| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Bill |
Posted - July 13 2004 : 12:50:01 PM
I find it amazing that there was not a single human, non-Indian member (that we know of) of GAC's immediate command who survived what is commonly known as the "Last Stand". It seems that; given the relatively brief length of the battle, the wide area of rugged geography involved, the nature of the weapons used, and the number of soldiers involved, there "should" have been some type of survivor --wounded, or prisoner or just someone hiding out. Several members of Reno's command managed to hide out in the river bottom for days when they were separated from their forces. There must have been dozens (if not a majority) of wounded troopers on the battlefield. Was it the custom of the Indians (Lakota, Cheyenne, Arapahoe) to kill all wounded enemies? Were prisoners never taken, for use as "hostages" or otherwise? I understand that there may have been some badly wounded soldiers left on the field, who expired before Terry's troops arrived, but it still seems that there should have been others less grieviously wounded, who could have survived with the river nearby. What are your thoughts? Thanks. |
| 14 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| joseph wiggs |
Posted - July 26 2004 : 10:00:56 PM
It is so difficult to imagine what the wounded troopers must have felt as they lay there unable to move. Instant death must have seemed a blessing. |
| Bill |
Posted - July 25 2004 : 1:22:34 PM
In "The Mystery of F Troop" Michno has a description of just such a soldier lying wounded on the battlefield and hoping to escape by playing dead. The account is fictional, but based on eyewitness Indian sources who described just such a scene. The trooper is successful at feigning death while two women strip him naked, but when one starts to castrate him he jumps up and tries to get away. One woman grabs him by the arm and there is a brief struggle until another woman comes up and stabs him dead. The warriors nearby laughed at the scene because it looked like the naked white man was "dancing" with the women before he was finished off. It may have been humorous to the warriors, but just imagine that trooper's final moments as he tried to escape, and what he must have seen -- other wounded soldiers being killed and stripped and mutilated, naked white corpses, and warriors and women and children dressed in bloody uniforms fresh off his comrades. What a terrible scene it must have been!
And I just read a fictional account of the battle's aftermath in a novel called "The Legend of Walks Far Woman". This book also seems to be based on some accurate historical research about what happened after the battle. The main character goes up to the battlefield with the other women to strip the dead. She finds a dead officer, shot through the chest but also finished off with a blow to the head. She can't get his tall, over-the-knee boots off his feet, so she just cuts around the leather at the ankles and pulls the shafts off so that she can make pouches out of them. After stripping off the rest of his clothes, she also cuts off one of his fingers to get his ring. I guess this scene could have happened to many troopers on the field. |
| El Crab |
Posted - July 19 2004 : 8:45:52 PM
Hearing your comrades having their heads bashed in or chopped open while you wait your turn? That really would have sucked. A lot. |
| joseph wiggs |
Posted - July 19 2004 : 8:33:18 PM
"HOW MANY OF THESE WOUNDED SOLDIERS COULD HEAR THE DEATH BLOWS OF THEIR COMRADES NEAR THEM AND KNEW THEY WOULD SOON FOLLOW?"
Too many, God Bless them. |
| bhist |
Posted - July 19 2004 : 7:02:28 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Bill
I realize that the methodical killing of the wounded (as well as their mutilation and perhaps even torture) is not a topic that is likely to get much attention from scholars or from battlefield guides. For one, it is unpleasant to contemplate. And second, it suggests that the Indians were "bloodthirsty savages", which is not an acceptable view. And in "defense" of the Indians, it should be noted that stripping the dead and wounded on the battlefield has a long tradition in "civilized warfare". Numerous contemporary accounts from the Napoleonic wars relate how wounded soldiers had their throats cut by local peasants or other soldiers to make it easier to steal a fancy uniform or fine riding boots. These battlefields were also covered by naked corpses, just like LBH.
Glad to have you on board Bill. There have been many who have written about the dead and mutilated of Custer's Battlefield. Richard Hardoff has his "Custer Battle Casualties" books, Dr. Clyde Snow wrote about it extensively in Doug Scott's books on the archeological digs along with symposiums, seminars, and round table discussions.
Out of all of these, there is one I recommend most; Snow's report in Scott's "Archaeological Perspectives on the Battle of the LBH." Snow’s chapter, "Human Osteological Remains" is a most fascinating study of the remains of Custer's troopers. And, what is read is really a story of ghastly horror. Point six of Snow's conclusions says it all, "It appears probable that the majority of the troopers were still alive but more or less helplessly wounded when resistance ceased and that many were finished off with massive crushing blows to the head. After death, many were mutilated and dismembered."
How many of these wounded soldiers could hear the death blows of their comrades near them and knew they would soon follow?
|
| joseph wiggs |
Posted - July 18 2004 : 10:04:54 PM
The aftermath of the battle consisted of several dynamics that would go far to explain the final disposition of the "wounded" on LSH. First, the warriors had plenty of time to search and remove valuables from the troopers; coats, shirts, boots,etc.
This would entail close contact with the bodies which would reveal tell tale signs such as "heart beats."
Secondly, the warriors had a tendency of counting "coup" on all of the bodies(dead or alive)with a heavy hand. Thus, the unconscious soldier who may have been overlooked, did not survive. The dead and wounded were surrounded by many warriors who had two days to do their thing. |
| El Crab |
Posted - July 14 2004 : 8:52:29 PM
Well, one account mentions a soldier, stripped naked, who had not a wound on him. And they noticed this. I would assume the majority of soldiers playing dead were wounded, I would think the brain pushes escape/flight over tricking people into thinking you're dead if unwounded. Especially when the people you're trying to fool mutilate their defeated enemies. |
| Anonymous Poster8169 |
Posted - July 14 2004 : 3:12:13 PM
It's also pretty damn hard to play dead. Have you ever had a bad injury and tried to "play if off"? It's not easy. Breathing is irregular, the body flinches involuntarily, etc. Even if someone is only a little observant, they could probably tell. I don't know how "methodical" the killing of the wounded was, but the Indians were over the field for a long time, and doing things which would put them in close contact with the soldiers (stripping, etc.). If someone was alive, it probably couldn't help but get noticed.
R. Larsen
|
| Bill |
Posted - July 14 2004 : 11:59:34 AM
Thanks for all the various comments.
On further reflection, it seems to me that the primary reasons for "no survivors" is that (1) no prisoners were taken/kept, and (2)all the wounded (perhaps more than 100) were killed, with both due to the Indian's "ethics" of warfare. Supporting causes for the elimination of all the wounded are probably the Indian's desire to strip and scalp/mutilate the dead and the presence of a large camp of "noncombatants" nearby to do the job. While the warriors may have failed to notice all the badly wounded or "playing dead" survivors when hurriedly collecting weapons and choice items of gear and clothing, the women, children and older men would have discovered them during their thorough plundering of the bodies. If a trooper reacted or resisted while being stripped of his boots or drawers, then he would be finished off. Indian accounts and physical evidence support that some troopers were killed during/after they were stripped naked (why put more holes or blood in those fine tunics or buckskin breeches).
I realize that the methodical killing of the wounded (as well as their mutilation and perhaps even torture) is not a topic that is likely to get much attention from scholars or from battlefield guides. For one, it is unpleasant to contemplate. And second, it suggests that the Indians were "bloodthirsty savages", which is not an acceptable view. And in "defense" of the Indians, it should be noted that stripping the dead and wounded on the battlefield has a long tradition in "civilized warfare". Numerous contemporary accounts from the Napoleonic wars relate how wounded soldiers had their throats cut by local peasants or other soldiers to make it easier to steal a fancy uniform or fine riding boots. These battlefields were also covered by naked corpses, just like LBH. |
| movingrobewoman |
Posted - July 14 2004 : 10:53:11 AM
quote:
Originally posted by wILD I
The fact that all were mutilated ment that there was no chance of surviving by playing dead.
I hate to get into semantics here, but not everyone who died on the battlefield was mutilated ... remember that supposedly GAC got away pretty cleanly (though I do wonder if "they" were protecting Libbie's sensitivities).
The rest of your comments are pretty spot on!
Movingrobe |
| joseph wiggs |
Posted - July 13 2004 : 9:30:45 PM
The Indians spoke of an individual(s) that "almost got away."
Their testimony is somewhat confusing when an attempt is made to discern if one or more persons are being discussed. For example, White Shield (Cheyenne) spoke of a man riding a sorrel horse who almost escaped. When he had gone quite a distance and, they had almost given up the chase, some Sioux fired at the soldier and saw him fall from his horse. When they got to him they found he was shot in the back between the shoulders.
What a tale he could have told.
Two Moons stated that one soldier rode away from the rest and went east. Low Dog dismounted and, taking careful aim, shot the soldier from his horse as he topped the second ridge east of the battlefield fence line.( marker 174?) |
| El Crab |
Posted - July 13 2004 : 8:29:04 PM
Or the bodies found in the village were the several soldiers whose horses bolted, namely Jim Turley and George Smith of Reno's battalion, and a corporal/sergeant in Custer's battalion (so said Curley and Sioux accounts, I believe).
There were just too many warriors and little cover for the soldiers on Custer's field. Its possible that a few escaped the battlefield, as accounts mention a couple soldiers on horseback fleeing north and east before being killed or shooting themselves.
The Indians didn't believe a fight was over until one of the opponents was dead. Wounded soldiers, if they were seen, were probably all dispatched. Its possible a soldier was missed, and he died of his wounds with no further help from the Sioux/Cheyenne, but we'll never know. |
| bhist |
Posted - July 13 2004 : 3:34:29 PM
Some of Custer's soldier’s remains were found in the village (heads hidden under a kettle). It's widely assumed that these men were either captured alive, tortured, and killed, or more likely, their bodies were dragged into the village. Or, better yet, the Santee's cut off the soldiers' heads at the battlefield and brought them to the village. |
| wILD I |
Posted - July 13 2004 : 3:23:25 PM
Would there have been another 4-5 hours of daylight?This would not have helped.
The fact that all were mutilated ment that there was no chance of surviving by playing dead.
The troops bunched together rather than scattering.
All the horses were played out.
The overwhelming number of Indians involved.
That's about the best I can do.
Cheers |
|
|
