PDA

View Full Version : Who is Geronimo?


mikthestick
February 15, 2012, 07:18 AM
I thought some of you might like to see this picture. I found it interesting because they wear cartridge belts but no holsters to carry pistols. Perhaps this is an insight into their mentality or lifestyle rather than what they can get their hands on. Yes it's the old guy. Reminds me of a bit in a Terry Pratchet Novel "TO BE THAT OLD YOU HAVE TO BE VERY GOOD. None of my friends have ever made the right choice.

Mike Irwin
February 15, 2012, 07:31 AM
Well, those rifles could very well be chambered for pistol cartridges, so a cartridge belt full of say .38-40 or .44-40 would be perfectly appropriate.

B.L.E.
February 15, 2012, 07:44 AM
The .44-40 and .38-40 actually were rifle cartridges that revolvers were later chambered for.
Someone acutally built a revolver that chambers .45-70 ammo, but that does not make the .45-70 a "pistol round".

Mike Irwin
February 15, 2012, 11:15 AM
You say tomato, I say tomato.

Strictly speaking you are, of course, correct. In terms of the discussion, it works a little better the way I said it.

Tomato.

"Someone acutally built a revolver that chambers .45-70 ammo, but that does not make the .45-70 a "pistol round"."

Uhm.... yeah, it does.

Rutabaga.

:p

Copper01
February 15, 2012, 02:19 PM
Didn't alot of folks just push their pistols into their belts/sashes instead of holsters at one time? I know I've seen it, just not positive on the prevelance of the action.

dlbarr
February 15, 2012, 02:21 PM
Perhaps I speak out of turn, but I think Mike's point was that these gents weren't (and maybe DIDN'T) carry[ing] sidearms.


BTW Mike, where'd the photo come from? Interesting stuff for sure..

Tombstonejim
February 15, 2012, 02:40 PM
This part of the world abounds with old pictures of Apaches. I don't think I have ever seen one with an Apache carring a side arm. Rifles and if anything a war Axe.

Noz
February 15, 2012, 02:46 PM
2 1866s, a Spencers and a muzzleloading musket.
Pistol cartridges would be appropriate for the 1866s(probably 44 rimfires, 56-50 for the Spencer and whatever for the musket)

bedbugbilly
February 15, 2012, 05:17 PM
Ahhh - "white" folks took these photographs - you have to remember that while this gun leather MAY have belonged to him - it was not uncommon for the photographer to use "props" in his photographs - it was commonly done.

I collect WW I photos and I have two real photo postcards of different soldiers , both in sitting half views -both are holding an 1840 model "Old Wristbreaker" cavalry saber. The same phtographer took both photos. I have another which is a "full pose" of a soldier standing and he is holding a cap and ball Remington revolver. These items were basically Civil War "relics" that the photobgrapher had his subject hold - it made them look more "war like".

The photographers of the time period that you are looking at often carried "props" with them. These photographs were not made for the Chief or tribe - they were made for a variety of reasons. Some photographers wanted to honestly preserve history - others wanted to produce these photographs for sale to the masses back east who ate up this type of thing - they wanted to see the "savages" that were talked about in the newspapers and pulp fiction of the time. After reading and hearing about the Indians and their wars on the whites, etc. - they expected to see them with weapons and accouterments of war - that's what helped sell these photographs.

My response is not intended to affend anyone of Native American heritage. Let's face it - the whites broke every treaty that they ever made with the Native Americans. Some individuals and photographers were serious in their attempts to preserve the history and culture of the Native Americans through photographs, sketches, paintings, etc. They realized that those cultures were fast disappearing due to the genocide policy that was being undertaken at the time. Others saw it as a means to make money, something which the government and many of the general population of the time had no problems in doing at the expense of the various tribes.

paleodog
February 15, 2012, 06:00 PM
I agree on the props being used in Native American photos. I saw a photo of Geronimo with a rifle and a Dance and Brothers .44 cal percussion pistol. As rare as Dance and Brothers pistols were (500 made) I find it hard to believe that Geronimo had one for his sidearm.

Double Naught Spy
February 15, 2012, 06:16 PM
The above picture was taken in 1886. It is the property of the Arizona Historical Society. Geronimo was captured in 1886. So it is undoubtedly a completely staged photograph.

Ahhh - "white" folks took these photographs - you have to remember that while this gun leather MAY have belonged to him - it was not uncommon for the photographer to use "props" in his photographs - it was commonly done.

Yes, and this practice was ongoing from at least the days of the Civil War if not before. Soldiers had studio shot made often with weapons they would never have owned or carried, but are depicted with in photographs.

Hawg
February 15, 2012, 07:16 PM
Even the battlefield dead were staged.

Wolf and Raven
February 15, 2012, 09:03 PM
What I would have really found interesting is if they had rifle scabbards on their belts to holster their side arms.

HuntAndFish
February 15, 2012, 10:38 PM
Even the battlefield dead were staged.

Well, when it take 15 minutes to prep the camera, you have to spend that time doing something.

indy1919
February 16, 2012, 12:21 AM
Not to argue the staging of photos. Because It was done, But that photo (with others) was taken in 1886 when Geronimo was surrendering to General Cook. I was always told these were were the only photos taken of hostile Indians in the field under arms.

There were lots of photos taken during this surrender so I doubt all were staged. But that is neither here nor there... The mail point of writing is that Geronimo was packing a pistol at the time of surrender.. A SAA

Mike Irwin
February 16, 2012, 07:19 AM
Most pictures were staged at this time simply because the "film" (glass or metal plates, mostly) were difficult to handle and prepare, the cameras were very bulky, and exposure times were typically fairly long.

Live action photography was pretty much non existent. There are some, such as the only known picture of an actual old west style gunfight (found in the Time Life series of books on the old west, the Gunslingers volumn, I believe), but the figures are generally blury as hell because of the movement.

indy1919
February 16, 2012, 09:17 AM
Well I guess there needs to be a definition of what is a staged photo


One that is set up to take into account the problems of early Photography.. OK Just stand there, don't move, assume a pose type staging...


Or Here are some fake guns, lets add some blood, lets spice up the background, etc etc


I would tend to call photos under the second condition staged.. In the first because of the limitations of the media those photos at least tried to be as accurate as possible

Jbar4Ranch
February 16, 2012, 10:49 AM
The picture was purportedly taken in Mexico in 1886, probably at, or very close to, his negotiated surrender to/through 1st Lieutenant Charles Gatewood. Geronimo's rifle, as well as the one in the hands of the man to his right, appear to be percussion guns, as you can clearly see the drum bolsters and nipples. This seems a bit odd at this point, as cartridge repeaters had been around for a quarter of a century by now, and, being in many scuffles during this period, it seems almost a dead certainty Geronimo would have managed to arm himself with a repeater. Both men are wearing belts, but it can't be definitively seen in the picture if they are indeed cartridge belts.

Double Naught Spy
February 16, 2012, 01:08 PM
Actually, the picture was copyrighted by C.S. Fly in Tombstone, AZ in 1886.
http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com/photogallery/the-life-of-geronimo-in-pictures I can't find any provenance beyond northern Mexico for it. The vegetation in the image does match that for the Chihuahuan desert (which does include southern New Mexico)and for Skeleton Canyon where his surrendered in AZ.

In 1876, he surrendered and did have a Winchester 1876. At his surrender in 1877, he was using a Springfield trapdoor.

While repeaters may have been around, it doesn't necessarily mean that they would have been what he was carrying at any given time. Keep in mind that repeaters had been a round for quite a while before Custer and his group were killed at Little Bighorn and they didn't have repeaters.

I definitely think those are cartridge belts. Do you have another explanation for what they are?

MJN77
February 16, 2012, 04:17 PM
Geronimo's rifle, as well as the one in the hands of the man to his right, appear to be percussion guns, as you can clearly see the drum bolsters and nipples

Take a closer look. They are trapdoor springfields. Geronimo has an infantry rifle, the fellow next to him has a cavalry carbine. The "drum bolsters and nipples" are the latch that opens the trapdoor.
http://i591.photobucket.com/albums/ss359/mjn77/Rifle-TrapdoorSprinfieldCarbine-right.jpg
At the time, these were current issue military guns. Also, the two other guys (Geronimo's nephew,on the left and son) are holding 1873 winchester carbines. Not 1866 carbines. Look at the recievers and you can see the sideplates. This pic along with several others were taken by C. S. Fly in northern Mexico in 1886 during negotiations between Geronimo and General George Crook, for Geronimo's surrender. The apache are in fact "enemies in the field" in these photos. They are not "staged" with prop guns,etc. As for revolvers, most indians, not just apaches, didn't carry them. They didn't need them. Their rifles were all they needed for defense as well as hunting. Pistols were unnecessary weight. The apache were notorious for traveling light. Some did carry them (like Geronimo) but not that many.
This is a replica of Geronimo's gunbelt, holster and knife from Chislom's trail old west leathers. http://www.westernleatherholster.com/historical-holsters/
http://i591.photobucket.com/albums/ss359/mjn77/Als-Geronimo-Rig-Als-complete-3.jpg

This is the real one.
http://i591.photobucket.com/albums/ss359/mjn77/geronimo-holster-1.jpg
http://i591.photobucket.com/albums/ss359/mjn77/geronimo-holster-2.jpg

While repeaters may have been around, it doesn't necessarily mean that they would have been what he was carrying at any given time. Keep in mind that repeaters had been a round for quite a while before Custer and his group were killed at Little Bighorn and they didn't have repeaters

No, but the indians did.:D That's one (of many) reason that Custer lost. The U.S. government, in it's un-erring wisdom, decided to adopt a single shot breech loading rifle/carbine to replace the seven shot Spencer rifle/carbine, to make sure that the soldiers didn't "waste" ammo during a fight. The trapdoor rifles saw use from 1868 through the Spanish-American war in 1898. They were standard issue from 1873 to 1896.

MJN77
February 16, 2012, 05:11 PM
Here are two more of C. S. Fly's pics.
The man on the horse next to Geronimo, is Naiche. He was the son of Cochise.
http://i591.photobucket.com/albums/ss359/mjn77/g.jpg

This pic shows General Crook, second from the right, and Geronimo second from the left.
http://i591.photobucket.com/albums/ss359/mjn77/gandc.jpg

hoof hearted
February 16, 2012, 06:11 PM
Pretty obvious that they knew "a pistol is just for fighting your way to a rifle".....

The pistol would have been a last ditch weapon and the fighting tribes used a knife in that role.

Regards, HH

indy1919
February 16, 2012, 10:32 PM
Many thanks for take the time to post the photos..Have always loved the workmanship in Geronimo's gun belt here is a band that is pretty run Ragged to ground and yet still time is taken for ornamentation..

IN Geronimo's case is one of those rare times in history when the actual firearms are documented and saved. I think His trapdoor in on display At West Point and the Side arm is on display in another army Museum.. Fort Ben????

Try to do that with Custers Side arms.. Or Even Billy the Kids side arms..

But Loved the link to that Historical Holsters of Old West site, I have saved that One.. I feel they will be getting some of my money..

And so not kid yourself Custer's troops had the superior weapon to the Winchester, He just needed a better Position.. Heck Look at Reno & Benteen. They Outlasted a lot longer Indian attack then Custer with the same weapons, But they did have a better Position that took advantage of the Greater range of the Springfields

Mucho thanks for the photos....

MJN77
February 16, 2012, 11:06 PM
And so not kid yourself Custer's troops had the superior weapon to the Winchester, He just needed a better Position.. Heck Look at Reno & Benteen. They Outlasted a lot longer Indian attack then Custer with the same weapons, But they did have a better Position that took advantage of the Greater range of the Springfields

That is the point. At a distance, the .45-70 springfields were the better rifle. More range, and killing power. But at close range,(less then 150 yards) such as the fight with Custer's group (described as a "running gunfight) and with Reno in the river bottom, and his retreat to the bluffs, the rapid, almost point blank (and in some cases just a few feet) firepower of the repeating rifles (Henry, Winchester, Spencer) were much more effective than the single shot carbines of the 7th cavalry. The Henry and 1866 Winchester rifle held 16 rounds, the 1866 carbine held 12. The 1873 Winchester rifle held 13 , the carbine 10. The only reason Reno's command survived is because Reno was smart (or panicked, depending on source) enough to retreat up to the top of the bluff on the other side of the river. If he had stayed in the timber were he took cover after the failed charge into the villiage, he would've been surrounded and wiped out, as was Custer. The 1873 Springfield carbine/rifle was meant to be used to engage the enemy at long range, not from ten feet. But this is way off topic.

tnxdshooter
February 16, 2012, 11:19 PM
I thought some of you might like to see this picture. I found it interesting because they wear cartridge belts but no holsters to carry pistols. Perhaps this is an insight into their mentality or lifestyle rather than what they can get their hands on. Yes it's the old guy. Reminds me of a bit in a Terry Pratchet Novel "TO BE THAT OLD YOU HAVE TO BE VERY GOOD. None of my friends have ever made the right choice.

Geronimo would be the one on the right. Wonder if any of those others is cochise? Geronimo was known to carry a single action army he had gotten off a soldier. Supposedly it was chambered in 44-40 like bis winchester. What i dont get is if the native americans couldnt speak english how did they read on the cartridge to see what caliber it was?

MJN77
February 16, 2012, 11:22 PM
Wonder if any of those others is cochise
Cochise had been dead for twelve years when these pics were taken, so I hope not.

Geronimo was known to carry a single action army he had gotten off a soldier. Supposedly it was chambered in 44-40 like bis winchester.
Look at the pics I posted of Geronimo's gun rig. His revolver was a nickle plated, 5 1/2 bbl .45 Colt SAA with Ivory grips. A soldier would've had a blue, 7 1/2 bbl .45 Colt. He probably got his Colt from the same place he got his gun belt, Mexico.

What i dont get is if the native americans couldnt speak english how did they read on the cartridge to see what caliber it was?
Some could, and some could speak spanish (Geronimo).

tnxdshooter
February 16, 2012, 11:28 PM
That is the point. At a distance, the .45-70 springfields were the better rifle. More range, and killing power. But at close range,(less then 150 yards) such as the fight with Custer's group (described as a "running gunfight) and with Reno in the river bottom, and his retreat to the bluffs, the rapid, almost point blank (and in some cases just a few feet) firepower of the repeating rifles (Henry, Winchester, Spencer) were much more effective than the single shot carbines of the 7th cavalry. The Henry and 1866 Winchester rifle held 16 rounds, the 1866 carbine held 12. The 1873 Winchester rifle held 13 , the carbine 10. The only reason Reno's command survived is because Reno was smart (or panicked, depending on source) enough to retreat up to the top of the bluff on the other side of the river. If he had stayed in the timber were he took cover after the failed charge into the villiage, he would've been surrounded and wiped out, as was Custer. The 1873 Springfield carbine/rifle was meant to be used to engage the enemy at long range, not from ten feet. But this is way off topic.

The indians were smart. They would send in a few braves and the soldiers would shoot. Right after shooting the indians would send en another wave with repeaters to wipe em out while reloading. I dont think he had one around but if ole custer had a gatlin gun with a couple thousand rounds of ammo the indians wouldnt have had a chance.

tnxdshooter
February 16, 2012, 11:29 PM
Cochise had been dead for twelve years when these pics were taken, so I hope not.

I thought he had been but wasnt sure.

mikthestick
February 18, 2012, 11:49 AM
the picture came from a book "firearms" published by Salamander by Major F Myatt.

Hardcase
February 20, 2012, 03:03 PM
Speaking of posed photos, here's one of my great grandfather's brother in law. The closest he ever got to the ocean was Lake Huron.

http://www.fluidlight.com/genealogy/rb_photo.jpg

He hadn't been born when the CSS Virginia sunk the USS Cumberland. But he looks salty enough!

indy1919
February 20, 2012, 09:03 PM
Wow You could have snookered me with that one.. If I would have seen that in a Garage Sale / Auction I would have thought that to be real..

That guy has the look of just getting off a ship, If not just back from battle... Cool you knowing who that is..

Mucho thanks for sharing

Double J
February 21, 2012, 11:46 AM
There are several pictures of Geronimo where prop guns were used. Mainly for "health" reasons of those on the other end of the camera. The general idea was to show a fierce enemy, not to have a live action photo.

5thShock
February 21, 2012, 12:09 PM
The picture where he is standing is, my understanding, just after he surrendered to Cook and just before he escaped. The one where he is on horseback is, my understanding, the only known photo of him free and in a state of war with the United States. Some photos of his sidearms:

http://www.nativestock.com/famain.asp?customerId=27&sKey=XEWPV34W&action=viewimage&cid=430&imageid=14503

http://www.cascity.com/forumhall/index.php?topic=28287.25

Who is he? A good demonstration of the power of courage and determination.

Chris_B
February 21, 2012, 12:24 PM
?? He is Goyathlay, medicine man to Natchez, who was a son of Cochise. The Mexicans named him Jerome, not his parents. He tricked, lied to, and even abducted his comrades at times, to go raiding in Arizona and Mexico. He was a brave man who was legitimately wronged when Mexican troops wiped out his family but it's also true that after he avenged their deaths he raided to get ponies, mules, food and mescal

MJN77
February 21, 2012, 01:41 PM
The picture where he is standing is, my understanding, just after he surrendered to Cook and just before he escaped. The one where he is on horseback is, my understanding, the only known photo of him free and in a state of war with the United States

You will notice that in both pics you mention, Geronimo is wearing the exact same clothes. They were taken at the same time when Geronimo was talking about surrendering to the U.S. Army. C.S Fly took several pictures at the same time.

Hawg
February 21, 2012, 06:25 PM
You will notice that in both pics you mention, Geronimo is wearing the exact same clothes.

How many sets of clothes did an Indian have?

MJN77
February 21, 2012, 09:18 PM
Hawg, do a google image search for Geronimo and then you tell me. There are a LOT of photos of the old fellow. This is the only set of pics where Geronimo is wearing that coat.

orangello
February 22, 2012, 05:08 PM
Don't laugh, but what is the stick in Geronimo's hand? It isn't a ramrod, right? It doesn't really look like an arrow; is it a riding crop or something? It would be one heck of a long peace pipe.

yournodaisy
February 24, 2012, 05:59 PM
Are you sure those were 1866's...looks like could have been 1873's ...who knows.

Lee McNelly
February 26, 2012, 10:12 AM
Named after st jerome

CUSTERS GUN AT LIL BIG HORN WAS A BRITISH BULLDOG NOT COLT

Hawg
February 26, 2012, 08:35 PM
CUSTERS GUN AT LIL BIG HORN WAS A BRITISH BULLDOG NOT COLT

That's not positively known. There is that theory because there was a bulldog missing from his collection.

indy1919
February 26, 2012, 09:12 PM
Yes, we are so thankful that they kept Geronimo's firearms so there is no arguments there.. As per Custer.. Not so lucky. The best swag is he did have two pistols...

Over the years I have heard of Several Possible stories..

--Really he was given a Galand & Sommerville Like his brother Tom

--He carried a given Webley RIC and purchased another

--He was given a set of RICs while poor Tom was given one Galand & Sommerville..

--And then the best of all worlds has to be he carried his Webley RIC (which was missing or a gun that looked like it) and then his new Colt 45 SAA.. I like that one the best it has such a cover all bases. A fancy RIC to stand out as a command officer and then an new Colt SAA which he can get ammo in the field for..

And there are more but these are the ones always seemed to have to stand out with some logical arguments behind them..

Lee McNelly
February 26, 2012, 09:14 PM
2nd: General Custer carried a Remington Sporting rifle, octagonal barrel; two Bulldog selfcocking, English, white-handled pistols, with a ring in the butt for a lanyard; a hunting knife, in a beaded fringed scabbard; and a canvas cartridge belt. He wore a whitish gray hat, with broad brim and rather low crown, very similar to the Cowboy hat; buck skin suit, with a fringed welt in outer seams of trousers and arms of blouse; the blouse with double-breasted military buttons, lapels generally open; turn-down collar, and fringe on bottom of shirt. [Note: Here is Peter Thompson's decription of Custer's appearance just before the Custer fight began. Thompson was the last Seventh Cavalry trooper to see Custer alive.]

Hawg
February 26, 2012, 09:21 PM
Then why can't the experts agree on what he carried?

MJN77
February 26, 2012, 09:56 PM
No one knows for sure what revolvers Custer was armed with at the Little Bighorn. I have heard that he was carrying a pair Webleys, or Colts, or S&W Schofields, or Remingtons. Even survivors of the battle tell different versions of the same thing. Most memoirs were written decades after the fact, and memories can become a "little fuzzy". Even after just a few years. With all the chaos and terror that the survivor experienced, remembering little details about who was armed with what would be a real task for some.

[QUOTE][[Note: Here is Peter Thompson's decription of Custer's appearance just before the Custer fight began. Thompson was the last Seventh Cavalry trooper to see Custer alive.] /QUOTE]

P.S. John Martin (Giovani Martini) was the last trooper to see Custer alive. Martin was the man Custer sent to Reno with the "Be quick. Big villiage. Bring packs. P.S. Bring packs" message.

Ferrari
February 27, 2012, 12:39 AM
I believe that I have read that Custer declined the use of two gatling guns, believing that they would slow his troops in the field.

That decision certainly didn't work out well... with any luck at all they might have slowed him enough to miss the battle at Little Bighorn altogether.

indy1919
February 27, 2012, 02:07 AM
Yes there is nothing but conflicting Stories on his guns..

You have have Lt Edward Godfrey giving the description about the white handled English bulldogs. And where as that description was made in a time frame very close to the actual battle. The only White handled guns Custer owned (that any one remembers that is ) was a set of Smith & Wessons number 2 pistols.. The RIC that Custer had was not white handled (again that any one remembers).. Peter Thompson's account was written sometime in he early 1910s.. And there are many aspects of his account are not accepted But he was a medal of honor winner. That should cut him some slack.


Another good argument, is to find what were The model of the Gatling guns that Custer turned down. Seems like there are not any concrete records to the model number.


General Terry ended up bringing the Gatlings to the battle of the little Big horn. And Ferrari you are right, Terry was slowed down by the Gatling gun division and was late to the battle because of them.. Maybe Custer would have been saved by taking them and missing the LBH.. Wow .... never thought of it that way.. They would have slowed Custer down and maybe he would have reached the Indians on a more advantages battlefield with Terry Near by. Now that makes you think..

mikthestick
February 28, 2012, 12:34 PM
With regards to Custer's guns he was a General (though perhaps not a good one), his rank would have allowed him to carry whatever he wanted in addition to regular issue.
I blew up Geronimo's picture and I think he is actually carrying two sticks. I think they are to make a rifle rest for his 45-70. He must have seen buffalo hunters do it.

Scorch
February 28, 2012, 12:58 PM
Even survivors of the battle tell different versions of the same thing.
Survivors from the Battle of Little Big Horn?

MJN77
February 28, 2012, 02:21 PM
Quote:
Even survivors of the battle tell different versions of the same thing.

Survivors from the Battle of Little Big Horn?


Yes. There were survivors of the LBH, just not Custer's group. Custer split his command of about 600 troops into three groups, under himself, Major Marcus Reno, and Captain Fredrick Benteen. The only troops wiped out were the 250 or so troopers with "Ol' Longhair" himself. Some of those under Reno/Benteen were killed too, just not all of them.

Mike Irwin
February 28, 2012, 03:49 PM
"With regards to Custer's guns he was a General..."

Custer had been a brevet Major General of Volunteers during the Civil War.

Once the war ended he was reduced back to his permanent rank of Lieutenant Colonel.

Chris_B
February 28, 2012, 04:45 PM
Not to mention the, um.....INDIANS that were there and didn't get killed would be, by definition, survivors ;)

MJN77
February 28, 2012, 05:15 PM
Not to mention the, um.....INDIANS that were there and didn't get killed would be, by definition, survivors

You are correct, sir. But I think he was surprised that any white folk survived the fight. The indians won, so that pretty much goes without saying.

Chris_B
February 28, 2012, 05:43 PM
Musta never heard of Little Big Man ;)

MJN77
February 28, 2012, 05:52 PM
Amen:)

indy1919
February 28, 2012, 06:35 PM
In the survivor camp Les not forget almost all the Army Scouts, They tell some of the better accounts of Custer's troops during its ill fated advance.


Now know pretty much any officer could purchase and carry a gun of his desire.... and many did

But does anyone know if a trooper or Sargent could????? Of course at 13 - 15 dollars a month that does not leave a lot of room to purchase and feed your own fire arm

mikthestick
February 28, 2012, 07:00 PM
The British had and still have a class system (more's the pity). In the British army non-commissioned officers and lower ranks were more likely to spend spare cash on strong drink than weapons. Non-coms and squaddies don't get revolvers if they captured any they would probably have to turn it over to their officer. From a discipline point of view the British were and may still be the most harsh.
These days the soldiers in our armies certainly deserve respect. In the Napoleonic period Brits were forced into the army by poverty. They were trained to be more afraid of their sergent than the enemy. If they were not disciplined they would cause the local population much heartache.