Son of a Cavalryman
Guest
|
Post by Son of a Cavalryman on Apr 4, 2005 19:51:05 GMT -6
The only reason they were considered "inferior" was that they were warriors, not soldiers. Warriors fight as individuals, soldiers as part of a disciplined team. At LBH the Indians stood their ground and assaulted the 7th as a unit. Very unusual and only done, in my opinion, because they outdnumbvered the 7th so heavily. Racism played only a small part in how the Army viewed the Indians as adversaries.
SOACM
|
|
|
Post by weir on Apr 7, 2005 1:18:17 GMT -6
That's not racist to say that Indians warriors were really inferior to regular soldiers.
That was the reality.
|
|
|
Post by crzhrs on Apr 7, 2005 9:41:09 GMT -6
I think some are confused when I said the Indians were inferior. I was speaking from the point of view of whites alive at the time. I for one feel individual warriors were far superior in combat, horsemanship, stalking, etc., than white soldiers.
Young male Indians were brought up to become warriors and hunters from an early age and if they had become an organized, fighting unit, the US may still be fighting them!
|
|
|
Post by weir on Apr 9, 2005 12:39:31 GMT -6
Individuals indians warriors were superior. But in a whole fight, the US army was better. it is a fact.
General John Whoole said about the Frontier War :
"It is a rally for Indians and White for knowing which will exterminate the other".
White armies were more organized, and united, than the indian tribes. That's why they won.
|
|
Son of a Cavalryman
Guest
|
Post by Son of a Cavalryman on Apr 9, 2005 16:29:46 GMT -6
Exactly so. Disciplined warfare, its why the Romans conquered undisciplined tribes. There again it was soldiers versus warriors.
SOACM
|
|
|
Post by bigpond on Apr 9, 2005 20:01:34 GMT -6
Exactly so. Disciplined warfare, its why the Romans conquered undisciplined tribes. There again it was soldiers versus warriors. SOACM What absolute TOSH ! your talking about 1 Indian nation trying to stop the might of USA in trying to save there way of life. Same with the Nez perce,Apache. when you consider how long it took to defeat the inferior tribes,and that with Indian scouts.remember what happened against the Apache,when they discarded the scouts,the army ccouldn't find sand in a desert.And of course the gracious american army jailed them along with geronimo for there efforts. As far as individuals went,the indian from birth was taught to ride a horse,to hunt,and to fight,and were far superior on a one to one basis. You talk about the Romans,but they were in the same position as the USA in that period, what of Italy's finest in WW2,the couldn't defeat abysinians,and when they came up against real troops,surrendered en-masse
|
|
|
Post by weir on Apr 10, 2005 7:03:42 GMT -6
your talking about 1 Indian nation trying to stop the might of USA in trying to save there way of life. ` That doens't influence my point of view. A lot of wars have terrible goals, but we are doing historical study, not feeling of sentimental studies. The imperialists Sioux chased the other tribes and stole their lands. Americans after 1492 made the same thing. Crows at LBh were conducting the soldiers on a land the Sioux stole.
You talk about the Romans,but they were in the same position as the USA in that period, what of Italy's finest in WW2,the couldn't defeat abysinians,and when they came up against real troops,surrendered en-masse
Caesar won against Celtic bands because they have no discipline, they hate each other as much as they hate the Romans, and many bands fought with Romans against the others. And quickly the Celtic bands adopted the Roman way of life, after stands like Vercingétorix or Divico. Roman soldiers in armies were better. Unedebatable fact. The regular US soldier was the same in 1860-90.
|
|
|
Post by twomoons on Apr 10, 2005 8:12:35 GMT -6
Xav:
I am a Native American. I was born in America and whether or not I have indian blood is or should be of no consequence to this discussion. But apparently you wish to know, as is evidenced in another discussion on these boards. As a matter of fact I do have Indian blood that courses through my veins. A heritage that I am very proud of. And I don't need some foreign born nut case telling me that I or my forefathers are or were savages. Hell the point has already been made - all wars are savage, brutal and insane! And if you had ever been in one, you would have known that. Wars are about killing, and killing in ANY way, shape or form is "savage", NEVER forget that -NEVER! I could recount my experiences, but then that would serve no meaningful purpose here! But known your insane way of trying to impress others, and your penchant for criticism, I can expect less, right?
You are so caught up in the myths of something, that to believe them, you are willing to denude yourself of any fact that "you think" is wrong. That is not open-ness that is a calleous disregard for something that you may have "overlooked," and this serves not to solve anything, but does perpetuate any and all myths. And, as we have all too often witnessed in these discussions. You don't apply logic and knowledge behind your statements, and staunchly stand upon primal evidence that modern science has proven wrong. You continually believe in books that others have written so that they could line their pockets with gold. And in doing so , you disregard any truths that they may be trying to cover up. Michno is an example of this. Why didn't he include the Native American scouts in his book? He left out the one element that would either corroborate what he was saying. OR, it would prove that what he was saying was a myth based upon fiction of old. It did the latter. Read the accounts of all of the Native American scouts, every one of them in their entireity! Then read Michno again. You have to believe one or the other, not both! I prefer to believe the scouts, they were there. And I prefer to believe that archaeology as a science is better than some unfounded notions based upon the fictions of the past. In each and every instance you shelter yourself from the truths, overlook key evidences, and apply no logic or knowledge to any of your arguements.
I don't ask you to believe everything that I say. But I at least ask you not to spread the myths and respect me for who I am. Discuss this in a civil manner befitting those of your ancestry. And try to respect others whose ancestry, beliefs, customs and ethnic values, that differ from yours. To do that you must bring logic & knowledge to this discussion based upon fact. And not bring into these discussions, racial or ethnic comparisions for which you have little or any knowledge of.
|
|
|
Post by twomoons on Apr 10, 2005 17:40:29 GMT -6
PEACEPIPE - POW WOW - TIME:
SIMM-ING THE ENTIRE BATTLE OF THE LITTLE BIG HORN: Is anyone interested in really simm- ing this thing out? I have a system that would actually allow everyone to participate in one way or another. The system is based upon game theory. And is widely used in the armed forces around the world, places like west point, the naval academy, and so on. No one would be excluded. And opinions expressed not chastised. It's a sim not a discussion. Anyone interested?
Actually a slight correction: The idea behind this is to divide off into groups. Each group would represent the various factions involved. The basic premise would start at the point where Custer discovers the trail turns and goes towards the LBH. And a decision would have to be made.
Each group would start off as a basic one. One Indian, One Soldier.
As the sim progresses branch offs of the main groups occur (sub-groups). For example Benteen's little expedition. Several people would be delegated the responsibility to make the decisions for Benteens probe to the left. And a little later, Reno, and so on. The people in each sub-group are independent of the main group and are on their own, ie. making their own decisions as the sim progresses. The decision on who goes to each sub group is by volunteering and failing any - vote. There must be at least 3 people (voting purposes) in each sub grouping.
The basic unit of measurement in determining the distance travelled by each group, subgroups would be consistant with game theory. This not only uses distance covered, the time it takes, but the difficulty of the terrain, fatigue, and other factors such as heat or cold, that do slow a horse or a mans pace down to a crawl at times. The actual model has demonstrated time and again the reality and need of such impositions.
Last: I as the moderator could not nor would not inject my opinion or view into the decision making process that each group or subgroup was making or attempting to make. Those decisions would have to be made upon "their" knowledge and understanding of events, not mine.
We could do this here. Or at an alternate site. Those interested please private message me for info. Thanks.
|
|
|
Post by bigpond on Apr 10, 2005 19:10:04 GMT -6
your talking about 1 Indian nation trying to stop the might of USA in trying to save there way of life.` That doens't influence my point of view. A lot of wars have terrible goals, but we are doing historical study, not feeling of sentimental studies. The imperialists Sioux chased the other tribes and stole their lands. Americans after 1492 made the same thing. Crows at LBh were conducting the soldiers on a land the Sioux stole. You talk about the Romans,but they were in the same position as the USA in that period, what of Italy's finest in WW2,the couldn't defeat abysinians,and when they came up against real troops,surrendered en-masseCaesar won against Celtic bands because they have no discipline, they hate each other as much as they hate the Romans, and many bands fought with Romans against the others. And quickly the Celtic bands adopted the Roman way of life, after stands like Vercingétorix or Divico. Roman soldiers in armies were better. Unedebatable fact. The regular US soldier was the same in 1860-90. Sentamentality dosn't come into this,realistic facts do ! Imperialistic Sioux>what utter garbage!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Whats that idiot Columbus got to do with it,the Americans didn't get there independance till 1776 not 1492. And as for the US army on the Plains, they were anything but,like the Roman Army !!!! Xav if this,and your posts a sample of the book,it will put attitudes back a 100 years !
|
|
Son of a Cavalryman
Guest
|
Post by Son of a Cavalryman on Apr 10, 2005 19:24:12 GMT -6
I had the same thought. If the book is anything like Xav has been posting, then Europe will never be able to sort out the myth and the fact, the truth from the lies, the real from the fantasy. It will push the understanding of the battle back to the first decade of study. Best not translate it into English and try to sell it here. I don't think anyone goes to the Europeans for information on American history.
SOACM
|
|
|
Post by weir on Apr 11, 2005 11:30:04 GMT -6
Calm boys. It's quite funny how you can get scandalized by anything without going further. I'm not insulting Sioux or whatever.
The Sioux lakotas and some dakotas were the strongest military nations in the Plains before the Whites came. Even after the coming of the Whites, they remained the strongest Indians in the Plains. In their position, they attack others tribes, like Rees, Pawnees (Genoa massacre) or Crows (who were actually Sioux too) et took their lands. That's a reality. Nothing new, nothing scandalizing. The nations quoted above did the same to Sioux back. When Whites stole lands of Indians, it is clearly called imperialism. When Sioux lakotas and dakotas stole lands of others tribes, it is not. Explain me. Oh, and to Bigpond Columbus began to attack Indians back in 1492. Not the Plains Indians but they were Indians too. The massacres of the indians nations began far before 1776.
The Sioux lakotas and dakotas were the most feared war nation of the Plains, and they used this reputation to take the best lands, from the Crows for example, if we talk about LBH.
And anyway, it is useless to insult as you do everytime. In fact I loved that. The book in french has nothing against Indians. It just shows them the way they were. Nothing angelic, nothing demoniac. Humans actually.
Sorry if I shake your die-hard ideas about the Indian wars. You are not used to have someone who have not exactly the same ideas you have, and someone who does not have a black and white view of the Indian Wars. You don't have the guts just to say some disturbing things, so I will. I hope you already know that, but maybe... Remember, it's important get scandalized if you don't like the facts :
The uprising of Wounded Knee was a long prepared attack by Medicine Men and young warriors, Indians testimonies revealed. It was not an rifle accident as the popular culture said. Many Indians hated the soldiers who massacred them but Yellow Bird either, because he opened the hostilities.
The Black Kettle's tribe was not peaceful at all. In the Washita, soldiers killed more than 100 warriors and 18 civilians, not the numbers the legend spread. During the same summer of 1868, Cheyennes and Aarapahos killed 350 men, women and children near the Solomon and Saline Rivers. That is why the army attacked. Washita is not considered by the majority of historians as a massacre.
In Sand Creek, Black Kettle's village was full of warriors that have made massacres in Colorado. In fact, the first attack of Chivington was repulsed. Black Kettle was under a US flag, that's true, but it was given by Edward Wynkoop without the Army High Command agreement. So Wynkoop lied to Black Kettle when he told him Sand Creek was a Reservation approved by US government. After the massacre, Wynkoop made a trial of Chivington, but he gathered several false witnesses, like John Smith, James Leavenworth, Silas Soule, A. C. Hunt, Sam Colley (who were actually not on the field)... The real atrocities of Sand Creek are widly and terribly described, but not in those unfortunately so known and so false testimonies.
There is plenty of examples in the Indian wars when you have to have a smart suspicion instead of a short scandalized shout.
|
|
|
Post by twomoons on Apr 11, 2005 12:22:45 GMT -6
Nice Poetry!
|
|
|
Post by weir on Apr 11, 2005 12:34:59 GMT -6
1-1
Could be smart if we dig the war hax.
|
|
|
Post by Don Blake on Apr 12, 2005 4:22:00 GMT -6
Wounded Knee was not a long prepared uprising. Don't be ridiculous.
|
|