|
|
Post by crzhrs on Jun 11, 2009 8:12:01 GMT -6
<A young, inexperienced Warrior from the backwoods of cottonwood coulees, is no match for an experienced American Soldier, schooled in the Art of War, marksmanship, and equitation>
I think Little Turtle would disagree with you . . . how about the American Colonists who stood up to the best Army in the world during the American Revolution?
And Fetterman et al who fell for the oldest trick in the book when they were lured in an ambush by a bunch of "unschooled" Indian decoys.
Once again you are generalizing.
|
|
|
|
Post by wolfgang911 on Jun 11, 2009 15:52:50 GMT -6
Now they were just fighting 'hurry up, they're coming forget your blue paint - use mine's' indians...  Billy this was a joke about warriors borrowing each others stuff fighting without their medecine or warpaint ready, like for instance Roman Nose at the Beecher's, bad things happen. Anyway as always the warrior front in this Coulee is held by CRHRS and Wolfie from the weblakota against Billy and Conz from the 7th in exile, yes we are repeating ourselves off course. ;D Clair and Bill what is an unexperience warrior? sounds like a 17 year old oglala who had chased game every day of his life? Probably had his first buffalo at the age of fourteen Sat on a horse and did horse racing every day of his life? Practised bowshooting everyday? Went already on a couple of raids against the shoshones and the crow and stole some horses and counted some coup. That is about the least experienced you could get. Most of the unexperienced warriors with us army would at the least be experienced fighters of pawnee ute and snake. If you can fight 1 pawnee you can fight 10 guys from the 7th. Ask North how he brought the cheyennes down, not with white officers.. I'm not having the stereotype belief that according to conz i think the indian was the good and the white the bad and ugly (I do think they were the very well dressed and the whites the very ugly  ) but as for fighting ability you 2 guys really should read your books from another perspective when you folllow the chronology. who tracked the enemy? who did the real fighting most of the times? the indian scouts. where were the crows and the rees at LBH? Gone. explains a lot. What real battles were won in the open against mounted warriors by the us cavalry, close to none, and by the 7th non , yes sleepy morning village attacks don't count do I have to repeat my drum  BOOM BOOM BOOM |
|
|
|
Post by wolfgang911 on Jun 11, 2009 15:58:01 GMT -6
And Fetterman et al who fell for the oldest trick in the book when they were lured in an ambush by a bunch of " unschooled" Indian decoys. crazy horse went to the oglala school untill 1865 with mention 'don't fight whites they are no fun fighting as they don't come back in spring but in full winter, second they are worthless scalps that don't match your shirt and worse don't count on your coup list'  |
|
|
|
Post by conz on Jun 11, 2009 19:16:17 GMT -6
I think Little Turtle would disagree with you . . . how about the American Colonists who stood up to the best Army in the world during the American Revolution? um...they BECAME the American Army? <g> As for "Little Turtle," he is certainly entitled to his own opinion. It happens once in a while. But usually, it is the Cavalry outsmarting, and outgeneralling, the Indians. <g> Of course, and generalizations ARE important. They are rather the lessons of life, right? And you also have to know the exceptions, and why... But the reason there exist stereotypes and generalizations is because they are correct most of the time. Clair |
|
|
|
Post by conz on Jun 11, 2009 19:56:30 GMT -6
what is an unexperience warrior? sounds like a 17 year old oglala who had chased game every day of his life? Probably had his first buffalo at the age of fourteen Sat on a horse and did horse racing every day of his life? Practised bowshooting everyday? Went already on a couple of raids against the shoshones and the crow and stole some horses and counted some coup. That is about the least experienced you could get. No...I think the infamous "suicide boys" had never seen battle, right? I believe there were LOTS of "Warriors" at LBH that had never seen a man or woman scalped, much less ever did it. Perhaps a greater percentage, even, of Soldiers had seen a scalped man than the percentage of Indian males over the age of 10 in this Sioux/Cheyenne camp. I agree with this..same with Iraq and Afghanistan, even with our feared "UAVs." We use native scouts there, too. If the Warriors wanted to invade New York City, they would require American scouts. <g> What do you mean "gone." Some died there...some survived, just like Reno's and Benteen's men that survived. Not sure of your point. Some of these Crows and Ree's killed Sioux at LBH, and also captured quite a few ponies and successfully made off with them. They did pretty good against the Sioux. List the battles that occurred "in the open," by your definition. Then we can decide how many were won by each side. I'll start...none of these involve Cavalry overrunning Indian villages (that list would be much longer)...how many of these do you think the Indians "won?"... Lower Sioux Ferry ('62) Birch Coulee ('62) Hutchinson ('62) Wood Lake ('62) Dustin Massacre ('63) Big Mound ('63) Dead Buffalo Lake ('63) Stony Lake ('63) Whitestone Hill ('63) Spirit Lake ('64) Killdeer Mountain ('64) Badlands ('64) Rush Creek ('65) Cow Creek ('65) Fort Rice ('65) Powder River ('65) Fetterman Fight ('66) Pond Creek Station ('67) Black Butte Creek ('67) Saline River ('67) Wagon Box Fight ('67) Hayfield Fight ('67) Plum Creek ('67) Prairie Dog Creek ('67) Davis's Fight ('67) Elkhorn Creek ('68) Beaver Creek ('68) Beaver Creek II ('68) Horseshoe Creek ('69) Tongue River ('73) Bighorn ('73) Snake Mountain ('74) Rosebud Creek ('76) Warbonnet Creek ('76) Slim Buttes ('76) Cedar Creek ('76) Wolf Mountain ('77) Sioux and Cheyenne surrender or flee the country. Let's put to rest this nonsense of vaunted Sioux military superiority... Clair |
|
|
|
Post by crzhrs on Jun 12, 2009 13:18:55 GMT -6
<Of course, and generalizations ARE important.>
All Blacks look alike . . . therefor it was a black man (could be any Black man) who committed the crime
All Indians look alike . . . therefore the Crow were no better than the Sioux (so treat ALL Indians alike even if they sided with the Whites)
All Japanese look alike . . . therefore Japanese-Americans must be sent to concentration camp (even though they swore allegiance to the US) after JAPAN attacked the US.
Careful about generalization and/or stereotypes.
|
|
|
|
Post by conz on Jun 12, 2009 13:42:52 GMT -6
Careful about generalization and/or stereotypes. I certainly agree with this sentiment! Be careful in your use of generalizations and stereotypes. But, of course, use of them is unavoidable...just be careful. Clair |
|
|
|
Post by wolfgang911 on Jun 16, 2009 15:10:04 GMT -6
Let's put to rest this nonsense of vaunted Sioux military superiority... Clair clair in 2009 decides for the LBH board that the superior skills of fighting sioux is non sense ok well then why start a board on the little big horn annilation of the cavalry by NDN's , must have been aliens then that soaked up the whole regiment ;D that explains a lot. clair it is nice to summon up your list to show you did your homework. i'm just peeping in here and will not pretend that I know all the bodycounts by heart but if you don't have them I will work on the number of casualties on both sides of the total of these fights. If you stick to the indian count (who had nothing to gain from their superiors by giving biased accounts like the army did) you will probably a negative balance for your favorite army for the total of those fights. (nb whitestone hill was a village attack and does not count) You read a lot like myself i wonder how you come to these opposite conclusions all the time, probably you read through the indian hater glasses writings, let me stick to grinnell vestal & c° Once you get it that NDN went often fighting like we go surfing. it was warfare with passion and beauty which showed superior individual fighting skills, bravery and horsemanship No sense fighting barricades hold with repeating rifles NDN's were not in it for total victory or annilation (when that happened it was more a surprise) more for personal glory or to teach the whites a lesson after being harrassed for years. well who am i talking too bouhou! |
|
|
|
Post by wolfgang911 on Jun 16, 2009 15:19:28 GMT -6
What do you mean "gone." Some died there...some survived, just like Reno's and Benteen's men that survived. Not sure of your point. Some of these Crows and Ree's killed Sioux at LBH, and also captured quite a few ponies and successfully made off with them. T hey did pretty good against the Sioux.Clair You see you admit it yourself you sillibilly the only ones who did it pretty good against the indians were........ INDIANS! Had Custer taken a full company of 100 pawnee or more like most of the earlier fights you state outcome would be a little different. If you really feel indians were such lousy warriors with poor leadership why being nostalgic over a period of time were the sheer name of "... indians!" was like "wolves" or "shark"! calling, their fighting skills give all the special flavor to this period of the west. I hope I'm not the only one over here  cause if this board is only on benteen and reno mistakes and not about superbe sioux... |
|
|
|
Post by conz on Jun 16, 2009 20:06:48 GMT -6
clair in 2009 decides for the LBH board that the superior skills of fighting sioux is non sense Nope...just for myself. It is MY judgment. I don't even know what other people might use as a standard for "superior." <g> You see all those battles above, most of which were won by Cavalry with inferior numbers to Warriors, and did not involve any surprise on any village? Compared to this one battle where it was the Cavalry that made a mistake, not the Warriors that defeated them...the Army defeated itself...the Warriors only enabled it. <g> It is a great study to go through those fights...every enlightening. Also, if you would like to pull one or more out into a separate thread and discuss those battles, it would be interesting. They all lead up to LBH, after all... Well, we'll see. It still counts, by your standard I think, because it was not a "surprise attack" on a village. A village was in the vicinity, but it was two armies fighting it out "in the open," just as you said. It was not a "village" fight. So it should count, and its conduct is very illuminating as to the superiority of Warrior or Soldier. True, because we all evaluate the evidence through our personal "filters" derived from our experience, environment, and basic values, both personal and societal. This is normal...the important thing is that we each understand what the other thinks, and why. We should not be expected to agree, being from such different backgrounds. That would be like believing that Europeans and Americans could ever see the world the same way...will NEVER happen. <g> Their societies and basic philosophies of right and wrong are as different as the early Indians and Americans. Oil and water, philosophically speaking. Yet we "pretend" to be so alike. Careful of those stereotypes, a wise person here reminded me. <g> Same with professional Soldiers. We take great pride and intense interest in our craft. I, personally, can outfight most any Indian Warrior, in most any circumstance, I believe. Most Soldiers today could say the same thing (even our Native American ones, of which we have many). Perhaps that is why they most always lost, eh? Clair |
|
|
|
Post by conz on Jun 16, 2009 20:11:44 GMT -6
WG,
I don't think the Indians were bad fighters, nor bad horsemen. I admire much about their way of life, and I certainly admire anyone who fights to win or maintain their freedom.
To disparage the Indians is not my gig...to present a realistic picture of the American military of that day is. Now I am usually placed in the position of advocate for the good side of the military, because the prevalent attitude here is anti-military. But I can discuss the dark side and troubles of the Soldiers as easily as I can the dark side of Warrior society.
Both these forces were quite deadly, and the Warriors had many advantages. They also had many disadvantages, and these led to their cause being lost, to an inferior number of American Soldiers after only a few battles.
The American Army certainly did not defeat the hostile tribes by themselves. They had some civilian help, and some environmental help, but mostly they had other Indian help. It was the American Indian allies that most enabled the American Army to defeat the hostiles and bring peace to the American West.
Clair
|
|
|
|
Post by crzhrs on Jun 17, 2009 9:04:11 GMT -6
<I, personally, can outfight most any Indian Warrior, in most any circumstance, I believe>
And the Titanic is unsinkable . . .
"There are not enough Indians on the North American Continent to defeat the 7th Cavalary" . . .
Pearl Harbor?
9/11?
Be careful what you think . . . reality can be cruel.
|
|
|
|
Post by crzhrs on Jun 17, 2009 9:09:56 GMT -6
< NDN's were not in it for total victory or annilation . . . Perhaps that is why they most always lost, eh?>
Apparently the Indians weren't the cold-blooded killers some said they were and would leave those defeated enemies to lick their wounds.
Yes . . . some would say that may have cost them . . . but maybe they were more humanitarian than we think.
|
|
|
|
Post by wolfgang911 on Jun 17, 2009 16:26:36 GMT -6
;D I, personally, can outfight most any Indian Warrior, in most any circumstance, I believe. Clair ;D this was one of your funniest on this board lucky you're here otherwise we would get bored most of the time the greatest warriors they just lured them in with false promises and then send them to prison to rott in oklahoma, i expect that is what you're able to do indeed |
|
|
|
Post by wolfgang911 on Jun 17, 2009 16:46:19 GMT -6
I wish to have some more time and go through your list though allthough you don't name em always the same as in my books, and you also lost one like beaver CREEK of 1867 I have 11 soldiers from kiddler stripped naked shot full with arrows (yep! the old way) and 2 sioux killed which is 11-2 for this fight only.
|
|
)
BOOM BOOM BOOM
cause if this board is only on benteen and reno mistakes and not about superbe sioux...