Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
....flanking movements usually involve one unit '''holding'' the enemy, keeping the enemy down--in place while the other unit flanksHow would a commander hold troops in reserve or have a plan for attacking two or more fronts if he does not split his forces? How could a flanking movement be conducted without splitting forces?
Which means a commander would have to split his overall command for sending a portion of it for flanking or opening a second or third, etc, independent attack(s).....flanking movements usually involve one unit '''holding'' the enemy, keeping the enemy down--in place while the other unit flanksHow would a commander hold troops in reserve or have a plan for attacking two or more fronts if he does not split his forces? How could a flanking movement be conducted without splitting forces?
...also---the NA village was too large to flank!! = if Custer was thinking straight and LISTENING to his scouts, he would've known this
too many warriors to flank them
hahahhahahahahhahahahahahah
Reno was flanked---- and NAs were also getting behind him
....you usually can't flank an enemy that is larger than you and one that is highly MOBILEWhich means a commander would have to split his overall command for sending a portion of it for flanking or opening a second or third, etc, independent attack(s).....flanking movements usually involve one unit '''holding'' the enemy, keeping the enemy down--in place while the other unit flanksHow would a commander hold troops in reserve or have a plan for attacking two or more fronts if he does not split his forces? How could a flanking movement be conducted without splitting forces?
...also---the NA village was too large to flank!! = if Custer was thinking straight and LISTENING to his scouts, he would've known this
too many warriors to flank them
hahahhahahahahhahahahahahah
Reno was flanked---- and NAs were also getting behind him
....another military ''axiom'' is to react/act on what the enemy's capabilities are--NOT what you THINK they will do..perfect examples are the US at Pearl Harbor and the Japanese at MidwayWhich means a commander would have to split his overall command for sending a portion of it for flanking or opening a second or third, etc, independent attack(s).....flanking movements usually involve one unit '''holding'' the enemy, keeping the enemy down--in place while the other unit flanksHow would a commander hold troops in reserve or have a plan for attacking two or more fronts if he does not split his forces? How could a flanking movement be conducted without splitting forces?
...also---the NA village was too large to flank!! = if Custer was thinking straight and LISTENING to his scouts, he would've known this
too many warriors to flank them
hahahhahahahahhahahahahahah
Reno was flanked---- and NAs were also getting behind him
Victory disease occurs in military history when complacency or arrogance, brought on by a victory or a series of victories, makes an engagement end disastrously for a commander and his forces. A commander may disdain the enemy, and believe his own invincibility, leading his troops to disaster.
Absolutely correct! and that was the reason, Crazy Horse was able to turn Custer's strategy against him! There is no denying that....further, one has to acknowlege that Custer's Indian fighting experience was mostly comprised of his Washita raid, so a totally different case, yet he thought he could repeat that at the Little Big Horn....you usually can't flank an enemy that is larger than you and one that is highly MOBILE
...in other words, if you are in command you can't be a dumbass
You are right about the Sioux depredations against their neighbors--equal to anything one can find in Deuteronomy in terms of genocidal brutality. A young Sioux male was expected to kill a Pawnee, for example, as part of his passage into adulthood.Peter Panzeri is one of many who have written on the battle, drawing conclusions then proceeding to justify those conclusions. Is he correct? I doubt it based on writings by established historians who mostly disagree with Panzeri and show that Custer holds the sole blame for what happened. Don't let one book by one author make up your mind for you with a well constructed but potentially incorrect argument. As for me I think there's more than enough blame to go around for that one but the majority of it rests with Custer himself.I'd like to know your opinion about the battle of the greasy grass eg. Custer's last stand....I recently bought a book by Peter Panzeri (Little Big Horn 1876) and was quite intreagued by it, since it does give a very good and detailed insight into said battle.
I always knew about Major Reno's questionable command of his troops, yet the whole extend in which his incompetance (and cowardice) contributed to Custer's command's demise is quite astonishing.
Sure, one can blame Custer for hot headedly storming into the situation which than turned against him, yet it was Reno's retreat (and subsequent heavy losses) which allowed the Indians to break loose and concentrate their whole numbers on Custer...
So,what do you think?
His arrogance and belief he had found a village full of women and children with a few hundred warriors was his downfall. He got cut off from Benteen and Reno by a superior force with modern firearms and paid the price. History demonizes the Indians! They were protecting their property and way of life and the US Government knowing what's best Annihilated a whole race of People for Power and Money. Think about that when you vote again!
Bad old United States!
By the way the Sioux were pushed west in 1700 or so by the Iroquois who were trying to exterminate them. So the Sioux exterminated the Wicosawan and took their lands and began work on exterminating the Pawnee.
Custer used Crow Indian scouts because the Sioux had been massacring and enslaving Crow Indians for years. Over 160 Crow fought the Sioux and Cheyanne at Rosebud alongside the US Army.
The Arikara assisted Custer as well. Their nation had been brutally annihilated by the Sioux in 1862 at Star Village. The Arikara remnant fled to Fishhook Village for American protection but by the end of 1862 the Sioux had burned them out there as well.
No wonder Custer had so many willing Indian allies.
yesYou are right about the Sioux depredations against their neighbors--equal to anything one can find in Deuteronomy in terms of genocidal brutality. A young Sioux male was expected to kill a Pawnee, for example, as part of his passage into adulthood.Peter Panzeri is one of many who have written on the battle, drawing conclusions then proceeding to justify those conclusions. Is he correct? I doubt it based on writings by established historians who mostly disagree with Panzeri and show that Custer holds the sole blame for what happened. Don't let one book by one author make up your mind for you with a well constructed but potentially incorrect argument. As for me I think there's more than enough blame to go around for that one but the majority of it rests with Custer himself.I'd like to know your opinion about the battle of the greasy grass eg. Custer's last stand....I recently bought a book by Peter Panzeri (Little Big Horn 1876) and was quite intreagued by it, since it does give a very good and detailed insight into said battle.
I always knew about Major Reno's questionable command of his troops, yet the whole extend in which his incompetance (and cowardice) contributed to Custer's command's demise is quite astonishing.
Sure, one can blame Custer for hot headedly storming into the situation which than turned against him, yet it was Reno's retreat (and subsequent heavy losses) which allowed the Indians to break loose and concentrate their whole numbers on Custer...
So,what do you think?
His arrogance and belief he had found a village full of women and children with a few hundred warriors was his downfall. He got cut off from Benteen and Reno by a superior force with modern firearms and paid the price. History demonizes the Indians! They were protecting their property and way of life and the US Government knowing what's best Annihilated a whole race of People for Power and Money. Think about that when you vote again!
Bad old United States!
By the way the Sioux were pushed west in 1700 or so by the Iroquois who were trying to exterminate them. So the Sioux exterminated the Wicosawan and took their lands and began work on exterminating the Pawnee.
Custer used Crow Indian scouts because the Sioux had been massacring and enslaving Crow Indians for years. Over 160 Crow fought the Sioux and Cheyanne at Rosebud alongside the US Army.
The Arikara assisted Custer as well. Their nation had been brutally annihilated by the Sioux in 1862 at Star Village. The Arikara remnant fled to Fishhook Village for American protection but by the end of 1862 the Sioux had burned them out there as well.
No wonder Custer had so many willing Indian allies.
careful...culture is and can't be a universal out of jail card...after all: it was the slave keeper culture which rightfully enflamed the nation....it was a cultural trait in India to burn the widows of a man on his funeral pyre...lot's of cultural characteristics have led to (rightfully) fought conflict and we wouldn't be, where we are as human and humane societies (the western world that is) if we hadn't fought those, who practice barbarism and savageryyes
....the NAs TORTURED their captives--even the children participated --it was their culture --not policy
fact ---NAs tortured their captivescareful...culture is and can't be a universal out of jail card...after all: it was the slave keeper culture which rightfully enflamed the nation....it was a cultural trait in India to burn the widows of a man on his funeral pyre...lot's of cultural characteristics have led to (rightfully) fought conflict and we wouldn't be, where we are as human and humane societies (the western world that is) if we hadn't fought those, who practice barbarism and savageryyes
....the NAs TORTURED their captives--even the children participated --it was their culture --not policy
The Nort American Indian is no exception...they were at stone age level and I don't say they were all monsters, but a lot of their customs would not allow to live as neighbors with them
yes, they did and I didn't dispute that....I was just a bit worried about your "it was their culture" remark..it sounded apologeticfact ---NAs tortured their captives
..they were no different from the whites when it came to genocide/displacing/decimating/etcyes, they did and I didn't dispute that....I was just a bit worried about your "it was their culture" remark..it sounded apologeticfact ---NAs tortured their captives
see? that's what I meant..if genocide would have been fully permitted by the government....how come we still have Indians around?..they were no different from the whites when it came to genocide/displacing/decimating/etc
..'''amazing'' [ not ] a lot of people think they all gave out corn and flowers
The torture would sometimes last for days.fact ---NAs tortured their captivescareful...culture is and can't be a universal out of jail card...after all: it was the slave keeper culture which rightfully enflamed the nation....it was a cultural trait in India to burn the widows of a man on his funeral pyre...lot's of cultural characteristics have led to (rightfully) fought conflict and we wouldn't be, where we are as human and humane societies (the western world that is) if we hadn't fought those, who practice barbarism and savageryyes
....the NAs TORTURED their captives--even the children participated --it was their culture --not policy
The Nort American Indian is no exception...they were at stone age level and I don't say they were all monsters, but a lot of their customs would not allow to live as neighbors with them
The torture would sometimes last for days.fact ---NAs tortured their captivescareful...culture is and can't be a universal out of jail card...after all: it was the slave keeper culture which rightfully enflamed the nation....it was a cultural trait in India to burn the widows of a man on his funeral pyre...lot's of cultural characteristics have led to (rightfully) fought conflict and we wouldn't be, where we are as human and humane societies (the western world that is) if we hadn't fought those, who practice barbarism and savageryyes
....the NAs TORTURED their captives--even the children participated --it was their culture --not policy
The Nort American Indian is no exception...they were at stone age level and I don't say they were all monsters, but a lot of their customs would not allow to live as neighbors with them
There is something to be said for this argument. Although most of our textbooks portray the American Indians as innocent victims of the brutal side of Manifest Destiny, they were far from innocent in many cases. This is not to deny that our conduct toward them was sometimes disgraceful and cruel. However, there is more to the story than just the big stains on our side of the ledger.
One problem was that the Indians would claim enormous tracts of land as "theirs," even though they only inhabited a fraction of the land. We would look at maps and say, "Uh, you can't claim this massive area as 'yours' when you only live on 2% of it. You can still hunt while also allowing whites to settle in the area. You don't need hundreds of square miles just for hunting."
Also, in some cases, Indian leaders who signed agreements with us did not/could not prevent some hotheads from their ranks from attacking white settlements. We would complain, and the leaders would say, usually in all honesty, that they were not aware of the attack and did not authorize it. So what were we supposed to do?
Again, this is not to excuse our sins. We should and could have handled things differently in some cases. Sometimes our military response was disproportionately harsh and violent. Sometimes we broke our word when there was huge profit to be made by doing so. But the Indians were not blameless, either.
There is something to be said for this argument. Although most of our textbooks portray the American Indians as innocent victims of the brutal side of Manifest Destiny, they were far from innocent in many cases. This is not to deny that our conduct toward them was sometimes disgraceful and cruel. However, there is more to the story than just the big stains on our side of the ledger.
One problem was that the Indians would claim enormous tracts of land as "theirs," even though they only inhabited a fraction of the land. We would look at maps and say, "Uh, you can't claim this massive area as 'yours' when you only live on 2% of it. You can still hunt while also allowing whites to settle in the area. You don't need hundreds of square miles just for hunting."
Also, in some cases, Indian leaders who signed agreements with us did not/could not prevent some hotheads from their ranks from attacking white settlements. We would complain, and the leaders would say, usually in all honesty, that they were not aware of the attack and did not authorize it. So what were we supposed to do?
Again, this is not to excuse our sins. We should and could have handled things differently in some cases. Sometimes our military response was disproportionately harsh and violent. Sometimes we broke our word when there was huge profit to be made by doing so. But the Indians were not blameless, either.
Ah, thet treaties...yup, the fact that every tribe was splintered into lots of factions where the warrior societies, lead by powerful warriors like Tall Bull had the say...civilian council chiefs had far less importance..how do you make treaties with 10,20 or more factions of one tribe that actually last?
Most of the friction between the prarie Indians and the US came after all from settlers CROSSING from the east coast to California...a simple matter of trespassing...and the unreliability of Indian treaties in regard to trail safety must have made a lasting impression.
As I've stated: when someone regards something as yours only for as long as you can defend it, you will have problems from start to finish
Manifest Destiny is kinda routine in all growing countries and civilizations. A conquest for more land, resources and power. We took the United States by force from the Indians, the French, and the Mexicans. We did it by whooping their butts. Just as they took regions by force before that. The Indians fought and destroyed each other for land and power before we were ever here, and in some cases wiped out whole tribes in the process. Same as Mexico took the land by force as well. Those with the biggest guns and best armies got the land.The torture would sometimes last for days.fact ---NAs tortured their captivescareful...culture is and can't be a universal out of jail card...after all: it was the slave keeper culture which rightfully enflamed the nation....it was a cultural trait in India to burn the widows of a man on his funeral pyre...lot's of cultural characteristics have led to (rightfully) fought conflict and we wouldn't be, where we are as human and humane societies (the western world that is) if we hadn't fought those, who practice barbarism and savageryyes
....the NAs TORTURED their captives--even the children participated --it was their culture --not policy
The Nort American Indian is no exception...they were at stone age level and I don't say they were all monsters, but a lot of their customs would not allow to live as neighbors with them
There is something to be said for this argument. Although most of our textbooks portray the American Indians as innocent victims of the brutal side of Manifest Destiny, they were far from innocent in many cases. This is not to deny that our conduct toward them was sometimes disgraceful and cruel. However, there is more to the story than just the big stains on our side of the ledger.
One problem was that the Indians would claim enormous tracts of land as "theirs," even though they only inhabited a fraction of the land. We would look at maps and say, "Uh, you can't claim this massive area as 'yours' when you only live on 2% of it. You can still hunt while also allowing whites to settle in the area. You don't need hundreds of square miles just for hunting."
Also, in some cases, Indian leaders who signed agreements with us did not/could not prevent some hotheads from their ranks from attacking white settlements. We would complain, and the leaders would say, usually in all honesty, that they were not aware of the attack and did not authorize it. So what were we supposed to do?
Again, this is not to excuse our sins. We should and could have handled things differently in some cases. Sometimes our military response was disproportionately harsh and violent. Sometimes we broke our word when there was huge profit to be made by doing so. But the Indians were not blameless, either.
