| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
 Posted - March 19 2006 : 6:26:31 PM
|
Again, why is it a slur, and why is it racist? Then, why would it be a defamatory term? It's quite obvious you didn't know the meaning. Even Markland commented on your obvious error.
Here's another posting of mine addressing it. Markland's above it is even better.
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: online
Posted - February 21 2005 : 11:43:28 AM Show Profile Visit Dark Cloud's Homepage Send Dark Cloud a Private Message
No, Wild, I do not know "just another bunch" is disrespectful. In the long history of pogroms against European Jews, I have no trouble writing and meaning, say, that Richard the Lionhearted's slaughter of the York Jewish community - which shockingly and coincidently contained people to whom he owed a great deal of money - was just another slaughter of Jews by hypocritical Christian thugs. Whenever things went bad for Europe they turned on The Other, which were often Jews, and slaughtered them. They run together in mind and memory. Yet another here, just another there.
The Nazis were different in that they weren't primarily interested in killing people for their land or money or women, they were primarily interested in simply killing them because they existed, and this was by government action. And not just the ones handy or in the way, but seeking them out to accomplish the goal of complete genetic eradication. There is nothing to compare this to.
Warlord's discovery of stories in recent books (although he gives no evidence he's actually read more than the index to needed pages)leads him to conclude they're breaking topics. Sklenar's discussions of Libby's attractions to Weir and Custer's gambling did not originate with Sklenar. Utley has both issues in books in past decades and, of course, the original letters between the spouses, court records of Custer's scams, and many other vehicles engage these aspects. He simply is new to the Custer topic, high school vocabulary levels (he had to look up Francophile???), much history and ignorant of that which has been hammered on this very board, never mind in books still considered essential reading.
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
Edited by - Dark Cloud on March 19 2006 7:05:42 PM |
  |
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - March 20 2006 : 03:26:45 AM
|
Again, why is it a slur
Because it relegates a race of people to the status of disposables.
and why is it racist?
Because it is directed at a particular race.
why would it be a defamatory term?
I never claimed it was.But clobbered by more advanced civilizations.does smack of white supremacy.And coming from a country who lynched hundreds of Americans through the first 3 decades of the 1900s a little more tact would stand you in good stead.
And a word to the wise if you ever take yourself off to the land of Oz and find yourself among the natives don't use the term aborigine they find it insulting. |
Edited by - wILD I on March 20 2006 03:35:33 AM |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - March 20 2006 : 2:06:52 PM
|
Calling people aborigines "relegates them to the status of disposables." How would that be true?
"Because it is directed at a particular race." No it isn't. In fact, it includes them with all other aborigines, who are, of course, of different races, however you define a race. Again, you don't understand the term. If pasty white BBC Oxford graduates are the first to settle on an island, they would be the aborigines.
No it doesn't. I've stated numerous times, and just recently, that my own family's ancestors got flattened by superior civilizations.
You didn't, and still don't, know what the word means. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - March 20 2006 : 4:42:01 PM
|
Calling people aborigines "relegates them to the status of disposables." How would that be true?
Let's try to maintain this discussion at a reasonable cerebral level.The issue here is your racist slur not an individual word.
The Sioux are just another bunch of aborigines (although, there may have been earlier people). Like virtually all aborigines, they were clobbered by more advanced civilizations.
By using schoolboy comic strip language you make the process of destruction visited upon these people seem of little consequence.Flattened and clobbered so much more amusing than genocide ethnic cleansing and Holocaust.And the term bunch dehumanises them.Bunch usually applied to fruit/vegitables is used by you to refer to a unique social structure. And lets not forget the term justwhich as I have pointed out relegates a race of people to the status of disposables.
Because it is directed at a particular race." No it isn't. In fact, it includes them with all other aborigines, who are, of course, of different races, however you define a race.
So provided all aboriginal peoples are included in your "bunches" to be "flattened" the comment is not racist.I see!
|
Edited by - wILD I on March 20 2006 4:45:36 PM |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - March 20 2006 : 5:10:06 PM
|
1. I have maintained it. I'm asking you to explain your charge, that calling people aborigines "relegates them to the status of disposables", your claim. Also, since there is no race component to aborigine, explain how its a slur, then a racist slur.
2. No, Wild, just fact. And how does "just" denigrate an aboriginal presence? The Sioux were just another bunch of Indians on the North American continent, just another bunch of aborigines who lost to superior civilization. There is nothing particularly unique or superior to their story over that of the Irish or the Scots, who were just another bunch of savage tribes who also lost to superior civilizations.
3. Ah. You don't know the meaning of racist either. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
Edited by - Dark Cloud on March 20 2006 5:22:13 PM |
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - March 21 2006 : 09:31:53 AM
|
SREBRENICA, WOUNDED KNEE ,9/11, BELSEN, RWANDA.What have these crimes got in common?Well according to DC these are places where just another bunch of humanity were either clobbered or flattened.DC refuses to see anything inappropriate in his comic strip description of these crimes.He strips away the dignity of the victims by refering to them as bunches and he trivializes the horror by suggesting they were clobbered.
Also, since there is no race component to aborigine, explain how its a slur, then a racist slur.You had no problem cherry picking from the Benteen's Ordersthread when it suited you so let me direct to there for the answer to your question.
You really have nothing further to contribute to this discussion.You could have initally admitted that the comment was perhaps a little flippant but you choose to make an issue out of it.So you are left with the choice of pleading ignorance or being seen as a racist. |
|
|
|
BJMarkland
Colonel
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - March 21 2006 : 10:17:35 AM
|
For crying out loud guys, enough already with the genocide side-conversation! Please finish it or take it to a new thread where we all can determine whether to ignore or read and let this thread go back to its primary topic.
Billy |
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - March 21 2006 : 11:01:57 AM
|
| Sorry Billy but DC has a fixation with the issue.But agreed no more from me. |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
|
|
AZ Ranger
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - March 22 2006 : 10:43:27 AM
|
1 DC--"It's not a debate. I produced exactly what you requested. Reno was on the attack when he advanced towards the enemy on foot, firing at the enemy.... " Reno stated he was put on the defensive when he dismounted. The horses were taken to the timber and the defense of them requires some distance maintained from the skirmish line.
2 And since most actions fought by the U.S. cavalry in the Indian Wars featured them on the offensive, and generally on foot, but in inconsequential battle in minor wars, I can't use them by the standards you alone set. But, there's always Wounded Knee, isn't there? Wasn't an ordered offensive by any description if you're collecting guns it was a policing action gone bad. I doubt the Springfield was the primary US Army weapon inflicting casualties to both Indians and troopers. The Hotchkiss cannons were the primary weapons.
3 Where indeed the Springfield was used by the 7th even, when mostly on foot, against the Sioux. Of course, being on the attack can mean simply opening fire, can't it? Why, yes, it can. Let's see, major battle of consequence, attacking on foot with the Springfield. All there. I think you need to rethink this statement: "being on the attack can mean simply opening fire, can't it?" So if someone breaks into your house and you shoot at them the intruder can claim he was attacked? Opening fire may or may not be an attack. So are you saying Reno could have been doing a defensive attack?
4 But make it easy. Find a source that says something other than the carbine was the principle weapon of the cavalry during 1870's, or that the Army didn't think most battles would be fought at carbine and not pistol range, and that the Springfield - the most expensive and having the most ammo for it's primary role - wasn't. The principal weapon for the charge was the revolver. Reno had a pommel holster for his revolver(s) when he charged and offered his carbine to Dr. Porter. The primary role of cavalry was recon. The advantage of cavalry was it ability to move rapidly and deploy either from horseback or on foot. In battles fighting on foot as the infantry did was preferred. Cavalry troopers were not as effective at using this technique as infantry. It required dismounting and a reduction in force. The carbine did not have the range of the Springfield rifle. The horse as a part of the delivery system of a charge was the most expensive in regards to actual cost, training, and maintenance. In regards to the carbine the horse functioned mostly as transportation for it and then the horses reduced the effectiveness of the unit when on foot, usually by 25%.
|
“ An officer's first duty is to his horses.”
SEMPER FI |
Edited by - AZ Ranger on March 22 2006 10:45:18 AM |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - March 22 2006 : 11:45:51 AM
|
AZ
This is what I mean by prissy military defintions and manuals.
1. He can say he was doing the hully gully. He was advancing towards the enemy, firing, and says he got with 200 yards of the village. As a cop, explain how a suspect saying he was advancing towards the eventual victim and firing at him was defensive on a public street with no other evidence. Reno, by the way, previously said he charged the village, which you discount.
2. This is prissy definition of trivia, AZ. The Indian Wars were a policing action. If you're in the military in combat and firing a weapon you're either on defense or offense. At Wounded Knee, I believe wide acceptance can be agreed upon the Army was not on the defensive. That the Springfield didn't achieve the most casualties in an action (and it's a guess on your part)isn't indicative of its intended use for the cavalry in general. The Air Force, then part of the Army, killed more Japanese than infantry. Are we to conclude the B-29 was the primary weapon of the Army soldier? A break.
3. That's what I said, AZ. Stationary and opening fire CAN sometimes be an attack. In some states, no longer Colorado, burglars can claim excessive force if they're shot in media res. In England, I think they still can, being the home of back to the wall common law whereas here we favor no retreat. I'm saying, despite what Reno said, advancing towards the enemy while firing is an attack.
4. The primary role of the US cavalry in the post civil war West was not "recon" in the Indian Wars. Their primary role was to police and punish designated Indians as the primary means of attack. From John Buford on, officers knew that most Indian fights would be at a certain distance requiring a rifle/carbine and that these are best used dismounted. Were the Sharpshooters (hah!) at the Wa****a mounted when they fired? Were they, therefore, on the defensive while those charging were on the offensive? The pistol - of course - was the primary weapon during the charge. But the charge wasn't the primary action against the Indians. Even in the actions that involved a charge, it devolved to dismounted firing with the carbine often enough. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
AZ Ranger
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - March 22 2006 : 5:19:20 PM
|
AZ
This is what I mean by prissy military definitions and manuals.
1. He can say he was doing the hully gully. He was advancing towards the enemy, firing, and says he got with 200 yards of the village. As a cop, explain how a suspect saying he was advancing towards the eventual victim and firing at him was defensive on a public street with no other evidence. Reno, by the way, previously said he charged the village, which you discount. Reno said he charged then was checked by the Indains and went on the defensive then dismounted. Your statement was "being on the attack can mean simply opening fire, can't it?" which is what I responded too. As a cop, which doesn't have any more weight than anyone else opinion on this board as far as I am concerned, I would find out more information then you give in your hypothetical situation which has nothing to with your original statement regarding opening fire as being equivalent to an attack. Opening fire can be and is a defense to an attack.
2. This is prissy definition of trivia, AZ. The Indian Wars were a policing action. If you're in the military in combat and firing a weapon you're either on defense or offense. At Wounded Knee, I believe wide acceptance can be agreed upon the Army was not on the defensive. That the Springfield didn't achieve the most casualties in an action (and it's a guess on your part)isn't indicative of its intended use for the cavalry in general. The Air Force, then part of the Army, killed more Japanese than infantry. Are we to conclude the B-29 was the primary weapon of the Army soldier? A break. Your example was Wounded Knee not the whole Indians wars. "The following morning, December 29, 1890, the soldiers entered the camp demanding the all Indian firearms be relinquished. A medicine man named Yellow Bird advocated resistance, claiming the Ghost Shirts would protect them. One of the soldiers tried to disarm a deaf Indian named Black Coyote. A scuffle ensued and the firearm discharged." Walking into the camp and asking for the guns is hardly an attack.
3. That's what I said, AZ. Stationary and opening fire CAN sometimes be an attack. In some states, no longer Colorado, burglars can claim excessive force if they're shot in media res. In England, I think they still can, being the home of back to the wall common law whereas here we favor no retreat. I'm saying, despite what Reno said, advancing towards the enemy while firing is an attack. In this case the indians opened fire first. There is currently a wave of states changing laws on the allowable defense of a person. Florida has gone the way it was in the 1800's if my memory serves me right. My example is valid for I stated shoot at but didn't state hit the intruder. Police can't open fire for warning shots but private citizens in their own house don't have the same restriction. If it is an armed intruder then I don't know of any state that requires you to retreat. If you are attacked--includes open fires by your definition-- and you return fire can an intruder can claim they were attacked also because you didn't retreat would have been more to the point. In this case even if you hit the intruder it would still be self defense. Most case of excessive force are when there is no one in the house and you have a device that injures the burglar. You would have to have a sorry attorney at any rate for you to not be in fear of your life and used the firearm as a last resort in those states if any that require retreat, besides excessive force is not the same as an offensive attack.
4. The primary role of the US cavalry in the post civil war West was not "recon" in the Indian Wars. Their primary role was to police and punish designated Indians as the primary means of attack. From John Buford on, officers knew that most Indian fights would be at a certain distance requiring a rifle/carbine and that these are best used dismounted. Were the Sharpshooters (hah!) at the Wa****a mounted when they fired? Were they, therefore, on the defensive while those charging were on the offensive? The pistol - of course - was the primary weapon during the charge. But the charge wasn't the primary action against the Indians. Even in the actions that involved a charge, it devolved to dismounted firing with the carbine often enough. Sure it was. Recon doesn't exclude an engagement once you found the enemy. It was the mobility of the horse to do Recon that was the primary role. Even with Terry's column the recon for the infantry was done by mounted scouts and cavalry. I never said that dismounted cavalry could not be on the offense or attack with any carbine or rifle. I said that Reno stated he charged on horseback then was checked by the Indians. Reno then states he was put on the defensive and dismounted and formed a skirmish line. You stated it was an example of cavalry on the offense dismounted with carbines and Reno stated he was on the defensive when he dismounted and formed the skirmish line. If Reno intended to continue the offense against the village he would have remained mounted and continued the charge. There were to many Indians for Reno alone to carry out an offensive mission. No support so he retreated. |
“ An officer's first duty is to his horses.”
SEMPER FI |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - March 22 2006 : 6:33:37 PM
|
1. Reno had variants of the story, but I don't see how it can be claimed that dismounting and advancing his line towards the enemy base is defensive, although he did, with success. He was awaiting Custer and reinforcements to continue a charge on horseback. I don't know the Indians fired first, since Ryan claimed first and last shots of the battle. We're saying the same thing, I think. Opening fire CAN be an attack, requiring no further advance. It isn't necessarily.
2. The camp was surrounded by armed men with artillery, primed and ready. They walked in and demanded their foe disarm holding them at gunpoint. There is debate over the first shots, but this was an offensive action, planned for and executed. Badly, but executed.
3. Okay.
4. Recon for who? The very units doing the recon. For the very few times infantry played a role or the fewer times artillery did, the cavalry had many more engagements. This evolved from Wild asking for one example of cavalry on the offensive on foot with the Springfield during the Indian Wars in a significant battle. Both of Custer's main battles and Wounded Knee and virtually ALL the Apache fights involved just that, my hesitation being hardly any are significant battles. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
Edited by - Dark Cloud on March 22 2006 6:34:24 PM |
|
|
|
AZ Ranger
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - March 23 2006 : 09:00:18 AM
|
1. Reno had variants of the story, but I don't see how it can be claimed that dismounting and advancing his line towards the enemy base is defensive, although he did, with success. He was awaiting Custer and reinforcements to continue a charge on horseback. I don't know the Indians fired first, since Ryan claimed first and last shots of the battle. We're saying the same thing, I think. Opening fire CAN be an attack, requiring no further advance. It isn't necessarily.
Reno needs to be on the defensive when Custer's gray horses appear to troopers on the Reno skirmish line. If Reno appears to be on the offense deployed as skirmishers then Custer could not know Reno was in trouble. From the Board of Inquiry while the recorder is questioning Captain Moylan he asks "to ascertain the position of an enemy is not often made by throwing out a skirmish line." The answer "Yes sir, it becomes necessary at times, because if they are fleeing they may be fleeing for a purpose." Reno then asks the question " That is not the way cavalrymen charge?" Captain Moylan replies "No sir." Reno wants the board to know he was on the defense and if Custer saw the skirmish line he would know that.
For a little more clarification of your position DC -- if you are advancing then you are on the offense. The Indians advanced on the skirmish line hundreds of yards. So were both sides on the offense? The Indian's target was the skirmish line which remained still while the Indians advanced firing and caused the cavalry to retreat.
2. The camp was surrounded by armed men with artillery, primed and ready. They walked in and demanded their foe disarm holding them at gunpoint. There is debate over the first shots, but this was an offensive action, planned for and executed. Badly, but executed. The show of force was to prevent what happened but the intent was to remove the weapons from the Indians and have them return to the reservation. The tribal police had asked for assistance.
3. Okay.
4. "Recon for who? The very units doing the recon. For the very few times infantry played a role or the fewer times artillery did, the cavalry had many more engagements. This evolved from Wild asking for one example of cavalry on the offensive on foot with the Springfield during the Indian Wars in a significant battle. Both of Custer's main battles and Wounded Knee and virtually ALL the Apache fights involved just that, my hesitation being hardly any are significant battles."
The advantage of cavalry was that it could recon in force. Then take appropriate action. If an engagement was the solution rather than chasing the Indians away as usually happened then fighting on foot by infantry would be preferred. The cavalry could deploy quicker but there were costs, (LBH). Cavalry was reduced by having horses to contend with and the carbine was not as good as the rifle. I would agree and have that the cavalry could deploy on foot with the carbine offensively it was just not the preferred use of cavalrymen to do that as a planned strategy. It certainly didn't appear in Terry's orders. |
“ An officer's first duty is to his horses.”
SEMPER FI |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - March 23 2006 : 11:33:12 AM
|
1. Custer could tell Reno was in trouble if Reno's men were huddled under horses playing dead or doing the Macarena: from Weir Point Custer could see the size of the village Reno was attacking, which Reno could not, just as Reno could see Custer couldn't do a relevant support attack because of the bluffs, which Custer could not till Weir Point. What, precisely, Reno was doing at that moment Custer's guys saw him couldn't matter. Reno was going to be wiped out as soon as the Indians felt like it.
Again, "charge" and "attack" are not interchangeable, the former being one type of the latter. You can attack by opening fire and not moving. Most battles were on foot between soldiers and Indians post CW, the Army knew this would be the case pre CW and made the carbine the primary weapon.
2. The cavalry didn't materialize, this was a long abuilding event. Nobody thought the Sioux would disarm voluntarily or go down without a fight.
4. The ability of infantry to keep up with Apache on foot or Sioux on horse just wasn't in the cards without a concurrence of unlikely good fortune. Cavalry was the main weapon against the Indians, which must subsume any description of them as recon. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - March 23 2006 : 12:43:04 PM
|
The ability of infantry to keep up with Apache on foot or Sioux on horse just wasn't in the cards
Myles claimed that a unit of infantry could walk down any band of Indians in 4 months.At the time there was much discussion over whether the infantry was not ,after all,superior to the cavalry.
Villages were the achilles heel of the Indians .You just can't drag women and children with you while on the warpath. |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - March 23 2006 : 3:40:06 PM
|
Miles was a bag of racist misinformation who was wrong about a lot involving the Indians. His great victories, so called, were after long, one sided wars against an exhausted population. He fired all the Apache scouts of Crook and six months later hired them back because whites couldn't keep up and weren't remotely as competent. In payment, Miles imprisoned his scouts so he wouldn't have to admit he was wrong or acknowledge their role, and this while they were still in our employ. Custer is a font of compassion in comparison.
What a guy, General Miles. He employed thousands to track down a band of about 25 Apaches led by a guy nearing 80. So impressive. Then, DefCon7 because some half-bonkers Delaware yahoo claimed he could raise the dead and make rawhide deflect bullets. Due to Miles' genius, the zombie warriors were defeated. Anything that guy said must drip with genius and truth. Amazing, Wild, that the one general who embodies all the qualities you profess to hate is the one you praise. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - March 24 2006 : 07:08:33 AM
|
Miles was a bag of racist misinformation who was wrong about a lot involving the Indians.
Sure it took a racist of some determination to do that job.
His great victories, so called, were after long, one sided wars against an exhausted population.
Why were they exhausted?
Amazing, Wild, that the one general who embodies all the qualities you profess to hate is the one you praise.
Highlighting the efficiency of a genocidest [is there such a word ?]is not praise. |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - March 24 2006 : 6:56:25 PM
|
1. No. It took Crook, who was hardly that.
2. No buffalo, the decades of pressure by Miles' underfunded predecessors.
3. He wasn't efficient. He wanted victories under his banner. Crook wanted peace by negotiation, first. Even Sherman, the uncle of Miles' wife, thought Crook far better and said so. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
AZ Ranger
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - March 25 2006 : 12:57:26 PM
|
1. Custer could tell Reno was in trouble if Reno's men were huddled under horses playing dead or doing the Macarena: from Weir Point Custer could see the size of the village Reno was attacking, which Reno could not, just as Reno could see Custer couldn't do a relevant support attack because of the bluffs, which Custer could not till Weir Point. What, precisely, Reno was doing at that moment Custer's guys saw him couldn't matter. Reno was going to be wiped out as soon as the Indians felt like it. The point here is what Reno thought or a least wanted portrayed to the court of inquiry. He was told to offensively charge. Custer saw him deployed as skirmishers which was not his order. Reno saw sufficient reason to deviate from the order. Reno's questions to Lt. Hare implied that since Custer saw the charge had halted there were problems that needed immediate attention.
Again, "charge" and "attack" are not interchangeable, the former being one type of the latter. You can attack by opening fire and not moving. Most battles were on foot between soldiers and Indians post CW, the Army knew this would be the case pre CW and made the carbine the primary weapon.
I guess in this case you accept the military definition of attack.
" Web definitions for attack: (military) an offensive against an enemy (using weapons); "the attack began at dawn"
a sudden occurrence of an uncontrollable condition; "an attack of diarrhea""
Certainly the charge is a subset of attack(s) or offensive actions by the cavalry. It is a very large subset in regards to mounted cavalry in post CW times. Once the cavalry dismounted at LBH, I see no further offensive actions that weren't defeated by Indian offensive actions. The only plan was to drive the Indians from the village toward the Yellowstone as Lt. Wallace states Custer ordered him.
2. The cavalry didn't materialize, this was a long abuilding event. Nobody thought the Sioux would disarm voluntarily or go down without a fight. If this is still in reference to Wounded Knee then I don't believe the Indians thought they were in a battle.
4. The ability of infantry to keep up with Apache on foot or Sioux on horse just wasn't in the cards without a concurrence of unlikely good fortune. Cavalry was the main weapon against the Indians, which must subsume any description of them as recon. The rapid movement ability of cavalry is what gives the cavalry its recon value. Even today recon is the number one mission of some units of cavalry. It is not their entire mission but distinguishes them from other units. Recon in the Indian Wars time was mostly limited to finding the Indians. Finding the village and recon in post CW times for the military was about the extent of the recon. The military wasn't as concerned as to the strength of the Indians as to finding the location before it moved. The Indians constantly moved. Military presence was only one of many reasons for moving the village.
Since the cavalry could do the recon in force and then go on the offensive it was given this primary role as you describe:" Cavalry was the main weapon ". Using cavalry after it found the village had its cost as previously discussed. Without completing the main cavalry role of recon, finding the village or Indians, they were just as ineffective as any other unit. This happened more times than not.
Certainly the Army tried to estimate numbers at LBH before sending the two columns but it wasn't done from recon of the village. I haven't read, so I am not saying it doesn't exist, of many times the military reconnoitered a village, got a head count of warriors, and decided not to attack because of the overwhelming odds. |
“ An officer's first duty is to his horses.”
SEMPER FI |
Edited by - AZ Ranger on March 25 2006 1:01:48 PM |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - March 26 2006 : 10:03:33 AM
|
1. Reno didn't have witnesses who could state "Custer saw the village." This was the best he could do, in the sense that circumstances were such that a mounted charge could not responsibly continue. I still don't see how dismounting and advancing towards the enemy position you wish to obtain constitutes defense.
2. It is, and I would wonder what gave the Sioux the first clue if they didn't think they were in a battle, however dishonorable and unfair? The numbers of armed soldiers surrounding them? The artillery pointing at them? A mystery. What ARE the white men up to?
4. Again, I grasp the ability of recon that cavalry gives the Army, but really it's prissy definition. This wasn't the AOP, where cavalry wasn't the main force at all, but the West, where infantry only had a notional role. It was often native scouts that did the recon, and the cavalry was the weapon. Unless you include Crook's official scouts, the "military" per se hardly ever found the Indians at all except by accident. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
AZ Ranger
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - March 26 2006 : 6:53:15 PM
|
1. Reno didn't have witnesses who could state "Custer saw the village." This was the best he could do, in the sense that circumstances were such that a mounted charge could not responsibly continue. I still don't see how dismounting and advancing towards the enemy position you wish to obtain constitutes defense. Or it could be exactly as Reno stated he went on the defensive because of the overwhelming number of Indians. Part of the maneuver was to move the skirmish line to the flank. Another offensive maneuver?
2. It is, and I would wonder what gave the Sioux the first clue if they didn't think they were in a battle, however dishonorable and unfair? The numbers of armed soldiers surrounding them? The artillery pointing at them? A mystery. What ARE the white men up to? What were the troopers thinking. Just walk in and take their guns with a new form of offense the Indians hadn't seen . If it works no one gets hurt.
4. Again, I grasp the ability of recon that cavalry gives the Army, but really it's prissy definition. This wasn't the AOP, where cavalry wasn't the main force at all, but the West, where infantry only had a notional role. It was often native scouts that did the recon, and the cavalry was the weapon. Unless you include Crook's official scouts, the "military" per se hardly ever found the Indians at all except by accident. A different way to describe it maybe as a recon with force. Infantry could not keep up with the scouts on horseback and the cavalry could. The offensive force was present or nearby at the discovery of the village or group indians. |
“ An officer's first duty is to his horses.”
SEMPER FI |
|
|
|
AZ Ranger
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - March 29 2006 : 09:17:47 AM
|
| DC-- Describe to me a offensive attack on the village by the 7th carried out on foot with the carbine. Not a trick question just trying to vision how it would be carried out instead of the charge and driving the Indians from the village. For example could the 7th as the whole regiment together get close enough to fire into the village with the carbine which would not allow them to take down the village and force them to flee or remain and fight the 7th as a whole unit. |
“ An officer's first duty is to his horses.”
SEMPER FI |
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - March 29 2006 : 12:04:09 PM
|
AZ
In Robert M Utley's Bluecoats and Redskins there is a photograph of Miles and his staff overlooking a village after the general surrender.It is absolutely huge.
I once thought that if Custer had charged with his entire command into the village he stood some chance of success.Looking at this photograph it is easy to see why Reno halted and why Custer just froze in his tracks.5 coys could charge through this village and 3/4 of the residents would not have noticed. |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - March 29 2006 : 5:58:24 PM
|
DC-- Describe to me a offensive attack on the village by the 7th carried out on foot with the carbine. Not a trick question just trying to vision how it would be carried out instead of the charge and driving the Indians from the village. For example could the 7th as the whole regiment together get close enough to fire into the village with the carbine which would not allow them to take down the village and force them to flee or remain and fight the 7th as a whole unit.
Not a soldier, don't know. Never advocated it. But my presence in this is solely for the fact the carbine was the prime offensive weapon of the cavalry in general. I only needed to provide ONE fight where the cavalry attacked on foot, and as it happens, the 7th alone did in three. The Sharpshooters at Wa****a, Reno at LBH, Wounded Knee. Those thrilled with the hammer and anvil can imagine an attack - utilizing both mounted and not - attacking A village. I think the size of THE village at LBH precludes it as a great example. It was on cavalry ground and if the 7th had a chance, it was everyone attacking with Reno, driving anyone who hasn't noticed the soldiers were outnumbered severely north into another joyeous meeting.
If you read Admiral Samuel Elliot Morrison's (he was the equivilant of S.L.A. Marshall in the Army) description of the Japanese Navy in the Philippine naval fiascos, he points out that the Japanese had the habit of overcomplicated plans to no actual point that would be a test in combat free training, relying on superb timing for which they were - as anyone was - technologically incapable. Sort of like they wanted the sheer elegance and audacity of the plan to impress on paper, which is where the history will be recorded. Like the eye music of Shoenberg (well, that theory is mine....), these sorts of plans appeal on a level above the point and are their own reward, beautiful to the learned eye on the page, but maybe less successful as music. Or, in this case, war. Since they don't often win.
Many make a big deal of Custer's tactics and argue them endlessly without discussing whether it was, in the case of the LBH, rather foolish for the assignment ESPECIALLY considering the size of a combined village many times bigger than Wa****a where Custer outnumbered the Cheyenne and still took hours to pull it together. Really, isn't it awfully complicated for the job? Pointlessly so? As if beating Indians wasn't enough, they had to be seen to be outthought as well.
However, to the point, had such worked, it would have devolved into Indians having to be driven from cover along the river or the high ground in the west at distance with the carbines after the shock (I feel so like a soldier when I can use these words....)of the charge had dissipated, if it actually existed. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
Edited by - Dark Cloud on March 29 2006 7:07:24 PM |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Springfield Carbine
