|
Post by Beth on Mar 7, 2016 5:55:50 GMT
I want to add one more point about the tribes desecrating bodies after the battle--even after Sitting Bull's vision. I was just thinking how nearly impossible that request would have been to keep. It would go against deeply kept religious/spiritual beliefs about a warrior's afterlife. It seems to me it would be perhaps like a Christian minister or priest asking his congregation to put aside their beliefs to do an act that would forever affect their souls in heaven. Some might follow the minister without question, but others might not want to risk eternal damnation no matter what the minister claims will happen.
Sitting Bull was a spiritual leader for his people but I don't know if he was for all of the tribes. Would a Cheyenne risk facing spending his afterlife with a foe whom he believed still would be able to make war or would he condone the ritual desecration for the safety of himself and his family in the next life? Would he risk so much just because Sitting Bull said so? I'm not sure.
|
|
|
Post by yanmacca on Mar 7, 2016 11:20:23 GMT
Beth, Lieutenant Bradley of the Seventh Infantry, who was part of the Montana column, wrote in his journal that a lot of the desecrations were done by the Indian woman * (or hags as Bradley calls them).
Now while we are on the subject of tactics, I feel that we on this site regard Indian accounts as useful information and don’t readily discount them, so taking what some of the warrior accounts say about the soldiers simply waiting on various locations, would in my mind give the Indian the obvious choice of surrounding the soldiers first, before launching any real attacks and the various drainages would naturally envelope these high spots, allowing for quick movement and blocking any paths of retreat.
* I was going to call them Squaws but I got reprimanded for saying the word Squaw, because Squaw is disrespectful and apparently abusive. So I will refrain from using the term Squaw in the future.
Yan.
|
|
azranger
Brigadier General
Ranger
Posts: 1,824
|
Post by azranger on Mar 7, 2016 12:47:00 GMT
It was far superior numbers
Custer didn't think so and his dividing the regiment is the evidence.
better weapons,
I don't believe the weapons were better. The Indians knew how and when to use their weapons.
terrain,
terrain is factor of choice and who uses it better. Custer chose not to follow Reno into the valley. The Indians made better use of the terrain where Custer chose to go.
and a separated 7th that won the day for the Indians. It had nothing to do with Indian tactics or a perceived rudimentary form of C2.
You need to listen to the Cheyenne's on control. They used wing bone whistles to signal when to stand up an run on the Custer battlefield.
Three years ago we were doing the same exercise in multi-agency law enforcement training. Get up run three steps and roll. The difference we did it individually without a whistle controlling when we did it. There are numerous accounts of the use of hunting tactics to obtain meat. Those same group hunting tactics carried over into warfighting. When you read accounts of the battle and events such as "like a buffalo hunt" I believe the Indians knew what to do.
I agree that control was different but just because we don't know about what control they used doesn't mean there was none.
Why was there a chief if anyone does whatever they want?
I think Reno's battalion lacked sufficient control over the enlisted men once on the skirmish line. That would influence what choices an officer should make. French had to threaten to shoot his troopers to maintain control.
For the tactics the Indians used where do you see evidence that a lack of control made them less efficient?
Did only a few come out to meet Reno with the rest staying in camp?
Did they move to the unprotected flanks and rear of Reno's location?
Did they go after the horses in the timber?
Did they pursue Reno after his successful breakout?
Were the Indians called off to fight another threat by voice commands?
In order for C2 to work you need to have training, experience, and be battle ready.
The bottom line is did you complete the mission?
Regards
AZ Ranger
|
|
|
Post by deadwoodgultch on Mar 7, 2016 14:14:19 GMT
All, Somebody commanded nearly 1100 NA's to leave Davis/Reno Creek on the night of 6/16-17/76 and march to the Rosebud to engage with Crook's forces. Someone controlled those that were held back as an ambush party, until they were freed to fight because the cavalry did not bite and were called back by Crook. 600 miles south Geronimo, commanded and controlled a small tightly knit group that gave the US fits for nearly 20 years. Also it would not hurt for all to read "Nez Perce Summer" by Jerome Green before you judge command and control as well as C2 by NA's. The majority of tribes had similar structure, some of that was on display at the LBH. Regards, Tom PS what happened to the orders from on high by the US, Germans, and Russians not to rape pillage and plunder, Matt. Tom, No one "commanded" nearly 1,100 warriors. Everyone who followed was there freely. And they were free to leave if they wanted too. The NAs did not issue orders.
As far as the US, Germans, and Russians and every other army guilty of war crimes; there are always going to few bad apples. If caught they were, in most cases, subject to penalty. In the case of LBH, no-one listened to Sitting Bull. All soldiers were mutilated. There were no consequences. Indians were not subject to orders and most certainly not subject to control.
Happy Monday!!
Regards.
Matt
1 Who did they follow? Someone was out front. Who held back the ambush warriors? How many left on there own? Who decided it was over? How did they decide to go in the 1st place?
2 The US Army was the War Crimes commission. The NA's have been incarcerated(Reservations) ever since. While the original diet was not bread and water, it was not much better. Then again this could have been our 1st attempt at a social welfare program and we have been screwing it up right through the present day. We did better in Japan and Germany!
3 As I said read Nez Perce Summer. You might also try JSIT or better yet "A Warrior Who Fought Custer" by Thomas B. Marquis.
Matt, don't wholly disagree with you, just have seen enough of the other perspective to know there is more than you give the NA's credit for.
Hell, street gangs have some form of command and control.
Happy Monday? You must be in sales hoping for a big target about to fall, through some genius benefit laden presentation. If so good luck.
Regards, Tom
|
|
azranger
Brigadier General
Ranger
Posts: 1,824
|
Post by azranger on Mar 7, 2016 14:57:43 GMT
Matt
I think you are ignoring mission. Isn't C2 about accomplishing mission?
Use the minimum C2 necessary to accomplish mission.
Regards
AZ Ranger
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Mar 7, 2016 15:18:47 GMT
Command as we most often understand it is vested by a governing body.
Command can also be achieved by mutual consent of the led.
Different does not mean nonexistent. It means different.
I am also wondering where these ten to one odds, and superior weapons come from. Very superficial statements, both of them.
Montrose has figures on the number of repeating rifles present, and I recall those numbers being in the range of 400. The other firearms were breech or muzzle loading single shot weapons. The repeating rifle gave no advantage, save within the two hundred meter line, and ammunition levels were inadequate, which somewhat diminished that advantage. The only two areas where Indian weaponry was clearly superior, were the suppressive fires supplied by bow and arrow, and in close quarter battle implements.
The highest authoritative figure I have seen on total numbers is around 2400-2700 provided by Fred Wagner. The rest are speculative. Personally I think Fred's numbers are a bit high, but I have not done the research into the matter he has done, nor do I care to.
Numbers only count at the point of contact, and I see no place in the three major battle areas (before the evening of 25 June) where odds of 10 to one were even possible, and certainly not necessary to achieve Indian goals. Best I can come up with is about seven to one, and those for only a short time.
A little superficial knowledge, or for that matter, a lot is still superficial, and this board seeks to go beyond the superficial. There is enough of that elsewhere. More, and in more depth is the expected standard.
|
|
|
Post by yanmacca on Mar 7, 2016 19:20:57 GMT
Going back to the Indian accounts, now some have said that these are unreliable because they are accounts of accounts aka Dark Cloud, which I suppose is true as these accounts are passed down through generations, so it only to be expected that the stories are embellished with every passing generation and we can see how Martini did just the same thing. You also see accounts were Indians have told white men (for cash I presume) the story of the battle, and these are even more fraught with embellishments, as half the time the Indian in question would virtually tell the white man just what he wants to hear.
But if you strip away all the padding, they all have certain segments that are prevalent in most of the accounts and these are that the soldiers come from the high ground and tried to cross the river and once repulsed they were pushed back, then surrounded and killed.
But when we try to make sense of these accounts we tend to look at the whole episode as if we are looking at a map and we have this MTF (ford B) thing engrained in our minds. We also tend to discredit the notion that the cavalry rode to the river and were met by fire, which made them turn back and ride back to the high ground, and afterwards got forced onto the ridge and killed, but all this could have happened, but just not at ford B, so all this is there in many of the accounts.
Yan.
|
|
mac
Brigadier General
Posts: 1,800
|
Post by mac on Mar 7, 2016 21:06:33 GMT
Matt Your definition of C and C is one where there must be a penalty to enforce the Control (fail to do it and I will shoot you) but in stone age tribal communities the processes were more democratic, if you will. People gave command and control democratically to a leader and reserved the right to vote with their feet if they wanted to. The equivalent of the modern military leader whose men will follow anywhere without the need to threaten punishment. The desertion rate in Custer's army is a statement really of lack of C and C, as is the case any time brutal punishments are needed to enforce control. The Indians were, as you say, free. Free to follow a Chief and work together as a team in the interests of their society. I would think all organisations aspire to that. Cheers
|
|
|
Post by Beth on Mar 7, 2016 21:32:29 GMT
Tom, Sales.....no, I wish. Maybe then I'd be making some money!! Busy working the campaign trail for HC.
I give the Indians all the credit in the world. They took advantage of the many gifts and opportunities given to them by Custer and won the battle rather easily. I just don't accept trying to shoehorn their way of life or fighting into a military term. They did not have any command and control structure. It was alien to their very existence. They took orders from no-one and were not subject to being controlled. Each and every one of them was free. That's why they were at the LBH; fighting for their way of life.
Regards.
Matt, It's really a mistake to believe that NA didn't have take orders for couldn't be controlled-perhaps an idea left over from a more romantic "Noble savage" view of NA life. Tribal life was actually highly structured with main government and branches to enact what the government wanted (societies). In the Lakotas for example, there is the tribal divisions--tribes were divided into bands and bands usually were a group of NA who were related or loose family group. Each band had its own leadership structure (societies) and the tribe as a whole also had a leadership structure. Bands would moved together and at times join several other bands. The whole tribe would gather on a regular basis. There were leaders both at the band level and the tribal level. They had two types of societies one for older men-Naca societies, another for younger men-the Akicita societies . The Akicita societies would train the warriors, organize hunts, as well as police the community. The Naca societies were the leaders Leaders in the Naca societies were the tribal elders and leaders, who would elect seven to ten men, depending on the division, called Wicasa Itacans. The Wicasa Itacans interpreted and enforced the decisions of the Naca. The Wicasa Itacans would elect two to four Shirt Wearers who were the voice of the Wicasa. Concerned with the welfare of the nation, they could settle quarrels among families or with foreign nations, among their responsibilities.[3] Shirt Wearers were generally elected from highly respected sons of the leaders; or someone who displayed outstanding leaderships skills and had earned the respect of the community. People could move up in their standing in the tribe by their membership in different society, but they could also be moved down. Crazy Horse was elected a shirtwearer based on his bravery in battle. However when he ran off with another man's wife without following the accepted tribal method of the woman divorcing her husband--he was stripped of his rank as a shirtwearer. The husband on the other hand had shot Crazy Horse for his action and was ordered to pay Crazy Horse a compensation. In other words, Crazy Horse was considered a commander or leader but was demoted based on his behaviour--all parts of what you say did not exist.
|
|
|
Post by Beth on Mar 7, 2016 21:40:49 GMT
Beth, Lieutenant Bradley of the Seventh Infantry, who was part of the Montana column, wrote in his journal that a lot of the desecrations were done by the Indian woman * (or hags as Bradley calls them). Now while we are on the subject of tactics, I feel that we on this site regard Indian accounts as useful information and don’t readily discount them, so taking what some of the warrior accounts say about the soldiers simply waiting on various locations, would in my mind give the Indian the obvious choice of surrounding the soldiers first, before launching any real attacks and the various drainages would naturally envelope these high spots, allowing for quick movement and blocking any paths of retreat. * I was going to call them Squaws but I got reprimanded for saying the word Squaw, because Squaw is disrespectful and apparently abusive. So I will refrain from using the term Squaw in the future. Yan. For not saying a word you managed to get it in quite often. And yes I consider Squaw an extremely offensive term, like many words it perhaps didn't start out that way but through time and usage it has evolved that way. Example--a town I used to live in had a Squaw Creek. Local history is it was called that because it was thick, brown, and lazy like an Indian Squaw.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Mar 7, 2016 21:43:14 GMT
The willing voluntary relationship between the led and those that they chose to follow would actually form a more cohesive tactical grouping (at least initially) to the western way of appointing, like it or not.
To say that Indians did not have a rudimentary form of command, thereby exercising control, is patent nonsense, not fit for any further discussion here. How they did it of course is. The fact they did is not.
|
|
|
Post by Beth on Mar 7, 2016 22:27:18 GMT
Tom, Sales.....no, I wish. Maybe then I'd be making some money!! Busy working the campaign trail for HC.
I give the Indians all the credit in the world. They took advantage of the many gifts and opportunities given to them by Custer and won the battle rather easily. I just don't accept trying to shoehorn their way of life or fighting into a military term. They did not have any command and control structure. It was alien to their very existence. They took orders from no-one and were not subject to being controlled. Each and every one of them was free. That's why they were at the LBH; fighting for their way of life.
Regards.
Actually you are not giving the NA 'all the credit in the world'. You are basically saying the only way they won was because Custer screwed up. You seem to believe that tribes practiced individualism when infact they were a collective society. Indian societies were highly structured with each person knowing their role in the tribe, who was above them in rank and who was below. Members who did not live within the rules were subject to censor or punishment. When Crazy Horse a well respected warrior broke the rules, he lost his position as a leader. They routinely practiced their maneuvers and communication with their hunting techniques. Young men were taught to hunt as part of a group, not as individuals so they knew who to follow, who to listen too and what their job in the hunt was. (Today we would call it a team building exercise) Each young man looked to advance in standing in the village by proving his abilities to the tribe. A tribal society would not be able to exist in your model of each and everyone was free and not subject to being controlled. It wouldn't be able to do things like gather food and supplies, protect itself or keep the peace between the members. And yes at some point BLBH was winnable for the 7th. It wasn't just the events on the 25th that doomed Custer- the moment he left Terry Custer began to make choices that made the odds of victory more remote.
|
|
dave
Brigadier General
Posts: 1,679
|
Post by dave on Mar 7, 2016 22:38:09 GMT
Beth Your post regarding the C & C and tribal distinctions and roles played individual members was excellent. Precise and to the point which I appreciate.
QC I agree there was and is a form of C & C with all human societies. It is acknowledged that animals have Alpha and Beta types in families so why not people?
Indian societies were highly organized as Beth pointed out in her posts. The slave population in America had their own C & C established which enabled their marriage ceremony known as "Jumping the Broom" which was accompanied by the wedding vows they recited promised not “until death do us part,” but “until distance.” Generally, slaves who worked inside the master's house had higher status within the slave community and were the leaders. So why would the Indians not have a Command and Control established within their communities?
Human nature drives children to seek limitations, rules, regulations or standards and adults follow the same dictates. I fail to see or understand the belief that Indian society had no structure or C & C established that permits all communities to exist and run smoothly. I suspect that even the troglodytes had a C & C arrangement in their social groups. Dave
|
|
|
Post by Beth on Mar 7, 2016 23:32:03 GMT
Any creature that lives in a community of individuals has some sort of command and control structure from termites, ants and bees on up to humans.
It doesn't even have to be a community--events will cause a command and control system to develop. If you have ever been in a disaster situation you can see it happen.Someone will just take charge and others follow. If the take charge person is capable people will continue to follow him/her, if not they will find another leader. The longer the situation exists the more complex the C2 will be. True, some individual might elect not to take part but in the long run they will find that it hurts their standing in the community and with their neighbors.
Once we were hit by a very bad blizzard where the conditions were so bad that we couldn't get a snowplow into the area for days and when they finally got one in, it got stuck and the neighborhood dug it out. During those days, the neighbors rallied, decided the priority over who to dig out first, how they could get people in and out of the neighborhood if there was an emergency (like there were several babies due at any moment) and who needed more help because of age or sickness. The one neighbor who elected to just watch everyone else do the work from his living room window never got dug out.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Mar 8, 2016 1:09:57 GMT
I am amazed that someone who claims to be a former commissioned officer has so little depth of understanding.
Exactly in what service did you serve. The more excruciating the detail the better if you please.
|
|