|
|
Post by whitebull on Nov 15, 2013 14:02:21 GMT -5
Imagine this! Custer does not attack on the 25th. because he believes the village is not running but settled in for the night. Custer divides his men into four columns on the night of the 25th. and waits. On the morning of the 26th. all columns strike at the same time. What do you think could have happened?
|
|
|
|
Post by joewiggs on Nov 16, 2013 20:03:41 GMT -5
Oh Brother what a scenario! Just about any conclusion of battle you may imagine is possible. For example, all four columns could move in simultaneously, shooting and yelping, with war steeds neighing a tremolo of terror as the loud bangs of firearm pop off.
Indian women and children running helter skelter in a frenzy of fear and terror as they stumble then fall before the thundering hooves of Calvary mounts gone wild!
Confused, stunned, and disorganized the warriors tend to seek out the safety of their own families thus, all unity between them diminishes as selfish, individual needs of each warrior for his loved ones out weighs the concerns the needs of the "tribe" and so, each man seeks safety for their own.
Non-parity reduces the warrior's ability to fight collectively and so the soldiers are able to divide, strike, kill,and destroy the village piecemeal.
Four columns, equally spaced around the village, entering the fray of battle simultaneously could possibly do all of the above.
|
|
|
|
Post by stumblingbear on Nov 16, 2013 20:20:54 GMT -5
Wow! I guess all that could have happened with the columns equally spaced and hitting home at the same time. Personally, I think that the soldiers would have been discovered before they could do all that regardless of the manner they approached the village. Here's why, from what I have read Indians were going back and forth from the village to other areas all the time. In fact, when Custer was at the Crows Nest, his scouts spotted Indians on the horizon. The scouts started toward them convinced they had spotted the command. it seems to me that Indian movement like that would, somehow, prevent four columns of soldiers from getting, unnoticed, in position to do what Joe describes.  |
|
|
|
Post by whitebull on Nov 16, 2013 20:31:00 GMT -5
Anything could have happened it's true so we got to look at possibilities that are more probable than others. I think there were to many Indians in that village for the amount of men Custer had had to do anything but don't attack or attack and get killed. There were to many Indians for the soldiers to beat no matter what kind of maneuver they tried. The End!
|
|
|
|
Post by stumblingbear on Nov 16, 2013 20:35:42 GMT -5
Oh come on. Don't be a spoil sport! It's fun to imagine all kinds of different scenarios.
|
|
|
|
Post by joewiggs on Nov 18, 2013 13:17:52 GMT -5
Anything could have happened it's true so we got to look at possibilities that are more probable than others. I think there were to many Indians in that village for the amount of men Custer had had to do anything but don't attack or attack and get killed. There were to many Indians for the soldiers to beat no matter what kind of maneuver they tried. The End! Not true! The Indians had no standing army trained and expected to fight for their "Country" as we do today. Military personnel, bound to fight under a hierarchy of leadership, with preordained punishments for failure to do so was unknown to the Indian. Warfare was,indeed, an opportunity to gain honors which were important to the warrior society for achieving much saught after "honors" but, it was not so essential to the warrior other than as a means to protect the old, the weak, and the women of the tribe when circumstances called for it. When war became necessary, flight was a preferred method to preserve the village rather than a frontal attack against the military. Of course, a rear guard was utilized to assist the flight process. What occurred at the Little Big Horn was a rarity, created by the absence of military leadership on behalf of the military. This critical absence of leadership provided the real opportunity for the warriors to accomplish what they did. |
|
|
|
Post by stumblingbear on Nov 19, 2013 13:26:53 GMT -5
Anything could have happened it's true so we got to look at possibilities that are more probable than others. I think there were to many Indians in that village for the amount of men Custer had had to do anything but don't attack or attack and get killed. There were to many Indians for the soldiers to beat no matter what kind of maneuver they tried. The End! Not true! The Indians had no standing army trained and expected to fight for their "Country" as we do today. Military personnel, bound to fight under a hierarchy of leadership, with preordained punishments for failure to do so was unknown to the Indian. Warfare was,indeed, an opportunity to gain honors which were important to the warrior society for achieving much sought after "honors" but, it was not so essential to the warrior other than as a means to protect the old, the weak, and the women of the tribe when circumstances called for it. When war became necessary, flight was a preferred method to preserve the village rather than a frontal attack against the military. Of course, a rear guard was utilized to assist the flight process. What occurred at the Little Big Horn was a rarity, created by the absence of military leadership on behalf of the military. This critical absence of leadership provided the real opportunity for the warriors to accomplish what they did. I think I understand. Americans are use to sending their troops away to fight (not counting the Civil War of course) instead of their own village, town or Hamlet. War is bad enough when your family are the at a great risk. Can you imagine it otherwise? If I read you right Joe, the Indians would have preferred running away rather than to risk the lives of their loved ones. Custer's attack from one direction and Reno's soft and hesitant push from another (while leaving a back door open north) inspired the Indians to fight instead of running. They were able to get enough fighting men between the soldiers and the village. Reno and Benteen waiting so long to help assisted the Indians in whipping out one section of the cavalry while the other sections just stood where they were. They may not have won the fight with the combined forces acting together but I bet it would have turned out differently. |
|
|
|
Post by joewiggs on Jan 23, 2014 13:49:49 GMT -5
Indians normally fought the white man only when it was necessary or to seek revenge for a specific cause of personal provocation.
To confront a standing American army was not the norm for the warriors. One noted exception would be the the confrontation of Cooke in which the Indians were confident of victory as fore told by Sitting Bull.
The initial confrontation with Custer resulted in flight until Reno stooped his charge, the rest is history!
|
|
|
|
Post by whitebull on Jan 25, 2014 20:14:58 GMT -5
Indians normally fought the white man only when it was necessary or to seek revenge for a specific cause of personal provocation. To confront a standing American army was not the norm for the warriors. One noted exception would be the the confrontation of Cooke in which the Indians were confident of victory as fore told by Sitting Bull. The initial confrontation with Custer resulted in flight until Reno stooped his charge, the rest is history! did you mean to say "stooped" or "stopped." If Reno stooped in front of his charge the results could have been fatal! ;D |
|
|
|
Post by joewiggs on Jan 27, 2014 12:37:39 GMT -5
Actually I meant stopped! I won't even touch the area of "stooping" |
|
