Talk:Battle of the Rosebud

Neutrality
The article recalls that although Reno had counted only 10 dead, further research would count 28. I think since this makes mention of the up-to 56 wounded it should also mention the up-to 28 dead.


 * This article is downright racist, especially the "first time tribes showed cohesion fighting together"passage. What kind of colonialist hogwash is this ???      -VictoryBlood 09:18, 10 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I concurr. This article is completely biased. It is narrated exclusively from the perspective of the Anglo-Americans. It does not represent the views of our people whatsoever. We lost many courageous souls in battle that day, and to have it be trivialized in such a manner is disgusting. There should be a revolution amongst the Wikipedia community. Why should we let these barbaric foreigners push us around any longer? They stole our lands, butchered our people, destroyed our religion, exploited our culture, desecrated our sacred places and exposed us to diseases to which we had no immunity. We cannot let them rewrite our history. It's about time those visitors from across the ocean showed us some respect. We must assert ourselves as the heirs to the glorious civilization of our ancestors. We must force them to recognize that we are the true guardians of the land, that as visitors, they may use it if they like, but their use must meet with our expressed approval. EightDeer 17:57, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

EightDeer sounds a bit too militant, and off topic. The whole article needs a re write, but to go on with such a proclaimation? very odd. However your respect to our culture and history is admirable. Militant action with militant need, the need being the peoples aproval and aspiration, I dont see Pine Ridge taking up arms in revolt, or Quito in a revolutionary blaze, thus the violent method illegitamate, not to mention inpractical. Revolution with need, not desire.

Sioux historians Stanley Vestal, Robert Utley, and Dee Brown would have to disagree with what is written as the outcome to this conflict. They all clearly state that the "bluecoats" retreated and "despite Crook's claims, the true victory, both tactical and strategic, lay with the Indians." (Utley,2008)

History channel made a documentary where archaeological proof and Indian and US soldiers testimonies support  that Crazy Horse defeated Crook force (whose indian scout saved his life during the battle)and forced them to retreat leaving the open field to the American Natives return and help in the Battle of the Little Bighorn. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.23.133.163 (talk) 18:22, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * "first time tribes showed cohesion fighting together" Native American fighting was based on brave individual and small group actions, contrasting to American large unit tactics arising from Civil War experience. It is hardly an insult. SGGH ping! 11:06, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

It is hardly racist to claim that native tribes were in the habit of fighting each other prior to the arrival of white men. And that it was unusual for previously warring tribes to form an alliance.

Nevertheless, Indian warriors proved (not for the first time) that knowing how your enemy has displayed himself can win a battle. I think this discussion is a little overblown, and the article, although maybe in need of an edit, should basically stand as it is now.

The subtext of the argument, that Indians are somehow perfect lovers of the land, in balance with nature, is in conflict with the evidence that they caused the extinction of much of the large fauna that previously inhabited the Americas. Kadathdreamques (talk) 21:15, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Tactical versus Strategic Victory
Although there can be legitimate debate as to which side won this battle, that victory would merely be a Tactical victory. In no way can this be considered a Strategic victory for either side. Strategy is about winning, about winning the war, not the battles. The Native Americans lost this war and lost it rather quickly. They won many battles and piled up many tactical victories, but they lost the war. Their loss was strategic.

At the Battle of Cannae, Hannibal won one of the greatest tactical victories in recorded history. Yet the victory was hollow because Hannibal failed to achieve Strategic Victory by defeating ROME and not too many years later the Punic Wars resulted in a complete and utter defeat of Carthage--A strategic victory for the Romans.

The U.S. fought a great number of land, sea and air battles in Viet Nam. Our side scored tactical victories in most all of them. But in 1975 we lost the war. We failed at Strategic Victory while our opponents--the North Vietnamese--achieved a great Strategic Victory.

There is a distinct and unassailable difference between Strategic and Tactical Victory. Great Sioux War of 1876-77 was a strategic defeat for Native Americans, no matter how you want to re-interpret history. --Mike Cline (talk) 15:51, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

It was Sitting Bull who realized there was no way for Indians to win a war against the US. He understood that although they could win tactically, there was no strategic victory possible. I doubt he used those words, or thought in those terms though. Kadathdreamques (talk) 21:34, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

I find it interesting that the name of the "Indian scout" who saved Crook is not listed in these comments. Since he wasn't Lakota, is this not a form of racism as well? Part of the problem with the primary source of this entry is that it is old and little or nothing of the Indian side was obtained. It took over a century for their side (mostly correct) of the Little Bighorn battle to be confirmed. Military reports of the time were self-serving as well. It needs a re-write for the brave men and woman who fought in this battle that laid the foundations of the Indian victory at The Little Big Horn. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.66.32.228 (talk) 13:32, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

New rewrite.
Lets face it, much of this is from a book written over 50 years ago, hence distorted and bias, but apparently still a primary source. Few of the "facts" have ever very been carefully examined and properly recorded. The same history in relation to Custer and the Little Big Horn, has been rewritten so many times and examined so closely they can tell you how many gum wrappers were left behind since 1876. This prime cause and prelude to the more famous, yet also poorly analyzed, disaster (or victory) at the Little Big Horn is in much need of a good unbiased overview and rewrite by some competent historian, who might leave his mark doing so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Newmans2001 (talk • contribs) 03:02, 25 October 2010 (UTC)


 * needed is comparison to nazi massacre in warsaw and other places, showing USA could match Hitler for evil actions — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.63.103.0 (talk) 04:43, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Battle of the Rosebud. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.newsinhistory.com/blog/battle-rosebud-cheyenne-lakota-stop-general-crook

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 20:22, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Battle of the Rosebud. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090713165913/http://www-cgsc.army.mil:80/carl/resources/csi/sioux/sioux.asp to http://www-cgsc.army.mil/carl/resources/csi/sioux/sioux.asp#The

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 23:30, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Standards of warfare
"By the standards of Indian warfare, the Battle of the Rosebud was a long and bloody engagement." - needs references to "Indian warfare standards". It also seems questionable to make general value judgements about Indian Warfare are we are speaking of persons belonging to different tribes and it is unclear how they effect warfare of one another. --Rebentisch (talk) 14:12, 17 June 2019 (UTC)