Idaho Battles 2: The fight at Massacre Rocks

Alright. About 200 Immigrants from Europe and about 30 from the East were passing through Southern Idaho in 1862 when about 30 soldiers, just discharged from Virginia joined up with them. As they were passing through this one area, about 300 Indian Warriors came swooping down from these cliffs. The soldiers fought off the first attack, but, when the second attack came, they bolted and left these immigrants to fend for themselves. They weren't able to circl the wagons in time and the indians passed on either side, killing several men as they went. 3 little boys and 1 woman not in the wagons were scalpped and mutalated in sight of the immigrants, who were shooting with suprinsgly good marksman ship. The indians fell back and the wagons were allowed to pass through. About 20 had died.
Then, a week later, 100 white men and 3 blacks were riding through on horses, armed with colt revolver pistols. The Indians swooped down upon them in numbers ranging anywhere from 400 to 600 warriors. These men had to fight all day to keep the indains away, and only six horses remained alive. As night fell, the surviving 30 men bolted, six men taking up the rear guard. All six were cut down and five straggelers were caught and killed.
Only 19 made it to the next settelment.

Interesting. Like I said, indians shouldn't expect mercy. How did six horses survive? The standard indian-fighting tactic was to either circle the wagons, like you mentioned, or to shoot your horse and take cover behind it. Even then, indians would have killed any and all horses left alive to prevent escape.

They were defending the horses with everything they had. They were knowledgable on how indians fought.

Ok, gotcha. Who all here thinks that Indians deserved mercy, whether fighting soldiers or settlers?

Well, only if they showed mercy. I would have been understanding of the Indians. Heck, they were fighting for thier own land.

Not to sound "extremist" or anything, but for all that we hear about Indians loving the land, and sharing it, they were VERY possesive about their lands.

Wouldn't you though?

It is human nature to feel possesive, but I was merely commenting on how warped the common view of American Indians is today. It's not really the real picture.

thats because everything gets twisted over time, someone tells it to someone else and then they go tell someone and the story is a little diffrent.

Yeah. It's very sad. I used to have a friend that was a flathead indian. He was cool.

Has everyone seen the classic scenes from shows like Daniel Boone, where the prisoner is forced to run the guantlet? Anyway, it just shows interestingly enough, how the Native American, "justice system" if you will, was based on brutality, and physical strength. This way of life created the fearsome warriors that raided the homes of settlers and drove fear into the colonies. It strikes me as significant that the Indian was so deeply focused on improving physical strength and skill, but their primitive technology proved to be their downfall. Whereas, the 'white' man of this time wasn't raised in a society so designed to breed physical prowess and survival skills, but one that expounded on the necessity of power of the mind, and the importance of knowledge. But of course, at one time, the "white" man of north-eastern Europe lived in barbaric tribes, much similar to that of American Indians, only in a colder climate. How did these barbarians come to improve themselves, technilogicly,when the Indians didn't? Was it because of the Barbarians' interaction with the Romans and other civilized cultures? Not necessarily, the Barbarians refused to learn from the Romans much like the Indians refused to accept the help and learning of the white man. I have to go, so I'll continue this later...

Ok, to continue from my last post:

It is commonly accepted that war forced the Barbarians of central Europe to constantly strive for some new weapon to help them conquer their enemies. Thus, ambition, which largely seperates man from animal, was the driving force behind technilogical advancement in the Western Hesphere. Of course, these 'barbaric' tribes eventually became the Anglos, the Saxons, the Britons, the Gauls/Celts, the Normans, etc. And these cultures grew into the great nations and societies that they are today. Why didn't the same happen with the American Indian? Looking at it from this point of view, it is apparent that the only thing seperating the Indians from the Barbarians was the Indians' lack of ambition. This is why centuries passed with Indians still using the ancient style of weapons of their ancestors. Why wouldn't the Indians want to develop and improve their way of making war, as well as their way of life? It is my opinion that it was the Native Americans' form of government that failed them. For, believe it or not, Indians lived in Communism. What would that have to do with it? Well, a prime example is the Plymouth Colony. William Bradford, the colony's first governor, wrote that during the first year, the colony functioned as a commune, which works in theory, but in reality destroys ambition. This is why the pilgrims almost starved the first winter. In the commune, everyone would work for the benefit and welfare of the community, not for their own personal gain. In this situation, the community's resources were pooled together and distributed equally among the community, regardless of who did the most work and who did none at all. Even in this scenario, dealing with people of the utmost moralistic standards and ideals, the pilgrims, the loss of ambition is a demoralizing and crushing blow, and led to the near starvation of the colony. However, the next year, the pilgrims alotted to each family a plot of land to grow corn and such on, and work individually. The switch from communistic living to the basic principles of capitalism was a resounded success, and led to the first Thanksgiving. Thus, capitalism is literally a huge part of America's founding. And I think that the same applies to Indians. Even if they were a people of high idealistic standards, the loss of the individual's ambition, by the loss of their freedom and independence to have even so much control over their own lives as to be able to provide for themselves, to hunt for themselves, and to do so with a mind to improve their lives, and the lives of their family, held the Indians back tremendously.

Celts proved some ferous warriors. It was the fact that they were surrounded by all these enemies, nature and man that they had to fight. Brute strength wasn't enough to live in Europe. They needed to be smarter then the other white man.

Yes, it was not only the ambition to be smarter, but the need to be smarter in order to survive. But IBG, you almost sound like you think that white men are natually smarter than Indians... Of course, that's what history seems to prove, but I have given my reasons for thinking that it was the Indians' form of government that destroyed them... The strange part is, if only one Indian nation had improved themselves, it most likely would have forced all other tribes to keep pace, in order to keep from being conquered. This is very strange, it almost has the feel of a conspiracy behind it...

I'm not saying the White man was smarter. Alot of time it was the Indians that were smarter. But, like you have been saying, the White man was unified, the Indians weren't. That's what killed them in the end.

The white man was unified? Hardly. It wasn't the collaboration of thoughts and ideas that allowed the white man to become so technilogically superior, they were as divided and culture-split as the Indians. It was actually the fact and the realization that each nation would have to improve itself in order to win on the battlefield, which was all that protected their existence. But the Indians experienced the same scenario; why then, didn't one Indian tribe feel the need to advance their technoligy?