"Myths Everyone Believes About the Wild West" Topic

It's true that?:
"…skirmishes between Native Americans and the typical American settler trundling along in his covered wagon hardly ever happened. Of the hundreds of thousands of pioneers who willingly trudged all the way through Nebraska, only a few hundred died in clashes with Native Americans.

We repeat: not tens of thousands, not even thousands. About 300 to 400. To put that number in perspective, the total number of pioneer deaths on the Oregon Trail from all causes (including disease) numbered 10,000 to 30,000, which means only 1 to 4 percent of all trail fatalities can be attributed to Native Americans. Hell, we bet more settlers were accidentally trampled by their own cows

During this same period, settlers killed over 400 Native Americans. Again, that's not zero, but it does mean that the vast majority of settlers never got into a murderous conflict with hostile tribes. It was far more likely that the average settler would trade with Native Americans or hire members of various tribes as guides, rather than fight them. It wasn't necessarily because they were open-minded and peace loving that they abstained from violence, but rather that it's never good business to kill your customers, or vice versa. Especially when you're talking about someone providing a potentially life-saving service (a guide kept you from getting lost, when getting lost meant getting dead)…"

Pick up from
link

Only 400 at all?

Amicalement
Armand

Killjoy. ;D

Considering how big the plains are,the protaganists would have to find each other,first.It probably didnt seem worth the effort.

I suppose the next thing you tell us that six guns don't sound like 105mm howitzers and deride their accuracy per Sergio Leone…Revisionist!!!

That John Wayne didn't win the west. And Roy and Dale didn't outsing the bad guys. And there is no Marshal Dillon….

I understand that Roy and Dale used to drive an "Audi Partner".

The quick draw I believe?
Regards
Russ Dunaway

Swinging saloon doors.

I read somewhere that there's not a single documented example of the iconic doors we see in films, television, and in wargames terrain.

Anyone know if that's true?

Well, he's being pretty specific here. He is *only* writing about wagon trains on the Oregon Trail through Nebraska. A *lot* of settlers that moved west through and into other states and territories were in conflict with Native Americans. He doesn't mention raids on established settlements and towns, or attacks on trappers, cattle ranchers and drives, and individual settlers *not* traveling with a wagon train. Google up the great Comanche raid of 1840 where settlers and whole towns across Texas were attacked by thousands of Comanche warriors and one town was burned to the ground.

Every red blooded American should go to the link and read the comments about guns in the West.

What is this "red blooded American" hooey?

Isn't 400 enough?

It's Cracked. They're full of idiots.

Read by people who are idiots, or by people who want to believe people are idiots. And written by idiots who fall into that second category who want to feel superior to the idiots they believe exist.

This post was brought to you by the letter I.

Now get off my lawn!

I understand the comment about guns in towns and agree with the dubious accuracy of sidearms. Colt peacemakers are regular cartridge weapons rather than the cap and ball make that arose by 1836.

And speaking of hats:

I read somewhere that the worst year in history for Dodge City prior to 1900 was 5 killings. Compare that to the body count in your average movie…

As far back as the 1830's Captain John Hays of the Texas Rangers saw the possible utility of revolvers and equipped each of his men with a pair of Colt Patterson models. It's an accepted fact that the revolvers were instrumental in winning the Battle of Walker Creek against the Comanche, and from that point on tipped the balance toward the Rangers in any fight against the Indians. Rifles were generally better for almost everything, but to imply that revolvers were hardly ever used is pretty absurd.

The author takes a few liberties to come to that conclusion: Leaving out Indians killed by the military, for example. It's probably true that the settlers themselves killed few Indians, but that's because they had the military there to protect them. I mean, when there's a crime today, you don't see teams of citizen vigilantes hunting down the perpetrators. No, they turn to the police, just like the settlers turned to the military.

Armand, that's the second time you have picked up a crackpot "Everything everybody knows is WRONG!" page from that site.
The one about the American Revolution was full of it, and so is this one. Does that tell you anything?

As Homer Simpson says, "If it's on the Internet, it has to be true."

I don't think anyone believes the Old West was as it is depicted in film. However, that article is a bunch of nonsense.

Somehow I feel that "through research…we determined that…" = "while using wikipedia on my smart phone, I couldn't find NOT ONE example!"

Dullards.

Contrary to popular belief, only about 300 to 400 settlers died from Indian attack on the trail west.

>>Contrary to popular belief, only about 300 to 400 settlers died from Indian attack on the trail west.<<

As I mentioned in a previous post; that's based on wagon trains on the Oregon Trail through Nebraska. A *lot* of settlers that moved west through and into other states and territories were in conflict with Native Americans. I doubt that anyone can say, with accuracy, how many settlers were killed by Indians heading west.

I'm with The Shadow on this one: The research cites a VERY narrow sampling of data. If their data can be trusted (and I don't really trust it), it's interesting, but only as a footnote. The reality was that hostilities did exist and they were often bloody.

Wonder to know how this guy had pick up those statistics. (smile).

Amicalement
Armand

Seeing that Cheyenne's, Oglala's, and Miniconjou's rarely attacked large trains (too many guns aboard), a raiding party had a better chance for success when striking a train of 2-3 wagons. These attacks rarely left any alive, and those that lived through it were quickly adopted into the tribe to replace losses. Therefore settlers accounts of attacks on large trains that successfully defended themselves are rare, while those who couldn't, ergo, left no accounts. Read Grinnell Hyde, and Vestal. These are great accounts from the warrior perspective of all those settlers who got whacked, never got counted, and according to their parents "suddenly stopped sending letters home."

Further to his article, he refers to the prolific "Boss of the Plains" hat the "granddaddy of every cowboy hat in the world today". And says, "that's not exactly what your mind jumps to when you think of cowboy hats, is it?"

Well actually, yeah it is. Once it's been rolled, pinched, peaked and/or had it's brim turned up it's *exactly* what I picture when I think of a "cowboy hat". He says it looks like an "Amish hat", but doesn't mention that they could, and would be personalized to fit individual taste. Of course, in Texas the hats that cow punchers wore might be styled after Mexican sombreros, which would make perfectly good sense since the sombrero offered protection from the sun, but he ignores the fact that a huge number of cowboys were from Texas and adopted Mexican styled clothing and prefers to offer photos of town people in town dress. He even refers to "Wild Bill" Hickok's iconic chapeau as a "ladies hat". In short. His article is ridiculous.