The Horse as the Center of Gravity of the Sioux (Thesis)

[Deleted]

From the abstract:

The first three expeditions of the Sioux Campaign of 1876 demonstrate that: senior Army commanders planned their campaigns, expeditions, and
organizations around their knowledge of Sioux mobility, the primary source of power for the Sioux warrior was mobility gained from the
horse, Army forces could not bring their advantage in firepower to bear on Sioux warriors. Army commanders understood the mobility of the
Sioux village and their warriors, but they failed to take the next step--challenging the old assumption that attacking villages and using a
strategy of exhaustion was the correct way to subdue the Sioux. Instead, Army forces should have concentrated their attacks on center of
gravity of the Sioux--the horse.

www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a416928.pdf

[alfakilo]

I suppose one could also argue that the buffalo was the actual COG of the Sioux. Destroy the buffalo, destroy the Sioux way of life...which was what the war was all about. What do you think?

[Deleted]

AK, Here's a quote from a PBS article concerning eliminating the buffalo:

Some U.S. government officials even promoted the destruction of the bison herds as a way to defeat their Native American enemies, who were resisting the takeover of their lands by white settlers. One Congressman, James Throckmorton of Texas, believed that “it would be a great step forward in the civilization of the Indians and the preservation of peace on the border if there was not a buffalo in existence.” Soon, military commanders were ordering their troops to kill buffalo — not for food, but to deny Native Americans their own source of food. One general believed that buffalo hunters “did more to defeat the Indian nations in a few years than soldiers did in 50.”

www.pbs.org/wnet/nature/episodes/american-buffalo-spirit-of-a-nation/introduction/2183/

The article doesn't give examples of which "military commanders" gave those orders - and since I'm not well versed in military orders for that time perhaps it's accurate.

I think had the Army reduced both the horse and buffalo availability, the incentive to succumb to reservation life would have certainly increased.

Best,

c.

[Colt45]

Interesting concept. If you take away the NA's horses, eliminating their mobility, you eliminate their freedom of movement, therefore you can control them. I believe this would definitely have hastened their return to the reservations. Sadly, this is also happening today, where the federal government is doing everything it can to encourage people to move into the large city environments, where the movement of the population is restricted. Why? Control. Why the push for short-range electric cars? It's not for the good of the environment. It's to limit the movement of people, which makes them easier to totally control. Pushing for mass transit does the same thing.

Militarily, whenever you can restrict your enemy's ability to move, you have gained a tremendous tactical advantage. Custer found this out the hard way. Had the army of the 1870's fully concentrated on eliminating the NA's ability to move, the wars might have been over more quickly and with less bloodshed. The army was partially right about control by attacking the food supply, elimination of the buffalo, but went after mobility with less enthusiasm.

The ability to move is a key factor. One of the tenets of the Army's Armor branch was "Move, Shoot, Communicate". Move was first because without movement, armor is almost useless, and armor is/was considered part of the cavalry. Maneuver is one of the most important assets an army can have. Fire and maneuver, fire and movement, are tactics used at all levels, from a rifle squad up to corp level.

Laref, you are right. The army knew the horse was key, but failed to adjust strategy based on that realization.

[fuchs]

Apr 19, 2014 14:58:54 GMT -6 @laref said:

The article doesn't give examples of which "military commanders" gave those orders - and since I'm not well versed in military orders for that time perhaps it's accurate.

This sounds fairly implausible, at least fairly implausible that this could have any significant effect. Compared to the settlers and the professional buffalo hunters an anemic army was unlikely to make much of a dent into the buffalo population, even if it was trying.

[alfakilo]

Another aspect of this is that the NAs got along OK before the horse but not so well after the end of the buffalo.

Also, the military would have found it far easier to deal with the buffalo...they didn't fight back.

[Deleted]

Quoted from the thesis:

Self-sufficiency was a source of strength, but was it the hub of all power? Could the Army attack buffalo herds and eliminate the food source of the Plains
Indian tribes? However, hunting and killing buffalo herds would not have produced timely results and would not have been acceptable to Indian allies, western civilians profiting from the buffalo hide trade, and eastern philanthropists.

I don't want to make it sound as if I know much about Army strategy and tactics (I don't) but it seems cutting off the Indian's main source of supply would be a desirable goal. Crippling their ability to maneuver equally as desirable.

On the other hand, I have a tough time imagining Benteen telling his troops to saddle up to go on a buffalo slaughter!  Orders being orders, he'd surely follow them though.

Might have helped with the deficiency in target practice.......

Best,

c.

[fuchs]

Apr 20, 2014 14:11:09 GMT -6 @laref said:

I don't want to make it sound as if I know much about Army strategy and tactics (I don't) but it seems cutting off the Indian's main source of supply would be a desirable goal. Crippling their ability to maneuver equally as desirable.

The problem was, there likely were still hundreds of thousand, maybe even millions of buffalo on the northern plains. Widely dispersed. That simply wasn't a suitable job for the army.
Especially if you want quick results, or something that could be presented to the press and/or superiors as "victory" .

Might have helped with the deficiency in target practice.......

Exactly that was crossing my mind, too
But without either some long range or horseback firearm proficiency to start with, might be a long learning curve ...

[Deleted]

Fuchs, good points. Thanks!
Best,
c.