Quote:
|
Originally Posted by powerclown
I would call them fighters/warriors, not terrorists. While undermanned and undersupplied, they still fought opposing armies face-to-face, and they employed sound, orthodox military tactics. They won many battles outright and decisively. I don't see where the concept of terrorism applies to american indians wholesale. They committed acts of violence against civilians on occasion, but as a fighting force, it wasn't their central modus operandi. They were primarily warriors who fought in a formal battlefield setting against other warriors, unlike todays terrorist whose primary MO is to target civilians principally and/or fight from the cover of a civilian-populated area.
|
Huh?
I'm hoping that your basis for statement does not come from a John Wayne movie. Yes, American Indians did employ sound military tactics, but they were anything but orthodox. And they certainly did win many battles outright and decisively. Just ask Capt. William Fetterman or Lt Col. George A. Custer, just to name a few. But, their central "modus operandi" was certainly not to fight in a formal battlefield setting. They fought primarily in smaller loosly organized raiding parties. They employed guerrilla warfare. Hit and git. And, their primary targets were smaller homesteads and settlements. The idea of Indians attacking army forts is pure Hollywood.
As to whether or not they were terrorists...I suppose that depends upon what end of the tomahawk you're on. It's all about perspective.