Dog Soldier vs. Apache Scout

Dog Soldiers of the Cheyenneby Kevin Reeve (2/10/2015)

In the annals of American warfare, few fighters have a greater reputation for bravery than the Dog Soldier. The Dog Soldiers were one of six military societies of the Cheyenne Indians. Dog Soldiers were noted as both highly aggressive and effective combatants.

They were highly skilled cavalry, far superior on a horse to the US military. But what distinguishes the Dog Soldiers was their aggressiveness in battle. One key tradition was to dismount in the middle of a battlefield and fight on foot. They wore a long breechcloth, about 50 ft in length. Once on the ground, they would pin the end of the breechcloth to Dog Soldiers of the Cheyennethe ground with a Sacred Arrow. Once pinned, they fought within the range of movement allowed by the breechcloth. According to their creed, they could not leave that space until the battle ended, or they died.

What courage that required, to stay and fight or die, no matter what. They were ferocious fighters who struck fear into their enemy the Crow. And their battlefield combat skills meant death to many a US Cavalry soldier. They were particularly adept at dismounting Cavalry.

The Dog Soldiers fought bravely and did much to slow the advance of the US Army into Kansas, Nebraska, Colorado and Wyoming. However, they lost a war of attrition. For every US Soldier killed on the battlefield, there were 100 to take his place. Every Dog Soldier killed was irreplaceable. Before the end of the 1860s, they ceased to be an effective fighting force.

Apache ScoutContrast this with the Apache Scout. A fierce fighter, and known for incredible battlefield skill, the Apache can be said to be the reason there was so little resistance in the US war with Mexico in 1846 – 48. The Apache had over the previous thirty years depopulated the entire area several times. Led by the great battlefield chiefs Cochise and Victorio, Apaches raided mercilessly on the Mexican settlements that dotted the Apaches raided area. This was said to be in retaliation for the enslavement of Apache to work silver and gold mines.

Once America annexed Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, and California, the Apache turned their attention to the new American settlers, which did not end well for the settlers. This brought about several campaigns by the US Army under several Generals, most famous and most effective being General Crook.

The Apache was surrounded by enemies and developed one of the most effective fighting styles in history. It is still studied at West Point as one of the most effective uses of asymmetrical warfare in history. In fact, if you study it, you will see the exact same tactics and strategies in use by the Muj in eastern Afghanistan and Western Pakistan.

Asymmetrical warfare says that when you are fighting an enemy that has superior manpower and materials, that you must never engage in traditional warfare. All attacks must be non-conventional.

Once they started fighting the Americans, the Apache came to realize that they were fighting an enemy with endless resources. If they killed US soldiers, more showed up. If they killed them, more showed up. So they developed a strategy that involved avoiding direct confrontations, in fact, it avoided all confrontation that was not heavily slanted in their favor. They developed the ability to move through their environment without leaving a trace of their passing.

They avoided confrontation. What? The most fierce and hated fighters in the entire Indian wars avoided confrontation? That is correct. They have special warriors, known as Scouts, who provided long range reconnaissance patrols that identified the location of the enemy and allowed the Apache to avoid them.

ApacheScout3A direct confrontation between a US Cavalry patrol and an Apache warrior band would lead to the death of several US soldiers. The cavalrymen were not particularly well trained and frankly, to be assigned to Apacheria meant you did something somewhere to irritate your commander. But if the same confrontation led to the death of even one Apache warrior, then it was too high a price for them to pay.

Let me give an example. On his last breakout from the Reservation at San Carlos, Geronimo took 33 warriors, and 100 women and children. He cut a swath of violence through the southwest as he fled towards Mexico. At one Chief Geronimo and Apache indianspoint, the US Army put ¼ of its entire troop strength into the field (250,000 soldiers) to capture 33 warriors and 100 women and children. All to no effect, Geronimo was NEVER captured. He eventually got tired of life on the run and surrendered. But do not think for a minute that he could not have maintained himself in the field and eluded the enemy indefinitely.

How was he able to elude so many soldiers and civilians trying to engage him? By avoidance; by not engaging the enemy where the enemy is strong. The Apache fought, but on Apache terms. He required three conditions to engage. 1) Numerical superiority. Without 3 to 1 numerical advantage, there was no engagement. Too high a risk of losing one of his 33 warriors.

2)  The element of surprise. Without surprise on your side, it is not an ambush, but rather a firefight. They did not like firefights, that put their men at undue risk.

violence of action3) Extreme violence of action. They hit hard, they extended no mercy, and they moved on.

Without these conditions, Geronimo avoided combat.

The combination of these three tactics assured for the most part, that they were successful. In Geronimo’s last run, he surrendered with 33 warriors and 100 women and children. The exact same number he started with.

So at this point I am going to state the obvious. The Apache survived their wars far better than the Dog Soldiers. Were the Apache less brave because of the way they fought? I would not think so. For them, dying on the field of battle was an indication of failure not bravery. They lived to fight another day by avoiding most conflict. There were no “it is a good day to die” speeches. Was this cowardice? I would not want to meet Geronimo and call him a coward. He was a guerrilla in the classic sense.

Why topic this now? Hopefully the obvious is clear. The skills of the scout may well have application in our future as we see the decline in our civility.  To survive in dangerous times and situations you may have to avoid rather than confront enemies. I hope not, but…


Copyright © ~ All rights reserved
No reproduction or other use of this content without expressed written permission from
See Content Use Policy for more information.

One thought on “Dog Soldier vs. Apache Scout

  1. Pingback: A Prepper’s Perspective on Antifragility | A.H. Trimble - Emergency preparedness information for disasters and grid-down

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s