The following was not a reason why the Plains Indians were so difficult to defeat in
the 1800s:

The Real Reason: Plain Natives were always on the move, sort of like nomads

What WASN'T the reason: Plains Natives had settlements and never migrated

Explanation:

Plains natives were difficult to defeat because they were always on the move, so the U.S. or Mexican Army couldn't catch up to them. While natives who weren't on the move and had established settlements, were situated in a single place which would allow europeans to raid and destroy their settlement.

so, the wrong reason for why the plains nations were so difficult to defeat would be to say they were a situated settlement and were never migratory or "on the move"

- "the past is made of multitudinous items ranging from anything that can be collected, recollected or assessed to originate in the past. as such, the past is a gallimaufry of particulars that may not have been related in any way. however, the human mind seeks organization to understand concepts and other things. the human mind therefore seeks relationships in explaining and studying the past. history being a humanity, dictates that historians have to serve this human trait by bringing structure to details of the past. historians do this by creating interpretive frameworks that capture as many details as possible."

< 3