Gun owner poll

[Bengalzona]

(10-04-2019, 03:44 PM)Dill Wrote: A very Bengalzonesque (i.e. excellent) overview of the plains campaign.

One quick point here, though. Sometimes there was a tendency to overconfidence among commanders.
Fetterman: "Give me 80 men and I'll ride through the entire Sioux nation."  lol

Ability of the plains Indians to move and fight from horseback was somewhat underestimated.

On the side of the U.S.--the fact native Americans had to protect, and often move with, their families, and, until Crazy Horse, had much difficulty mounting combined operations, made resistance rather thin until 1876. Also on the side of the U.S. were the Crow, among the best plains scouts.

Thank you, sir!

The line between confidence and over-confidence among cavalry officers in the 19th century (worldwide) was a bit hazy. They were expected to be brash, bold, Type-A people  and to show utter fearlessness. At the same time, they were not expected to be stupid or simpletons. During the Civil War, they did often fight from horseback and there were cavalry charges. But the nature of warfare was different on the plains. Native Americans didn't fight in 'close order' rank and file masses. Nor did they have artillery. Hence, cavalry charges were neither productive nor necessary. They would dismount for a firefight and set up a perimeter with fields of fire and cover, with every fourth trooper taking the horses and leading them away (if possible). But the horses, like the vehicles for mechanized or air mobile infantry today, were utterly necessary for getting to where they needed to be to engage. They were almost always outnumbered in larger conflicts because the Natives would generally only attack soldiers if they had an advantage in numbers. Because of their discipline, training and experience, they were more than capable of taking on a Native group two or three times their size and winning. This led some commanders, like Fetterman and Custer, to feel they could test the limits of the advantage (they may have even felt 'invulnerable' to a certain degree). Unfortunately, that was sort of the nature of the beast. They learned a lot after Little Bighorn... or should have anyway.

Horses came to the new world with the Spanish in the 1500's and were quickly adopted by the Native Americans. They changed the Indians lives immediately and drastically. They went from being able to travel by foot maybe about 20 miles in a day to being able to ride a horse potentially five times that distance. They could reach new places and other tribes. As you can imagine, this was both good and bad. Contact with other tribes brought more trade and interaction. But it also spread disease and war quicker. Some tribes (Comanche, Apache, etc.) took to raiding other tribes, the horse being an ideal vehicle for this. Warfare among some of the tribes became much more brutal.

But it also should be noted that the native peoples' knowledge of horses was somewhat nascent in comparison with that of the Europeans and the Asians. Even in the 1800's. They had only been around for about 300 years at that time. And a lot of the Native peoples' knowledge about horses was gained through trial and error on their own or observation. There was a lot they didn't know (See "The Ballad of Buster Scruggs", 'gopher holes' for more info). Native Americans loved horses for a lot of the same reasons people love their cars. And some were capable of some great riding. But sometimes their capabilities with horses at that time have been a little over-glorified for media purposes.

That said, the Natives did fight from horseback. It killed their accuracy with firearms or bows (as anyone who has shot at something from even a standing horse can attest). Mostly, they would ride the horses to close the distance between them and a foe and use handheld weapons to engage.