|
Post by tubman13 on Mar 10, 2014 15:42:31 GMT -6
Mac, splendid post so far. Much better than the market today. My prayers go out to those lost on the Singapore Air FLT.
DC, I am glad you are on top of this $hit. You were right about WL, I meant LWM, who with Yellow Nose, turned back a mini attack, and began a rout, I think.
Regard, Tom
|
|
|
Post by tubman13 on Mar 10, 2014 15:52:12 GMT -6
It found my first lost post, must be my day.
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on Mar 10, 2014 15:56:35 GMT -6
tubman,
1. No, you don't get away with that. You said "Second you brought up Crazy Horse not me." You brought him up, and he ironically exemplifies your further error about warrior societies and their training, which you hope will be ignored but will not be.
2. The WP story was not as you say. There had been a cadet who arguably could have been SB based upon what was then known but was not.
3. No, I nailed the most important part, which is you have zero source or evidence that warrior societies were better trained or trained at all in combat or that they were trained above others. CH was not a shaker in those circles anyway.
4. You say LWM rallied warriors as if undisputed fact.
|
|
|
Post by tubman13 on Mar 10, 2014 16:10:59 GMT -6
DC 1. I did bring him up. I said that. They ARE better trained in skills of war or they would not be in those societies. 2. That is cr@p, how well did he speak Sioux at the point, what year did he graduate, what was his GPA, who later recognized him? I have heard the story too. What does it have to do with this thread. 3. I consider my self nailed, you have none that says they weren't. Take a deep breath and exhale. We should have let you take your ball the other day.
Regards, Tom
|
|
|
Post by fred on Mar 10, 2014 16:18:00 GMT -6
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. I agree with this... so let me state my case in a slightly different way: the Indians won because they had overwhelming numbers; Custer lost because of those numbers, coupled with his dividing his regiment and having those "divisions" out of mutual support. Could Custer have "won"? In my opinion, no. (And "holding them off" was not a victory.) Not unless he attacked in a totally different way, from a different direction or with different tactics. Even with their numbers, these Indians were backed into a "wall," a "wall" formed by their families. A "wall" I believe you can call determination. Best wishes, Fred.
|
|
|
Post by fred on Mar 10, 2014 16:25:59 GMT -6
There was a tale that SB had attended WP and so learned how to beat Custer. Absurd, of course... What do you mean, absurd? Read this... On September 2, 1876, an article appeared in The Army and Navy Journal, written by an unnamed correspondent of the Richmond Despatch. It was another of those fantastic tales ascribed to Sitting Bull that only fed the anti-Indian frenzy of the day. Our intrepid correspondent wrote: “There may be all truth in the story that Sitting Bull and ‘Bison’ McLean are one. ‘Bison’ McLean was a cadet at West Point from Missouri from 1844 to 1848, and stood well intellectually in a large and bright class. His diploma was refused him when his class graduated in 1848, he having been convicted before a court-martial of dishonorable conduct…. He had joined the Gila Apache Indians… and had with him a wife or two…. [H]e declared to me that he would never forget or forgive the injustice and injuries he conceived he had received from his classmates and the academic authorities at West Point…. His nature is untamed and licentious, his courage superb and his physical qualities almost Herculean, except in size. He is fair complexioned, light-colored hair, very full-bearded and hairy-bodied man, with a large head and bold, irregular, full face. His height is about five feet ten or eleven inches…. When a cadet there was no disguise he would not assume and no hazard he would not venture for the gratification of his appetites. He never used strong drink… [he] was brought to grief by the testimony of his own classmates, against whose watchfulness he had, perhaps, taken no precaution. Such a man, after thirty years’ experience among the savages, might well fill the position of Sitting Bull. There are many contemporaries of ‘Bison’ McLean, when at the Military Academy, and some still in the Army, who will corroborate the above” [Hutchins, The Army and Navy Journal, pp. 88 – 89]. Well, there you have it! Sitting Bull unmasked, finally! Best wishes, Fred.
|
|
|
Post by tubman13 on Mar 10, 2014 16:33:06 GMT -6
Fred, I am truly ashamed to not have had that source material. Although, I had read it.
Regards, Tom
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on Mar 10, 2014 16:41:00 GMT -6
"They ARE better trained in skills of war or they would not be in those societies."
Really? There is zero to suggest they were trained at all absent father/older brother demonstrating how to shoot a bow or ride or such as in summer camp. Nothing to suggest that the societies were the cream of warriors. As said, CH wasn't part of that, and untold numbers were not. They were social clubs with rites and all that, and there were traditions but nothing to suggest military prowess above the norm.
The term 'military societies' was applied about as accurately as 'chief' because we had them or something like them, and tried to fit their culture to our own by template. The pre-horse Cheyenne dog soldiers who nailed themselves to the prairie may not have been all that good at it, and perhaps did so as a delaying sacrifice rather than a display of competence. No chief absent personal indebtedness by a warrior could tell him to do squat.
Be careful with these flippant assumptions and statements of assumed, but nowhere sourced, fact. People build upon these falsehoods. We've all been victims.
|
|
|
Post by Yan Taylor on Mar 10, 2014 17:14:39 GMT -6
There have been a few who have tried to get this thread back on line, so I will have a go;
Yes the Indians were underestimated;
1/ they sent understrength Regiment of Cavalry 2/ the troopers didn’t do nearly enough musket training, I suppose you could give a man half a dozen rounds a month to shoot at a nice white motionless target on a range, and then expect him to shoot at a moving target whilst under extreme pressure 3/ they divided there fire power against an enemy village with no knowledge of what strength by were actually facing
Ian.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Mar 10, 2014 17:39:03 GMT -6
Battles lost and won, are all about tactics some good, some dumb.. You may commit that to you diary sir.
The decision not to fight is a tactic. The decision to wait for a more favorable opportunity is a tactic. The time to hit, where to hit, how hard to hit are tactics. Good tactics could have won the day, and dealt the Indians a catastrophic blow. The problem was the guy in charge was not a particularly good tactician, nor was he a particularly good commander, nor trainer, nor administrator, nor logistician. His idea of battle was the bar room brawl. So when he got his ass handed to him, there was not a period of deep introspection within the Army as to why. What there was is a great deal of excuse making, and we never really got a handle on the root causes, and addressed them for nearly forty more years.
Now to address the theme of this thread. Were the Indians underestimated. Well that depends on who is doing the underestimating, and what aspect of Indian culture, lifestyle, and military potential is being underestimated. The biggest advantage the American Indian had was field craft, and individual tactical ability. That was not welded into a team effort, because of other factors in societal development but it is a mighty force not to be dismissed. On the one on one individual soldier vs. Indian the Indian was much more prepared for combat in all its forms. When you factor in numbers, you have a formidable opponent.
When you are outnumbered, regardless of who the opponent is the only thing you have going for you is superior tactics, organization, training, and leadership. Absent those four things, and faced with great numbers of highly capable (maybe not pretty, maybe not western, maybe not even worthy of the name soldier you think by your own standards), you are frigging toast.
|
|
|
Post by Yan Taylor on Mar 10, 2014 18:08:05 GMT -6
Another thing Chuck, you had on one side a force made up of soldiers who were there because they were paid to do a job, and on the other side you had a force made up of people who were fighting not only to save their families but there whole way of life, the deep anger and hatred for these soldiers who have turned up to kill them must have had an impact on their resolve and their heart was in it more than the soldiers and once the Cavalry found out how determined there foe was, it was too late because they had relinquished any chance of fire superiority, and not enough guns concentrated to suppress any attacks.
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on Mar 10, 2014 18:37:47 GMT -6
The Indians were underestimated in number by Custer and the Army, who never thought they'd attack a large Army unit regardless of their own size. I think it of interest how they rather ignored Kildeer Mt., where many of the same Indians stood and fought unexpectedly because the civvies couldn't get away in time. At some point, they ran, and so.....they still always ran. Viva la cliche and template, however bogus.
But this would last only until they didn't run and came at Custer in force. Buttressed by reports from Crook later.
They were not underestimated as fighters in the ranks, as even Whitaker points out that in 1876 soldiers were afraid of them in contrast to previous years when the original mountain men and army men were bigger, stronger, and motivated rather than the shrunken urban product (I assume he means) of the Industrial Revolution now in the ranks for minimal pay as a job. The alpha males had moved on, one supposes. But, true enough.
|
|
|
Post by mac on Mar 10, 2014 19:13:26 GMT -6
Thank you all, interesting stuff! Can I turn to QC's point of "individual tactical ability". I don't doubt that Custer faced a "swarm" of individuals but does this make us down grade their tactical efforts which I acknowledge are simple? Yes, Custer was shall I say "tactically misguided", but despite being a swarm the Indians seem to have used their advantages well and purposefully executed "manoeuvres" that gave them victory. We become focussed on what Custer did badly but forget to see that his opponents were quite efficient in reacting to his threat and exploiting his mistakes. I see these people making decisions but from a paradigm that is not our command model. Cheers
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Mar 10, 2014 19:22:26 GMT -6
Mac: In my opinion, had they been able to harness the individual abilities of the average warrior, and in particular his skills in field craft his being able to operate in an expected state of privation where hardship is a close companion, tweaked his weapons skills with regard to modern firearms, then formed this raw material into cohesive units with even the most rudimentary command and control system, they would have been a force able to contest any issue with anyone in the Americas at the time. Anyone.
I think the Apache were the best closely followed by the Comanche. I attribute this to a much earlier contact with the Spanish in the southwest. They learned the basics of western tactics and the methods to defeat them. Another factor was operating in very small bands usually on the order of twenty or thirty. They usually left the home folks where they belong at home in the Dragoons or Sierra Peaks, safe from just about anything, with more than enough to subsist on. I think I said some time ago I would not wish to go into Oak Creek Canyon, Arizona after a small Apache band with a brigade at my disposal. The most likely outcome, accomplishing plenty of nothing.
|
|
|
Post by Mike Powell on Mar 10, 2014 20:03:57 GMT -6
I think some view "swarm" negatively. To the contrary, with the advantage of numbers, to aggressively react in overwhelming strength anywhere the enemy appears probably offers quicker results with fewer losses than any attempt at set-piece tactics. The swarm doesn't just disrupt the opponents OODA loop, it shatters it. Marshaling and maneuver require time that the swarm can better spend besetting and killing.
|
|