| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| wILD I |
Posted - April 17 2005 : 4:29:40 PM
It seems to be generally accepted here that the number of Indians involved was in the region of 1500. I suggest that this number is greatly understated and perhaps double that number is closer to the truth.
Take your average tribe/band /village,the number of dependents would be far less than for a similar sized white community.Members of the tribe who could not contribute to the survival of that unit were a luxery people living close to extinction could not afford.A bad hunting season followed by a bad winter would more than likely clear out all the dead wood such as the old ,the weak and the chronic sick.
The rate of child birth was low also life expectancy was probably no more than 40.So the ratio of warriors to dependents was high.
So that village streaching 3 miles along the LBH river was teeming with men of fighting age.
Also the fact that large numbers of Indians from the reservations had joined this gathering.Most would have left the wife and kids behind while they took off for a spot of Summer rape and pillage.Nor would they have been encumbered with tepees but would have lived rough in the open.
All this adds up to a hugh number of able bodied men.Which I think may have resulted in Custer's units instead of being defeated in detail being defeated simultaneously.The last reliable time fix we have for Custer is 4.04 when Boyer and Curley meet up with him.A half an hour after he had sent off the "come quick" message.Now Gray would have us believe that for the best part of another hour Custer is engaged in his "manoeuvres".Yet when the battle is over we find Custers units in neither defence nor attack mode.Some of our contributers hold that these unexplainable wanderings were due to the fact that Custer had been shot and at a critical time all command and control was lost.I think the evidence shows that Custer never had this hour and that he was in fact swamped and annihilated by hundreds of warriors pouring out of the village a short time after 4.00.It was probably all over by the time Benteen reached Reno.And Galls forces were not required.
As for Curleys evidence it holds no water.He says Boyer told him to leave.Good cover story for getting out quick.
Also it is very necessary if the betrayal theory is to have any credibility to keep Custer alive and fighting for as long as possible |
| 19 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| joseph wiggs |
Posted - April 24 2005 : 7:24:44 PM
Distinguish quotes from replies? That's all you have to say? I won't go through this bombastic verbiage because, unlike you, I know the members of this forum can read your threads as well as I did. I wish you well D.c, I sincerely hope that you seek the services of a therapist. By the way, A Custerfoil is the mis-spelling of the negative term, Custerphile. |
| Dark Cloud |
Posted - April 24 2005 : 12:37:20 PM
Wiggs, learn to use the functions. When Larsen does, it distinguishes quotes from replies.
1. Prissy precision is Titanic deck chair accounting and placement. Procedure over point. Michno spends time trying to blow the big village away, but it's silly and his agenda shows again. Five dense clumps in an area would still deserve a description of the distance furthest to nearest, plus lean-to's and stock. The size of the village is crucial, but the methods are not. A "normal" village supposedly had five folks to a lodge, two of which were warriors. Don't know how accurate that is. But this village was designed to fight, to honor Sitting Bull's wish that they live as they always had. There is evidence - not proof - that lots more warriors were present than you'd find in a "normal" camp, hence the wickiups. Then, there are the trails size, the testimony of the Crow scouts and of the soldiers'. Otoe Sioux.
2. Poll who? Dead authors with the live? No, Wiggs, it's in print.
3. I didn't say there was a mile, I offered an example of how the same description could house several configurations.
4. The "original" estimate varied but hovered around a ridiculous 20k Indians with 8k warriors. Cut it to four, and you still have Benteen's description of the Indians not having enough room for everyone on their lines.
5. A Custerfoil is a foil for Custer. What else could it mean? Further, Wiggs, you're wrong again. From the nearly endless village, recent estimates limit the extent of the village to just north of the Garry Owen loop to south of Medicine Tail Coulee. That's evident in most recent books. Originally it went from GOL to north of even LSH on the other side. Read Whitaker, the first book, and then read one of the recent ones. As for the apologists, they've gone from claiming a clever trap for Custer to fighting in desperation to save their families in a nearly even fight, since there's small glory in slaughtering people you outnumber fifty to one, and even so letting their innocents get killed due to - there's no other word - incompetence. |
| joseph wiggs |
Posted - April 23 2005 : 8:56:46 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Cloud
This is the sort of prissy precision that doesn't mean much but has given folks the impression something is being accomplished and that they themselves are concerned with "facts."
What in the world does "prissy precision" mean? If an Indian village, stuffed with raging Indians, is 1/2 the size it was believed to be in the past, does it not follow that the amount of warriors is halved also? Therefore, the size of the village is historically invaluable.
D.c
They aren't. They're concerned with trying to leave that impression while they manipulate evidence for a desired goal, generally - but not always - to buff Custer.
What source was made available to you that would enable you to differentiate between "generally" and "but not always?" Did you take a poll or did you just make it up?
D.c
Three miles long times how wide and at what density and composition? Lodges and the leanto's? If one tribe created a circle at GOL and another at MTC, and there was a space between them of a mile,
By the mere definition of a village, there would not be a space between the circles of a miles distance. The Indian circles were continuous from GOl to MTC. (By the why, how far is that?) Unlike the cities of our ERA, created by the Industrial Revolution, where millions of strangers are squeezed, confined, and forced to interact for reasons of employment, the Sioux village was as much a social gathering as anything else. They reveled in close contact with one another for two paramount reasons: Social interaction and defense.
D.c
interspersed with horses and lean-to's, might someone say the village extended in length a certain distance without meaning to imply that the entire distance was densely packed? Yes. Does arguing about the north south extent of these different tribal circles inform as to numbers of warriors? Not really.
Heres a clue, no matter how densely a village is packed with Indians or not, the bottom line is this. If the village was half the size as originally believed to be, it would make a great difference. Only an individual wearing goggles of fire red bias could see it otherwise.
D.c
In recent years, the Counterfoils and NA apologists (apologists for the apparent incompetence in protecting their civvies)came to unofficial agreement that the "village" extended north from near to the GOL only to MTC. This gave the desired impression of a smaller village - big enough for Custer to have taken except for betrayal - and too small for sufficient recon.
As it is virtually impossible that you could conceivable have any evidence of the above, a shred of evidence, or even an iota of probability, this paragraph should be relegated to the comic book section. By the way, exactly what is a Custerfoil?
|
| joseph wiggs |
Posted - April 22 2005 : 9:07:27 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Anonymous Poster8169
quote:
Originally posted by Joseph wiggs
Lakota Recollections of the Custer Fight- Richard Hardorff
P.49 Flying Hawk (Sioux) Length of village: "The extreme length of the village was was about a mile and a half."
Respects Nothing: p.26:"He says that all these Indians were encamped on a mile square of land."
Etc.
None of these accounts confirm any unintentional "doubling" of the village's apparent size. You shouldn't state what the evidence can't offer.
R. Larsen
O.k., Firstly I quoted other authors, not my own work. You then come back with, "none of these accounts confirm any unintentional "doubling" of the village's apparent size." Then you state, "You shouldn't state what the evidence can't offer."
Where did I make this statement? |
| Anonymous Poster8169 |
Posted - April 22 2005 : 7:43:00 PM
quote:
Originally posted by joseph wiggs
Lakota Recollections of the Custer Fight- Richard Hardorff
P.49 Flying Hawk (Sioux) Length of village: "The extreme length of the village was was about a mile and a half."
Respects Nothing: p.26:"He says that all these Indians were encamped on a mile square of land."
Etc.
None of these accounts confirm any unintentional "doubling" of the village's apparent size. You shouldn't state what the evidence can't offer.
R. Larsen |
| Dark Cloud |
Posted - April 21 2005 : 1:17:03 PM
Understand, Wild, I don't hold with that myself, either.
Their point is that Reno was a coward and pointlessly withdrew, allowing those Indians in conjunction with the others to surround Custer, etc. etc. Had Reno continued, Custer's brilliant offensive mentality - demonstrated by these dances of dismounted firing lines, bolstered by Benteen and the train - would have won a huge victory. They don't generally have the nerve to state it like that, but they try to work the evidence for a desired conclusion by the casual reader. It's inherently dishonest in approach (although, could be true...who knows?)and bespeaks the irrational Custerphile, since no positive evidence exists for it, and it contradicts the only first hand info we have: that of the Army officers who saw the field days after, who thought it a running fight till pulled to ground. Except Calhoun.
That's why both Custerphiles and current NA's quote each other's suppositions and hopes as facts to instill the Custer as victim of somebody other than his bad fortune that day. It makes both appear PC reasonable, but they have agendas rather than questions, and hope that circular logic will suffice till people get tired and just agree with them out of hand. |
| wILD I |
Posted - April 21 2005 : 12:11:41 PM
Three miles long times how wide and at what density and compostion? Lodges and the leanto's? If one tribe created a circle at GOL and another at MTC, and there was a space between them of a mile,
And if there was a mile between them what prevented Custer from crossing?And Reno with complete surprise on his side came to a sudden halt.How many warriors were immediately available to stop Reno Double his forces 400?
It does not indicate a scattered village to me. |
| Dark Cloud |
Posted - April 21 2005 : 11:22:17 AM
This is the sort of prissy precision that doesn't mean much but has given folks the impression something is being accomplished and that they themselves are concerned with "facts." They aren't. They're concerned with trying to leave that impression while they manipulate evidence for a desired goal, generally - but not always - to buff Custer.
Three miles long times how wide and at what density and compostion? Lodges and the leanto's? If one tribe created a circle at GOL and another at MTC, and there was a space between them of a mile, interspersed with horses and lean-to's, might someone say the village extended in length a certain distance without meaning to imply that the entire distance was densely packed? Yes. Does arguing about the north south extent of these different tribal circles inform as to numbers of warriors? Not really.
In recent years, the Custerphiles and NA apologists (apologists for the apparent incompetence in protecting their civvies)came to unofficial agreement that the "village" extended north from near to the GOL only to MTC. This gave the desired impression of a smaller village - big enough for Custer to have taken except for betrayal - and too small for sufficient recon. |
| wILD I |
Posted - April 21 2005 : 10:13:28 AM
If we take the southern extremity of the village as being close to where Reno dismounted [Garryowen loop]and the Northern end as being close to LSH then the village would have been 3 miles long |
| BJMarkland |
Posted - April 21 2005 : 02:22:32 AM
Joe, just a caveat: Indians had no conception before "civilization" of what a mile or square mile was.
For the fun of it, reading a book which the complete title I forget, they have American-Apache interpretations of numbers which go to and include one hundred. I will get the source for you but the original document is, according to the book, at the Smithsonian.
So much for Indians not being able to count in groups of ten.
Billy |
| joseph wiggs |
Posted - April 20 2005 : 9:26:31 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Cloud
We have no first hand Indian accounts. Nobody who was there spoke English except the soldiers (and maybe not all of those....I'm looking at YOU, Martin....). At best, it's second hand, and this assumes translation was correct. We seldom know the translator and have no ability to judge their competence. Anyone who claims 'first hand' Indian testimony (first hand to us, anyway)isn't telling the truth. First hand means there is nobody else necessary between yourself and your source. Something he wrote in a language he spoke meets the qualification. No such evidence is before us anywhere. Of the second hand info, there is much to be suspicious about, and by the time you get to Black Elk it's a dramatization of possible events told by someone who might have been there after translation by an activist with an agenda and editing by family.
Lakota Recollections of the Custer Fight- Richard Hardorff
P.49 Flying Hawk (Sioux) Length of village: "The extreme length of the village was was about a mile and a half."
Respects Nothing: p.26:"He says that all these Indians were encamped on a mile square of land."
Lakota Noon - Michno: Page 18,
"The fact is, the picture of the 'enormous' village that has been presented to us for more than a century was a product of the factors discussed above; an inability to see the entire camp;reluctance to admit defeat by a 'savage' foe without the advantage of overwhelming numbers;and being deceived by the camp's SECONDARY EXTENSION. The camp ran one and one-half miles along the river and three hundred yards back from it. The area covered by the main bulk of the village on June 25 amounted to only one-quarter square mile. There is no getting around it. The village on the Little Big Horn was enormous only in the imagination of the participants and Chronicles who, consciously or subconsciously, wanted to or had to see it that way."
Archeology, History, and Custer's Last Battle, Fox: p.377-notes-92
"The Sioux warriors Kill Eagle, Sitting Bull, and Gall. When the Indians (warriors) rushed up to meet Reno, all the women and children gathered down at the LOWER VILLAGE.
page 299:
"though later that evening occupants moved their village downstream, its north end on June 25-the Cheyenne camp circle-lay, as the battle unfolded, quite close to to the mouth of Medicine Trail Coulée. It is from here, the first ENCAMPMENT,that noncombatants fled. Figure 16-1 also illustrates this EXODUS, the one that BECKONED Custer northward."
In short gentlemen, the boundary of the village was stretched northward in a direct correlation of two factors: the mutual decision to initiate movement of the village further downstream for better grazing for the huge heard (unrelated to Custer's attach which had yet to occurred) and, the actual attack itself which resulted in panic and flight of the Indians. After the final shot had been fired, the soldiers had no way of determining the exact length of the village other than measuring the disrupted soil resulting from Indian movement. Needless to say, the initial panic subsided immensely after the soldiers were decisively routed. Therefore, the extended portion of the village was occupied for an entire 24 hours while the Indians celebrated their victory. |
| Dark Cloud |
Posted - April 20 2005 : 6:03:41 PM
We have no first hand Indian accounts. Nobody who was there spoke English except the soldiers (and maybe not all of those....I'm looking at YOU, Martin....). At best, it's secod hand, and this assumes translation was correct. We seldom know the translator and have no ability to judge their competence. Anyone who claims 'first hand' Indian testimony (first hand to us, anyway)isn't telling the truth. First hand means there is nobody else necessary between yourself and your source. Something he wrote in a language he spoke meets the qualification. No such evidence is before us anywhere. Of the second hand info, there is much to be suspicious about, and by the time you get to Black Elk it's a dramatization of possible events told by someone who might have been there after translation by an activist with an agenda and editing by family. |
| Anonymous Poster8169 |
Posted - April 20 2005 : 5:33:53 PM
quote:
Originally posted by joseph wiggs
Fox's notes page (372-27)offers corroborative information that substantiates Michno. Other researchers have arrived at similar conclusions. First hand Indian accounts confirm the unintentional doubling of the village size.
Which accounts are these? I'm sure some unpacking and moving took place, but it seens improbable that whatever happened could have doubled the village's apparent size.
R. Larsen |
| joseph wiggs |
Posted - April 19 2005 : 9:35:16 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Cloud
Still, you notice - as Custerphiies and Native American apologists both found common ground - that the size of the village and number of warriors has dropped harshly in recent years from what probably was an overblown initial estimate. I believe this is because the Indians, ashamed at having been caught half in the bag and allowing women and children (Gall's, for example) to have been killed despite every advantage imaginable, including previous sightings (not "tracked" or "monitored" but "who's that over there? should we tell someone?" No, apparently....), want a small village to excuse lack of pre-emptive response. The Custerphiles want the smallest village possible because then they can claim Custer had the right idea all along and if only someone else had done such and so, his crafty and dazzling display of trooper virtuosity as dragoon infantry would have won. It's innately dishonest, because they have a desired result in mind and mold highly malleable information - it's difficult to call it evidence - into shape to achieve it.
Ah yes, what a convenient and trite summation of all that needs to be known. Prior to this magnanimous revelation, no researcher, historian, or interested party had the wherewithal to proffer such an awe inspiring theory;the singular cause of this mutual love fest between "Custerphiles" and "Native Americans apologists" being a direct correlation to the "shame" of the Indians who engaged in this battle.
Is it not possible that upon the death of their loved ones that Gall, and others, may have experienced lofter emotions other than shame? I guess not, that would make them too human.
Apparently, this "common ground" resulted from the ignominy of Gall (for example)who allowed his children to be killed although, subsequently, he assisted in the accomplishment of the greatest defeat of a modern army( by aboriginals)in the history of the U.S.Army. What such a distinction has to do with the the " Custerphiles" at this point is beyond me but, who knows.
Another point, would not the combinding of the terms Custerphiles/Native Americans constitute an Oxymoron? The definition given in the above thread, people who love Custer and the Indians who wiped him out somehow, just don't match. Perhaps the old adage, politics make strange bedfellows has some merit.
Now let us discuss a factual reason, as opposed to pure conjecture, for the diminishing size of the Indian village during the last decade. It is called RESEARCH. Let us refer to Michno, p.7:
"The remains of the village after it was abandoned late June 26 was LARGER than the actual occupied village as it stood on the MORNING of June 25." A portion of the camp had packed up and moved Northwest down the valley during that day and a half. Plans had already been made to move downstream to search for game and some had already started to move when Reno struck." Two days later, when the united commands headed north, both Reno and Terry crossed three miles of "village" that was originally a mile and 1/2.
Fox's notes page (372-27)offers corroborative information that substantiates Michno. Other researchers have arrived at similar conclusions. First hand Indian accounts confirm the unintentional doubling of the village size. As Reno's men charged toward the village, the only dimension of size available to them was width. It was physically impossible to ascertain length. Two days later, Reno and his men traveled a three mile length of land wherein lodge polls, abandoned kettles, Indian clothing, and typical items of village identification was strewn. The soldiers,naturally, assumed that the original village encompassed this entire length.
I have studied this battle for quite sometime and, I can honestly say, that I have yet to discover a theory, proposition, or premise regarding this battle that is "innately dishonest." But, them again, I ain't too smart. |
| Dark Cloud |
Posted - April 19 2005 : 11:44:37 AM
Should have been clearer, Wild. I don't mean the 1876 Indians, but the AIM crowd today. You can't pretend to be historic warriors fighting for the homeland - like Harold, say - when you were so incompetent to have allowed innocents to be killed. It's not like a corporate mentality, it IS a corporate mentality of brand polishing. |
| wILD I |
Posted - April 19 2005 : 09:41:50 AM
this is because the Indians, ashamed at having been caught half in the bag and allowing women and children (Gall's, for example) to have been killed despite every advantage imaginable, including previous sightings (not "tracked" or "monitored" but "who's that over there? should we tell someone?" No, apparently....), want a small village to excuse lack of pre-emptive response.
Hardly DC .This is attributing to the Indians a notion of corporate image.Like lets get a good spin docter otherwise we'll have egg on our faces for letting Mr Custer get so close.No I don't think so.
The Custerphiles want the smallest village possible because then they can claim Custer had the right idea all along and if only someone else had done such and so,
I might just go along with that.The 1500 always seemed a little low to me.1500 sleeping Indians taken by surprise should have been easy meat for a force of 600 led by the illustrious Custer. |
| Dark Cloud |
Posted - April 18 2005 : 7:38:19 PM
Well, "human" is the correct word, not Indian or Anglo. Most parents aren't thrilled at losing their kids, and fight harshly to protect them. Supposedly, this was the reason a necklace of childrens' hands denoted the wearer as extremely brave for having gotten through protective adults, etc. No idea if true, of course, but it makes some sense.
Still, you notice - as Custerphiies and Native American apologists both found common ground - that the size of the village and number of warriors has dropped harshly in recent years from what probably was an overblown initial estimate. I believe this is because the Indians, ashamed at having been caught half in the bag and allowing women and children (Gall's, for example) to have been killed despite every advantage imaginable, including previous sightings (not "tracked" or "monitored" but "who's that over there? should we tell someone?" No, apparently....), want a small village to excuse lack of pre-emptive response. The Custerphiles want the smallest village possible because then they can claim Custer had the right idea all along and if only someone else had done such and so, his crafty and dazzling display of trooper virtuosity as dragoon infantry would have won. It's innately dishonest, because they have a desired result in mind and mold highly malleable information - it's difficult to call it evidence - into shape to achieve it.
I still think we have to start with the only first hand information we have: the officers who walked the field right after the battle. Except for trivia about Custer's remains and overall mutilation, it's fairly united in saying that the field looked like a rout, a debacle, a fiasco. They had every reason and hope to see signs of meaningful placement but, except for Calhoun, apparently there was none. That doesn't lend itself to an image of a prolonged fight. |
| wILD I |
Posted - April 18 2005 : 6:46:12 PM
The number of Indians or number of warriors?
I'm reading a great book here written by TR Fehrenbach about the Comanches.He claims that the women were a deadly as the male when it came to defending her family. So perhaps "Indian" is not so misleading.
Sorry to bum you, but your position is very close to mine absent the fact that Gall was never a leader or in command of squat.Well it appears that whoever had the strongest medicine that day got to call the shots.Maybe it was Gall's day to lead.
No DC your position is closer to mine |
| Dark Cloud |
Posted - April 18 2005 : 12:14:33 PM
The number of Indians or number of warriors?
Sorry to bum you, but your position is very close to mine absent the fact that Gall was never a leader or in command of squat. That all appeared when the Army was trying to find a hero they could manage to supplant Sitting Bull's influence. I don't think Gray claims what you say he does, beyond the bifurcation and a few covering volleys from Keogh and Calhoun. That's Fox and Michno territory. The simplest theory that meets all known evidence usually - not always - is the correct one. It looked like a disorganized rout and probably was. |
|
|
