abandoned and Cohill becomes the rear guard. In truth the river crossing episode, was inserted to set up the final phase of the movie, and drama trumped sound principle. Still love that movie though.
Novels. Most are flawed, some much worse than other, and here I speak of military related novels. There are a few though, a very few, where there is substance, and from which lessons can be gleaned. ++
|
|
|
Post by mac on Mar 13, 2014 16:42:56 GMT -6
DC I agree with you completely! Let me refine my point. The Indians were a Stone Age hunter gatherer society. As such men primarily learned two things, to hunt and to fight. Hunting being the most important. Fighting as a matter of necessity to protect, or to take from others. I use the term learn to avoid the military term train. Like all humans they were educated in their society in the things that were important in that society. Military training as we understand it would have been meaningless to their lifesyle. They mainly operated in small groups so large scale battles would be rare hence their emphasis on individual prowess. These things do not rule out the notion that as thinking, intelligent men they could take a tactical approach to battle. It does mean they would have no formal large scale approach to battle. In modern terms there is no command structure and certainly no control in our military sense of the word. I propose however that there is still leadership. Leaders exist in all groups and by definition others follow their lead. Tactics are, as once posted here, mainly common sense. I propose we often underestimate the common sense and leadership that were shown by the Indians at the battle. That there were leaders who made some common sense decisions, say to go around this way rather than follow the others in an assault, or to pick the right moment to carry out an attack. This may not be genius stuff but it goes beyond some mindless swarming. I don't doubt mindless swarming at times but I think we should consider the capacity for leadership and common sense (tactics) as a further source of Custer's woes. Cheers
|
|