|
Post by fuchs on Mar 11, 2014 11:37:10 GMT -6
That said, I think there is a great deal of validity to it if you remove the words warrior society, which I believe to be of western derivation (could very well be wrong on that) and insert small band, roughly the modern equivalent of squad or perhaps platoon. I think there might be some confusion regarding the term "warrior society". According to what I remember reading, those warrior societies were very much real, and a key part of Plains Indian culture. But, very much relevant for the topic at hand, they were not the equivalent of "groups of warriors that regularly fought together". They were more of a social and political club, with membership through all warrior age groups, across tribal divison boundaries, and in some cases even across tribal boundaries. If acting even remotely resembling a coherent unit, it would mostly be like a police force (camp guard, policing the communal buffalo hunt), not as military unit. Yes, under specific circumstances they might fight as a coherent force, but the only cases I'm aware of are the Cheyenne Dog Soldiers and Kiowa Koitsenko (spelling?) assigned the task of rear guard when the camp is on the move. Those small "units" of warriors intimately familiar with each others would be drawn from the smallest tribal units that lived and hunted together all year long, age cohorts that had grown up, learned, trained, hunted and fought together since boyhood. There would be clusters of brothers, cousins and friends that might stick together in combat.
|
|
|
Post by tubman13 on Mar 11, 2014 11:39:07 GMT -6
Chuck thanks for the warning there is not trap or even a snare, only a circular spiral. I am neither an officer and a gentleman, or any kind of command specialist. I am not a bombastic radio host who probably has a button so he can talk over his guests. What I am is a former enlisted man who will not be talked down to. A former sales manager, who took enough spit from customers, as they are always right. I refuse to listen to or cave to someone has no more first hand knowledge, of the battle or warrior societies than I do. If Dark Cloud wants to continue this pi$$ing match, he should open a thread under TAKE A BREAK, call it pi$$ing match and I will join him there. That way we do not get in the way of anyone trying to share important ideas, thoughts, opinions, or conclusions. You guys can even drop in from time to time to amuse yourselves. In the meantime I will give him source material, on selection to warrior societies after he presents his to the contrary.
I have shot 2 Pit Bulls that were attacking, kids, I ignore Miniature Schnauzers, or play with them.
Regards, Tom
|
|
|
Post by crzhrs on Mar 11, 2014 11:42:46 GMT -6
Back to the Fetterman "Massacre" (PS new book about Red Cloud: The Heart of Everything That Is. Deals with Red Cloud's War and a little bio on him, plus the usual history of the conflict with the Sioux from earlier times) The Indians by observation realized that the soldiers always charged out willy-nilly every time the warriors attacked. If they could lure the soldiers far enough away from the fort they could inflict a mauling on them. They decoyed Fetterman's command further and further away from the fort and once in the midst of the trap the Indians sprung and the rest is history. It must have taken some thought, planning and enough intelligence to pull this off. Hard to believe the Indians just decided to gather hundreds of warriors to hang around and wait for soldiers to come to them. Sorta like my cat who sits at the bottom of the bird feeder waiting for a cat to fly into his mouth!
|
|
|
Post by alfakilo on Mar 11, 2014 11:59:35 GMT -6
Interesting conversation!
A comparison of the Plains Indian society to whatever passed for typical white society might be of some value. I'm not sure that indian lifestyles and pursuits had much in common with that of whites. For example, in the NA folks who were at LBH, how many of the males were farmers, shopkeepers, businessmen, etc as compared to white society? If white young men grew up wanting to be something other than a soldier, where NA young men the same?
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Mar 11, 2014 12:06:53 GMT -6
The more you observe an enemy, the more you learn of his tactics, and the strength and weaknesses of those tactics, and you adapt. You cannot extract thinking from a human being.
Least incompetent: All armies, all military and naval forces have some degree of incompetence. Therefore exploiting the other fellows incompetence, before he exploits yours are the decision points of battle.
Only a fool would say that his army (any military or naval force) is completely competent and requires no improvement
|
|
|
Post by crzhrs on Mar 11, 2014 12:23:04 GMT -6
See following post
|
|
|
Post by crzhrs on Mar 11, 2014 12:28:33 GMT -6
Wonder how much the military ever learned from fighting Indians. Never noticed any change in their tactics . . . keep chasing after Indians and hope you find a village before they scattered. Custer got it right from that point . . . but didn't take advantage of his "luck". Indians, meanwhile were enjoying a summer day, not expecting anyone foolish enough to attack such a large village (Low Dog) so were taken by surprise. However, due to their ability to react quicker than the military, turned the tables. One could say the least incompetent won . . . I won't. Taken wholly by surprise by the US Military the Indians overcame the shock to inflict the worst defeat on US Forces in North America. Quite a feat for a swarm of Indians!
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Mar 11, 2014 12:37:56 GMT -6
Well a pretty fair fighter in his own right Montrose told me recently that in his particular part of our profession they study Crazy Horse more than Robert E. Lee. So I would say a fair amount, and not just tactics, but the underpinning of those tactics, field craft, self depravation, loyalty, exploiting individual expertise, and so many other things that never come up in any of our discussions. I suspect there is a good reason they wear crossed arrows as their branch insignia.
Come on Crazy Horse. This was a small insignificant battle, lost by one incompetent fool. The lasting effect was still defeat for the Indians. They could win battles and not win wars as DC correctly points out. They succumbed to the inevitable. The only reason people like ourselves study this battle, is that a quarter can't believe those thought to be savages could ever win a battle, another quarter think Custer could do no wrong so intrigue, conspiracy, skullduggery and all the assorted moral ills of mankind MUST have contributed to Goldilocks' downfall. The other half recognize incompetence and stupidity when they see it and while giving the enemy their due desserts, wonder why such an absolute cock up occurred and what to do about it. I fall in this latter category.
Lessons learned, situations adapted to? There was no center for lessons learned, no military historians whose job it was to determine what happened and why on behalf of the Army so that these mistakes would not be repeated. There was no school system to incorporate these things into training. All this would come late, and primarily because of LBH, and the organizational, and training debacle that was the Spanish American War. Starting at the turn of last century these things still had not matured by WWI, and were still in diapers at the onset of WWII. It takes time to fully examine and exploit things, and with no systemic approach the task is near impossible on an Army wide basis.
|
|
|
Post by crzhrs on Mar 11, 2014 12:51:36 GMT -6
I meant up to that time of the Battle of the LBH. There were very few officers who really knew about Indians, not just fighting but Indians in general. Crook was probably the best and even he got trumped at the Rosebud. I don't think there was any training and/or schooling on fighting Indians or guerrilla warfare in general. Most soldiers used scouts (White/Red) to track and guide but rarely took their advice (LBH comes to mind). One would think that after more than a century as a country and going back even further the military would come up with some standard for fighting Natives other than chasing them all over kingdom come!
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Mar 11, 2014 12:59:18 GMT -6
See my above I think that addresses most of what you posted
Crooke was very adept to fighting the Apache. Sioux and Cheyenne are not Apaches. One does not equate to the other He adapted better than most as did Mackenzie who came north as well. Custer could not adapt to a straw in an ice cream soda. Stupid is an insufficient word for him, but it will have to do until a better one comes along.
|
|
|
Post by Margaret on Mar 11, 2014 13:23:09 GMT -6
I meant up to that time of the Battle of the LBH. There were very few officers who really knew about Indians, not just fighting but Indians in general. Crook was probably the best and even he got trumped at the Rosebud. I don't think there was any training and/or schooling on fighting Indians or guerrilla warfare in general. Most soldiers used scouts (White/Red) to track and guide but rarely took their advice (LBH comes to mind). One would think that after more than a century as a country and going back even further the military would come up with some standard for fighting Natives other than chasing them all over kingdom come! ..I think they did so, late on, by chasing after them during the coldest months.. without let up... not forgetting that this campaign in 1876 was meant intially to have been a winter one... and we should remember the role of women in Indian life.. I imagine they simply could not maintain their daily routines during winter whilst being continually harassed in such a manner... I expect those Hunkpapa women were downright relieved when they got to Canada... and perhaps just as much, when they returned...
|
|
|
Post by crzhrs on Mar 11, 2014 13:23:23 GMT -6
Yes, Crook's success was against the Apache plus Northwestern Indians, but I agree they are not the Sioux or Cheyenne. In fact I don't think there was ever a Sioux village that was taken fully with massive loss of life and belongings, unlike the Southern Cheyenne (Black Kettle TWICE!) with the Northern Cheyenne finally taking a major hit in Nov. 1876 when MacKenzie hit them.
As for an insignificant battle . . . maybe in the big picture of warfare it was . . . but it's the most discussed & debated battle in US history and would probably be right up there with world history because of the combatants, the decisive victory by the Indians, the characters, and no one being able to figure out fully what the heck happened. And this board and members would not be going back-and-forth for a number of years proving incompetency, stupidity, blame, ramifications and Fred making money selling books!
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Mar 11, 2014 13:34:07 GMT -6
Discussed yes. Debated yes, but largely for the reasons I outlined. It is more than anything a learning tool, for those fifty percent, and a soap opera for the other fifty percent. I think it takes second place to Gettysburg on domestic front, could be wrong, and is far behind Waterloo, Austerlitz, and Salamanca on the world stage.
Decisive. Cannae was decisive. Waterloo was decisive. LBH not so much. Pissed a hell of a lot of people off though and was a pivot point. A tactical win no question, with a strategic tipping point reached, and no hope at all left for the former Indian way of life in the aftermath. A strategic defeat. The undisputed results of today, are the operational and strategic opportunities of tomorrow.
|
|
|
Post by fuchs on Mar 11, 2014 13:46:11 GMT -6
In fact I don't think there was ever a Sioux village that was taken fully with massive loss of life and belongings It was (Blue Water Creek), and probably harder hit than the Cheyenne at the Washita.
|
|
|
Post by Yan Taylor on Mar 11, 2014 13:49:46 GMT -6
Well the best way to fight any people native to a particular land is to use their own against them, the British used this to their advantage in their Empire days and the US Army did similar with Indian scouts, that way you get an insight into your enemy’s strengths and weaknesses.
Hi Chuck, yes research any army and you will find some level of incompetence, the British Army had their fair share with Kabul, Isandlwana, and Spion Kop to name a few, but it was you guys who with French help (spit) that managed to inflict on us our last major defeat when you took our Colonies! But you have managed them well in our absence.
Ian.
|
|