dcary
Junior Member
Posts: 83
|
Post by dcary on Jul 7, 2008 9:16:58 GMT -6
An offshoot: I have often wondered what if the NAs had taken a couple hundred 7th cav prisoners, treated them halfway decently and eventually let them go. Could this have in any way changed the dialogue between the whites and NAs and made for a better eventual outcome for the NAs? What would the white reaction have been?
Before dismissing thgis idea as too much ofg a departure from the Old Indian Ways, consider the 'new' NA tactics used at the Rosebud by CH, and consider that SB reportedly wanted to not disturb Reno-Benteen to avoid unnecessarily inflaming things. From these, I infer a couple things: one, the NAs were not as resistant to new ideas as many supposed; and two, SB had enough smarts (more than the Japanese at Pearl Harbor, it would seem) to realize that the situation with the whites could always be made worse. True, taking prisoners would be going against prevailing NA culture, but I have a hard time believing that by 1876 the NAs thoughyt much was going their way anyway, so why not try it?
|
|
|
Post by clw on Jul 7, 2008 9:21:53 GMT -6
Clair ~
In 1876, Sitting Bull was no longer a warrior, other than in the sense that he carried his warrior experience into his evolution as a spiritual leader. And I don't believe the Lakota saw things in terms of a war with an overall strategy, only as a string of battles fought when and where need or opportunity arose in an effort to remain free.
The entire Lakota world revolved around their individual connections to a higher power -- hence the differences between the two men and their styles of leadership. And consider there is no word in the Lakota language for "I" or "me". Of course their egos came into play, but they would have constantly strived to rise above that and understand their greatness was a gift not a personal achievement. Personally I think that was harder for Sitting Bull than it was for Crazy Horse, but neither ever stopped trying.
You analise these two men as generals and politicians with more corporal goals, which scews the perspective and allows for military evaluation in terms we can understand. I understand the need for that. But if we really want to assess them as an enemy the like of which we may need to fight again -- which I see as your purpose -- we had better take a step back and broaden our view.
|
|
|
Post by elisabeth on Jul 7, 2008 9:52:08 GMT -6
Not to take away or distract from your "broader view" perspective, clw ... but I wonder if losses may no have playd a significant part? Whatever we believe about the actual numbers, by the time both the Rosebud fight and LBH were over there may have been few families (or extended families, anyway) who hadn't lost someone. With LBH, Sitting Bull had delivered the great victory he'd promised, and those losses could be accepted as the price of that. But any more, and to no great purpose ... Might they have tipped feeling against him, and weakened his power? Plus there's the practical aspect, fewer warriors to hunt game for the winter. While it might have been good generalship to destroy the whole 7th Cavalry, it might not have been great civil leadership. Better to keep as many of his own people alive as he could?
|
|
|
Post by clw on Jul 7, 2008 9:53:37 GMT -6
An offshoot: I have often wondered what if the NAs had taken a couple hundred 7th cav prisoners, treated them halfway decently and eventually let them go. Could this have in any way changed the dialogue between the whites and NAs and made for a better eventual outcome for the NAs? What would the white reaction have been? Before dismissing thgis idea as too much ofg a departure from the Old Indian Ways, consider the 'new' NA tactics used at the Rosebud by CH, and consider that SB reportedly wanted to not disturb Reno-Benteen to avoid unnecessarily inflaming things. From these, I infer a couple things: one, the NAs were not as resistant to new ideas as many supposed; and two, SB had enough smarts (more than the Japanese at Pearl Harbor, it would seem) to realize that the situation with the whites could always be made worse. True, taking prisoners would be going against prevailing NA culture, but I have a hard time believing that by 1876 the NAs thoughyt much was going their way anyway, so why not try it? What a novel and intriguing strategy that would have been! Just imagine GAC in such a predicament!!
|
|
|
Post by clw on Jul 7, 2008 10:05:46 GMT -6
E ~ I agree that attrition was a huge factor, explaining the weary hearts of those who made the exodus back to the agencies thoughout that summer and fall. Only the "live free or die" mentality of those who stayed out kept them going. Sitting Bull, Crazy Horse, Lame Deer and others led those who were willing to face that sacrifice. I don't think they did it to hang on to power though, I think they did it because they shared that view.
In Canada, I think SB finally snapped and tried to exert personal power to hold back the inevitable. But I think he made his way through those mistakes and found direction again when he brought his people in. He really was an amazing man.
|
|
|
Post by conz on Jul 7, 2008 10:42:15 GMT -6
Clw,
Very good points, and I do agree with you.
And not only is their methods of problem solving different from the Americans, but so is the way they used power and influence to try to accomplish anything. Makes non-conventional, meaning non-western, examinations of what they will do next, and how to influence them, quite perplexing!
Clair
|
|
|
Post by clw on Jul 7, 2008 11:44:08 GMT -6
Very perplexing.
Maybe we need a few American Indians among our Joint Chiefs.
<oooh... that was a good one Sadee>
|
|
|
Post by conz on Jul 8, 2008 6:55:16 GMT -6
We'll get there one day...here is where we are right now...
"Guard JAG becomes Army's only Native American general National Guard, Dec 2000 by Burlas, Joe
Oklahoma
When Col. Thomas S. Walker put on his brigadier stars last month, he became the only Native American general officer currently serving in the Army, according to Pentagon general officer management offices.
Walker, who traces his lineage from both Cherokee and Wyandot Indian tribes, was promoted Veterans Day at the Ardmore, Okla., National Guard Armory. He is assigned to the Oklahoma Army National Guard's State Area Command.
"While I am honored to be known as a Native American general, I am even prouder to be representative of a very diverse and culturally rich Oklahoma society," Walker said. "So many Native Americans serve [in the military] that it makes me think I'm not much different. "
The first Native American Army general officer was William McIntosh, a Creek Indian. He commanded an Army regiment of 1,500 Creek warriors as a brigadier general during the First Seminole War from 1815 to 1818.
Among the Native American general officers to follow was Osage tribesman and Army Col. Clarence Tinker was promoted to brigadier in 1941. He was promoted to major general in 1942 and was shortly thereafter killed in action while leading a group of LB-30 bombers near Wake Island. Oklahoma's Tinker Air Force Base is named after him.
Walker was awarded of his juris doctorate in law from the University of Oklahoma in 1972.
Walker is currently working as a special assistant to the judge advocate general of the Army.
-By Joe Buries
Copyright National Guard Association of the United States Dec 2000 Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning Company. All rights Reserved"
|
|
|
Post by runaheap on Aug 21, 2008 11:46:30 GMT -6
Stands Wattie a Confederate General. The things pressing SB for a decision are pressing him heavily. Let's just say 75 KIA, (if you work on the 4-1 assumption [wounded/killed]) that's 400. The amount of whaling squaws had to be huge. It was time to get out of there, they had won. To destroy Reno was a price they couldn't pay!
|
|
|
Post by desertlobster on Jan 26, 2009 21:22:53 GMT -6
The Indians didn't do all out frontal attacks. But if they did, with those numbers, one big rush overruns Reno. Not enough soldier guns and shooting was inaccurate.
They didn't even do all out rushes against Last Stand Hill until there were hardly any men left. They shot from the outside. Soldiers after the battle reported that there were very few Indian ponies found dead near LSH. So I would guess they came on foot mostly at the end.
A mad rush on Reno's position at night would have been ideal I would think. It wasn't an ideal defensive position as it was.
There was no organization in the Indian ranks. Chiefs leading different groups and individual valor to get coup was a big part of their culture. Thus, an organized rush wasn't something that probably even crossed anybody's mind.
|
|
|
Post by wolfgang911 on Mar 16, 2009 16:48:26 GMT -6
Hau, just diving in the deep pool here as a beginner on this board. Don't be too tough! I found this a very interesting thread with a very provocative title that got my attention being a SB 'fan' (ok that does it!) I think your posts especially the authors worthwhile as it referrs to other endings or openings o the indian 'problem' and not only limit to LBH but also tothe after math
To this I would like to add 2 things to your experts opinions : first SB warned not to touch the soldiers and take their belongings, maybe he disinterested momentarily the cause after the fight as he was not obeyed in this manner. second some Indians survivors of LBH told they did not want fight soldiers on foot and that they were afraid of them. Appparently it is different for soldiers that have to dismount during a fight, then up yo go, but just having benteen's and reno's men lined up was maybe not very inspiring in their fighting methods. Just guessing.
The main point I would like to add : was it a mistake is not the right word but the outcome of such a great victory would certainly have been that at the least the final signal to be joined by the 1000+ extra warriorforce : brulé and oglala warriors withheld by RC and Sinte Galeska on the reservations and blackfoot form the north and shoshones to the west who else might join (scouts reversing uniforms)... yes maybe red tomahawk would even join the renegades :-) Cavalry force of the united plain indian forces march! and then and then... ok just keep on daydreaming! sorry!
|
|
|
Post by conz on Mar 17, 2009 9:13:32 GMT -6
The main point I would like to add : was it a mistake is not the right word but the outcome of such a great victory would certainly have been that at the least the final signal to be joined by the 1000+ extra warriorforce : brulé and oglala warriors withheld by RC and Sinte Galeska on the reservations and blackfoot form the north and shoshones to the west who else might join (scouts reversing uniforms)... yes maybe red tomahawk would even join the renegades :-) This is a good consideration, and perhaps it was his intent intially, before the battle. A victory might inspire a broader uprising of the reservation Indians, and cause the Indians allied with the Americans to abandon them. He ruined this plan, though, when he refused to attack Terry. With his withdrawal after LBH, the hopes of Indian independence vanished with that very decision, and I'm betting that he knew it. So what happened at LBH that caused Sitting Bull and the other leaders to abandon their resistance? Clair
|
|
|
Post by wolfgang911 on Mar 17, 2009 16:01:40 GMT -6
thanx conz or clair, ouf was I afraid after my 1st post among masters!:-(
It was definitely SB's intent to inspire broader uprising as he sent messagers to all major tribes as what i've red in the past (might need some refreshing). If it was his goal to win a battle to unite I doubt though, it was merely pure accident albeit a vision. But the outcome of a bigger victory FOLLOWED by a couple of months of time by the army being absent like biggordie stated earlier would allow the loafers and other withhelders to become "wiser" (note by the author of this post :-)!).
hey you could also turn it the other way around : it was merely a blunder of those guys sitting on the big Rez for their annuities and president's medals. let's not blame SB not to cash in on a half or complete victory. he did all he could.
to bad we don't have little big horn on PS2 Battlefield do we?!!
|
|
|
Post by conz on Mar 18, 2009 9:15:08 GMT -6
to bad we don't have little big horn on PS2 Battlefield do we?!! Not familiar with that sim. This is a very difficult battle to model, but there are those who have tried, both at the tactical level, and at the operational level. All manual board games that I am aware of. Probably some miniatures rules out there, as well. Clair
|
|