Or, as a former soldier, he was making fun of the Air Force weenies?

Rongagin71 said:

---

I think Sapper was indirectly answering that "yes, warriors do hit and run" - sometimes.

---

I understand, however we must distinguish the opportunist raids from the military raids.

For example, how many slaves did the U.S. Airmen bring back after each raid, how much booty, how many people were tied to ant hills etc... (I know a lot more people died and that in itself was torture).

doubledog said:

---

Rongagin71 said:

---

I think Sapper was indirectly answering that "yes, warriors do hit and run" - sometimes.

---

I understand, however we must distinguish the opportunist raids from the military raids.

For example, how many slaves did the U.S. Airmen bring back after each raid, how much booty, how many people were tied to ant hills etc... (I know a lot more people died and that in itself was torture).

---

I think you're trying to draw a clear distinction that doesn't exist, particularly during the 17th, 18th, and 19th centuries. The first way of war the Anglo colonists learned was ranging and raiding, where attacks into settlements was a vital part of the overall strategy of war. Manpower limitations plus huge territory meant little opportunity for battle as Europeans understood it.

Yeah, even the Battle of Plum Creek mentioned earlier was actually a series of running fights covering about 50 miles along the creek near Lockhart as various bands of Rangers closed with the retreating Comanche army.

What does the OP mean by "warrior"? For example, the Celts individually were probably better warriors than the individual Roman soldiers, but Roman organization, tactics, and strategy overwhelmed the Celts.

And history has shown repeatedly that, over the long term, settled agrarian cultures end up defeating and dominating mobile, unsettled cultures. The only exception to that I can think of are the Mongols.

I believe the Seminole Nation was undefeated.