|
Post by Mike Powell on Mar 10, 2014 13:35:04 GMT -6
Fred,
I agree with you absolutely that numbers won. "Wherever they are, we come with more" is all there is to it in my opinion on that day. With the numbers involved, I believe the only way the winners could have lost would have been an increase in the number of individuals unwilling to be involved.
|
|
|
Post by Mike Powell on Mar 10, 2014 13:36:55 GMT -6
Fred,
I agree with you absolutely that numbers won. "Wherever they are, we come with more" is all there is to it in my opinion on that day. With the numbers involved, I believe the only way the winners could have lost would have been an increase in the number of individuals unwilling to be involved.
|
|
|
Post by tubman13 on Mar 10, 2014 13:42:51 GMT -6
Mike I would agree with you 100%, that numbers won. Except for one thing, Custer lost before he ever got on the field. He lost before the coin toss!
Regards, Tom
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Mar 10, 2014 13:52:30 GMT -6
Tom: Not the best light cavalry of the time, far from it. Had you said best light horsemen then yes they American Plains Indian and his Southwestern kissing cousins were in the top three or four. Cavalry is an organized, trained, and suitably equipped body of horsemen subject to discipline and governed by a set tactical menu. Indians did not meet that criteria. Here is where I am in complete agreement with DC, in that these descriptions were given to the various tribes, particularly the Cheyenne, in an attempt to excuse the overall piss poor performance of the U S Army's mounted arm. Would you refer to a mob as the best light infantry in the world?
Command and control. Something nonexistent in Indian society above the go where I go do what I do level, and the guy saying that must have been both proven warrior and leader, not just some guy who had been around a while, and had whatever seniority there was.
Interior lines? Interior lines are often an accident of geography. The letter C is a perfect example of the concept. Those inside the C can shift and address a threat faster than those outside could mount, much less exploit that threat. The villages, positioned as they were along that river gave the Indians interior lines. Any threat to the village mass must travel much further, taking much more time, then those inside had to travel, therefore less time, to address any threated area. We see this in that some (not all) who participated against Reno, were in a position to break off and address the threat posed by Custer. I would speculate than their presence was not necessary , and just mentioned to illustrate the point. Had there have been fewer warriors given this same geographic advantage they would have still whipped the man, simply because of time and position.
Fred: Other than the fact that Abrams tanks are all now found in companies, I still disagree with you. Custer could have pounded the crap out of these Indians. This is not loyalty to the old school ties at all. It is a matter of improperly allying the tactical lessons we both learned at the Benning School For Wayward Children way back when. All simple crap. Numbers alone only mean something if the outnumbered commander is a dumbshit.
|
|
|
Post by crzhrs on Mar 10, 2014 13:55:24 GMT -6
It was Col. Richard Dodge who stated the COMANCHES were the best light cavalry in the world. In addition some of the early Spanish MILITARY explorers were amazed at Comanche horsemanship: "They are so skillful in horsemanship that they have no equal . . ." (the Spanish had fought in Europe so they must have had a good comparison to judge) And who are we to argue about past military men regarding who were the best horsemen? OK that was the Comanches who were the best of the Plains Indians insofar as horsemanship who not only rode into battle on horseback but fought on horseback, unlike the Sioux who were also excellent horsemen but fought on foot. I think it would be perfect to say that most Plains Indians men (and probably women) were better at horsemanship than most White Men. As far as fighting qualities . . . it's like comparing apples with oranges. The Whites were organized and structured . . . the Indians were not. Does that mean the Indian was not capable of defeating Western Forces? Of course not . . . ask Grattan, Fetterman, Elliott (they even stymied Crook's large command) and last but not least Custer. The defeats could be blamed on a number of factors first and foremost: more Indians than Soldiers, but let's not forget that it was always the Soldiers who outgunned the Indians. It took daring deeds, skill, and bravery . . . throw in underestimating your enemy, racism, and contempt for Native American Warrior fighting skills and in more battles than the US Military could explain, you get unexpected, but not surprising Indian victories.
|
|
|
Post by fuchs on Mar 10, 2014 14:03:11 GMT -6
I think within their own chosen sphere of battle, the Indians were highly competent, but their fighting style, vis-à-vis, the organized military, was inadequate. At the LBH, numbers won. They couldn't afford a fighting style that was "adequate" from a military point of view. "Adequate" among other things would meant the willingness to suffer significant casualties for achieving even limited tactical objectives. A small warrior people would burn through his whole male population after just a few fights in the style of "civilized warfare", i.e. "stand and fight" until morale breaks on one side. Western nations on the losing side of a major conflict (ACW, WW1,WW2) took several years, and countless battles to burn through their "Menschenmaterial" It's not that they weren't necessary unable to fight, and "win" such battles, but any such victory would be pyrrhic. I don't think numbers won at the LBH, at least not alone. Against a compact Army force, the most they probably could have achieve was stopping them. Only Custer's decisions to scatter his forces all over the place, trying to outmanoever a faster and more nimble enemy (that had interior lines, too), on terrain that was much better suited to the Indian fighting style enabled such a devastating defeat. He played to the strengths of the enemy, and under such circumstanced the Indians were able to win decisively with their "inadequate" fighting style. Of course, without a significant numerical superiority they wouldn't have even tried to be that aggressive.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Mar 10, 2014 14:03:56 GMT -6
I stand corrected. I meant to write Comanche instead of Cheyenne. I guess I had Cheyenne on the mind having just returned from the foot of the very beautiful Cheyenne Mountain, one of our great benefits here. Comanche were the very best in horsemanship, bar none.
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on Mar 10, 2014 14:05:36 GMT -6
The best horsemen can be the worst cavalrymen, is the point. (I can ride, and that would be demonstrated by a high speed dash to the rear at the first sight of remote inconvenience, never mind danger, and few could catch me or, knowing my worth, care to.) Glossary of Terminology. Virtually ANYbody was better than these late to the saddle cavalrymen, whom were once referred to as 'pumpkins' in the saddle, rolling around. Agree. Indians are NOT cavalry, though. Arguably, neither were the entries from the 7th, given they could barely stay aboard and few could fight from the saddle at all. So, that.
The Indians almost lost because elements tried to pack and run from the get go, but could not get it together with mounts and lodge. Had Custer kept the crew together, they may have bolted as hoped, given more time and clear understanding of who was where. Whatever that would be is not a won battle.
Tubman,
There was a tale that SB had attended WP and so learned how to beat Custer. Absurd, of course, but offered in seriousness after the battle. Offered as an excuse not much different than saying this tribe or that tribe was the best whatever, whenver, where. It was an excuse.
Second, your first post in this thread: "Mac, Ian just about says it all. There is some command structure and some control as well. Witness, warriors following certain leaders, CH, WL, G, and etc.. They also have warrior societies, we cannot equate to Marines, Rangers, or Seals. But these groups are better trained in warfare skills and used tactics that have been successful in the past. They also new how to fight together, and what the men in their group were apt to do given circumstances."
I assumed CH meant Crazy Horse, so you brought it up, and you say these groups are better trained in warfare skills. Source? Or assumption because of the term 'warrior society?' CH wasn't a participating member of any, although it's debated, and yet people followed him, and he also didn't do the rah-rah stuff the societies did. He got off the horse and aimed, he spurned the sun dance, he was a loner and not a groupie. Or, at least there is conflicting evidence that he was. Also: who do you think WL is? Wooden Leg? He was a kid at the LBH.
Bourke thought the Cheyenne the best horsemen, but the point is, nobody could know and it's often based on their celebratory demonstrations and not battle.
|
|
|
Post by tubman13 on Mar 10, 2014 14:07:57 GMT -6
Chuck, this post is about "Are The Indians Underestimated?" I will say again, yes, in more ways than just this battle. That was Mac's original question.
Regards, Tom
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Mar 10, 2014 14:33:04 GMT -6
And my answer to that question is YES, YES, YES. There are seven deadly sins when one speaks about living a moral life. There are several more than that when speaking of Strategy, The Operational Arts, and Tactics, but first among them is underestimation of your enemy. In this instance thinking of him only in terms of a savage, a brute, or any of the other terms associated with those times, and one that can easily be defeated by the organization, firepower, tactical abilities or what ever other attribute you might apply to western soldiery, because they are not your equal, is a catastrophic mistake of monumental stupidity. Defeating even the easiest enemy is hard.
DC Bourke never fought the Comanche. The best of them all in overall performance were the Apache and Bourke did mention that, as he had fought Apache, Sioux and Cheyenne. Read what the Texas Rangers from Republic Days think about the Comanche. Better yet visit their wonderful museum in Waco. Worth the trip in itself.
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on Mar 10, 2014 14:50:12 GMT -6
Again: it doesn't matter who said which was best, none of them could know having never met even a significant plurality of the world's cavalry or even horsemen. Safe bet they were all better on a mount than Pvt. Smith, Any Company, USC of 1876. Today, we could know. Then, they didn't know about most of the world.
|
|
|
Post by crzhrs on Mar 10, 2014 14:54:40 GMT -6
Back to the original question: Yes, the Indians were underestimated . . . they wouldn't have won so many battles if they weren't. Of course winning battles doesn't mean you win the war. Back to horsemanship: Bourke was at the Rosebud . . . probably one of the few times when Sioux Warriors or any Indian tribe in fact attacked a large standing army on it's terms rather than the military's. The Sioux attacked, fell back, countered, flanked and had the military on its heels in an all day battle. While the battle was a tactical tie, in fact it was a defeat for Crook and for the entire Summer Campaign against the Hostile Sioux, culminating in Custer's defeat at the LBH. How much the Warriors were coordinated can be debated but it seemed there was some focus on how to fight Crook that day. I will never say the Warriors fought in a united front but there is usually someone taking the lead with followers right behind him. May not be as organized and structured as Western Forces but some organization was in place, how much will be discussed forever.
|
|
|
Post by crzhrs on Mar 10, 2014 14:57:27 GMT -6
One more thing . . . the Indians didn't have the tack like Western Forces did for riding a horse. Simple saddles, reins, etc. The warrior was part of his horse . . . whereas the US soldier used it as an accessory.
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on Mar 10, 2014 15:27:13 GMT -6
The thing is, the campaign, despite Crook's draw or defeat and Custer's world class, letter sweater disaster - and followed by the mud march and all that - was a success. The Sioux and Cheyenne collapsed in victory followed by defeats and filtered in thereafter and not even the god awful newspapers could propose that they were a threat to anyone not immediately pissing in their face. Whether they lost or won the battles, they were doomed to lose the war.
After Custer, cities as far back as Chicago registered 'concern', as if Sitting Bull would move on the nation's capital. Nonsense, but a few years later Bourke again slapped his forehead as the nation feared medicine men raising the dead and armies moved. It got worse. In 1917, the banks of the east coast moved all safe deposit boxes inland under huge guard because Germany, which could not at that point cross the North Sea to England, was going to invade. They did have plans, however......
|
|
|
Post by tubman13 on Mar 10, 2014 15:33:57 GMT -6
The best horsemen can be the worst cavalrymen, is the point. In this case I don't think that this is the case even dismounted they formed their own skirmish lines.(I can ride, and that would be demonstrated by a high speed dash to the rear at the first sight of remote inconvenience, never mind danger, and few could catch me or, knowing my worth, care to.) Sorry to hear that. The Indians almost lost because elements tried to pack and run from the get go, but could not get it together with mounts and lodge. I disagree here, even without the old, lame, women, and children they had enough warrior to do the deed. Had Custer kept the crew together, they may have bolted as hoped, given more time and clear understanding of who was where. Whatever that would be is not a won battle. Custer did not want them to bolt, it is not what he hoped.There was a tale that SB had attended WP and so learned how to beat Custer. Absurd, of course, but offered in seriousness after the battle. Offered as an excuse not much different than saying this tribe or that tribe was the best whatever, whenver, where. It was an excuse. As I said before no affirmative action, and this was silly reporter goop. As you know some will print anything to sell a rag, go to the grocery checkout.
Second, your first post in this thread: "Mac, Ian just about says it all. There is some command structure and some control as well. Witness, warriors following certain leaders, CH, WL, G, and etc.. They also have warrior societies, we cannot equate to Marines, Rangers, or Seals. But these groups are better trained in warfare skills and used tactics that have been successful in the past. They also new how to fight together, and what the men in their group were apt to do given circumstances." You left out the most important part, about buffalo hunting skills.I assumed CH meant Crazy Horse, so you brought it up, and you say these groups are better trained in warfare skills. Source? Or assumption because of the term 'warrior society?' CH wasn't a participating member of any, although it's debated, and yet people followed him, and he also didn't do the rah-rah stuff the societies did. He got off the horse and aimed, he spurned the sun dance, he was a loner and not a groupie. If you check my earlier post, we agree here. Or, at least there is conflicting evidence that he was. Also: who do you think WL is? Wooden Leg? He was a kid at the LBH. You are right, I should have said LWM(Lame White Man) as it was he and Yellow Nose who rallied warriors to turn back a mini attack. Thanks for the correction. Mac, so far this has been a splendid thread. Darn sight better than the stock market. Also I offer a prayer for those lost on Singapore Air Flight.
Regards, Tom
|
|