Post by joewiggs on Aug 13, 2013 14:04:46 GMT -5
There are several factors that culminated in the fatal outcome of the battle that ought to be discussed. This will assist us in arriving to and, developing rational and comprehensive bits of 'reality" that will condolence to form a whole "truth" hopefully.
first on the agenda:
The Indian warrior was born in an environment wherein survival was achieved only by acclimation, tutoring, and a spirituality that was based upon a mental and physical conditioning which accumulated into a spiritual philosophy that called for "individual" defense and protection of the group.
An Indian male achieved the epitome of cultural admiration and respect from his peers by dedicating his life to ensuring the safety of the "group" as well as providing sustenance for other tribesman.
In a society void of agriculture, industry, and a lust for valuable minerals, chosen individuals were assigned the critical duties that called upon the collection of food and protection against an enemy.
Virtually, from the time the male was given birth he was trained to ride, hunt, and kill from the back of a pony. While individualistic in their need to meet and counter the enemy, the warrior was also capable of attacking in large groups; they simply did not need or understand concise, martial movements.
As long as success was possible, the warrior fought;if not, running away was not deemed an embarrassment at all.
The typical soldier, on the other hand had a very limited acquaintance with "war" until he was induced to the U.S. Military. Only then were the fundamentals of warfare introduced. The soldiers ability to 'figft" was incumbent on the training he received. After the Civil War, many veterans departed leaving behind a skeleton crew of soldiers augmented by many young men who were unable to find work elsewhere.
In addition, the training of these soldiers were insufficient at best and deplorable at worst. Leadership by competent officers were the only saving grace for men such as these. If leadership was not up to par, the results could be catastrophic.
(continued)
first on the agenda:
The Indian warrior was born in an environment wherein survival was achieved only by acclimation, tutoring, and a spirituality that was based upon a mental and physical conditioning which accumulated into a spiritual philosophy that called for "individual" defense and protection of the group.
An Indian male achieved the epitome of cultural admiration and respect from his peers by dedicating his life to ensuring the safety of the "group" as well as providing sustenance for other tribesman.
In a society void of agriculture, industry, and a lust for valuable minerals, chosen individuals were assigned the critical duties that called upon the collection of food and protection against an enemy.
Virtually, from the time the male was given birth he was trained to ride, hunt, and kill from the back of a pony. While individualistic in their need to meet and counter the enemy, the warrior was also capable of attacking in large groups; they simply did not need or understand concise, martial movements.
As long as success was possible, the warrior fought;if not, running away was not deemed an embarrassment at all.
The typical soldier, on the other hand had a very limited acquaintance with "war" until he was induced to the U.S. Military. Only then were the fundamentals of warfare introduced. The soldiers ability to 'figft" was incumbent on the training he received. After the Civil War, many veterans departed leaving behind a skeleton crew of soldiers augmented by many young men who were unable to find work elsewhere.
In addition, the training of these soldiers were insufficient at best and deplorable at worst. Leadership by competent officers were the only saving grace for men such as these. If leadership was not up to par, the results could be catastrophic.
(continued)