Cavalry Tactics - Small Units Jan 13, 2013 15:51:46 GMT -5
Post by tunkasila on Jan 13, 2013 15:51:46 GMT -5
I suppose my support is often generalized, because my knowledge and education is generalized. I didn't learn a lot of this stuff from books...I learned it from experience. And the history part is simply facts from books laid down upon that experience.
The entire arguments about the Art of War, the actions of Soldiers and officers in battle, combat decision-making, what Army companies do when they are not in the field and how they train...none of this can be learned from reading Western histories. You need a much broader, a much more "generalized," knowledge to get it.
And you can quote chapter and verse of such knowledge. However, you are being a bit unfair, because I've quoted quite a bit of precise data on some of the history of these fights...more detailed than you have presented.
It really is not so impressive when what you know are all quotations out of history books, eh?
Clair, if you feel I’ve been unfair to you I’m sorry, but in terms of providing weighty information on the high training levels enjoyed by the cavalry arm of the U.S. Army, you’ve not been very forthcoming. That isn’t surprising as my own research has not turned up anything substantial either.
At least we now have the information that you don’t have specific evidence to support your constant claims, but that, quoting you, ‘I learned it from experience.’ Now you don’t tell us what experience that was and is, though I’m aware that you graduated from West Point. Whilst I concede that will have given you experience of U.S. Army standards, requirements and procedures during the time you served, it couldn’t give you the experience of what life was like in the 1870’s cavalry regiments.
To get any inkling of what that experience was like, you have to research the history of the time, what life was like in the Army, what the social mores of the age were, what cultural and ethnic attitudes prevailed as well as the part played by religion.
All that can only be found in archives, newspapers, diaries, journals, pamphlets and yes, books. Broad based western histories are useful for overviews of any era in question, but for more detailed information on the relevant army life, it’s necessary to turn to the records left behind by the officers and enlisted men, together with well researched books by respected military historians such as Utley and Rickey.
I’ve no idea what you mean by ‘a broader, much more ‘generalized’ knowledge’ as anyone who has lived 50 years or more has such experience, but would have no idea what U.S. Army life was like in the 1870’s.
Additionally, one’s own personal experiences in this day and age, even if partially as a military man, cannot provide knowledge of ‘the actions of Soldiers and officers in battle, combat decision-making, what Army companies do when they are not in the field and how they train’ in the 1870’s. A modern military training will provide insights into the Art of War, but won’t, other than re-fighting old battles, intuit anything about army life then. By your yardstick, our experiences thus far in life would allow us to know exactly what life was like, the levels of training, combat decision making, the actions of Soldiers and officers in battle and what they did when not in the field, in the Roman legions, Alexander’s army, the Mongol horde of Genghis Khan and the Saracen army of Saladin. There’s no logic to your argument Clair and unless you can explain it in greater detail, it has all the appearance of defensive bluster.
I don’t try to be impressive, just factual and pragmatic. Research leads me to sources and where relevant I cite those sources. If those quotations are all I know Clair, you’ve nothing to worry about in our discussions, but I’d rather rely on my research sources than your nebulous experience.