| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| joe wiggs |
Posted - August 23 2008 : 5:00:40 PM
I found this neat little tidbit in Donovan's "A Terrible Glory" that absolutely amazed me. Here it is:
"Custer had been initially been glad of Reno's appointment to the Seventh. He wrote to Libby in early 1869, 'Reno I know well, he is a finished gentleman and a most capable officer. He served in the Shenandoah and is a good friend of mine.' But his opinion of the man would change over the years."
I ask you, what could have happened to bring a man from the heights of respectability to the depths of utter depravity? I believe the answer lies in his alcoholic consumption (made greater by the death of his wife) which spiraled out of control.
|
| 25 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| joe wiggs |
Posted - September 14 2008 : 12:17:29 PM
quote:
Originally posted by AZ Ranger
I think we would all like accurate numbers but it has been to long. Whatever standard criteria you use should be the same. Asking how they did it would apply to Michno also if want that as a standard.
My approach for most things is similar to a civil court standard. More likely than not. 51%
When a persons reputation is at stake I apply a crimnal standard. Beyond a reasonable doubt. 99.5% In a crimnal case if two explainations are plausible you must go with the one that finds not guilty.
I believe the 2,500 figure in Hardorff is reasonable and the size length of the village is consistent with a shorter distance. Again there is no standard density so unless it gets down to the size of a football field it would not matter. If it is the size of a football stadium it could hold 50,000 people.
AZ Ranger
Hmmmm, that sounds familiar. |
| AZ Ranger |
Posted - September 13 2008 : 09:55:33 AM
I think we would all like accurate numbers but it has been to long. Whatever standard criteria you use should be the same. Asking how they did it would apply to Michno also if want that as a standard.
My approach for most things is similar to a civil court standard. More likely than not. 51%
When a persons reputation is at stake I apply a crimnal standard. Beyond a reasonable doubt. 99.5% In a crimnal case if two explainations are plausible you must go with the one that finds not guilty.
I believe the 2,500 figure in Hardorff is reasonable and the size length of the village is consistent with a shorter distance. Again there is no standard density so unless it gets down to the size of a football field it would not matter. If it is the size of a football stadium it could hold 50,000 people.
AZ Ranger |
| Brent |
Posted - September 12 2008 : 12:37:31 PM
I'd need to know which Indians did the counting--and how they did it. I'm basing my estimate on the initial assessments from Custers own officers, and what I read in Mincho about the actual size of the Village. And that what happened to Custer didn't require any # beyond that.
And is that 2,000 you mention the grand total?? If so, that isn't too terribly far from my 1,800.
And I'd still like to know DC's estimate of the Indians and whether or not he believes the #'s in Hardorff are accurate. |
| AZ Ranger |
Posted - September 12 2008 : 10:05:25 AM
There is no Indian testimony. I believe DC is skeptical of accounts years from the event that have details that appear only later in time.
Also there is skepticism of translations that have Indians saying things that seem inconsistent with their language or knowledge they would have had at the event.
Brent are you saying Indians can't count or their method of counting would be different?
Since rations depended upon counts and most Indians were back on reservations before they died of old age then didn't Indian agents have counts also. When the Indian Agent said 1,800 lodges moved it was not because he wanted to receive less rations thinking his black market profit was to high.
In the case of the numbers that were presented in Lakota Recollections by Hardorff; Austin Red Hawk, Shot in the Face,Big Road and Iron Bull provided the numbers. The fact that the Sioux only put down 45 Cheyenne indicates they didn't overestimate the Cheyenne. The total population they indicate is 6,000 with approximately 2,000 being single warriors coming for the fight. This is consistent with all accounts that the village was willing to fight and to gather here if you want to join in the fighting.
The question then becomes upon what information are you basing your numbers upon? A gut feeling is OK but based upon what? The only ones that could possibly have the numbers of who was actually is there in the village is the Indians. The best a trooper or scout could report is partial observations.
My theory of what happened doesn't require any more than 1,500 Indians but I believe the population of warriors was over 2,000. I don't believe the majority could get ready to meet Reno. There were plenty of young warriors that approached through the timber on foot. I believe they remained to watch Reno as reported by De Rudio. They could not jump on their ponies and run to Custer.
One of the most motivated and aggressive warriors, Crazy Horse missed the skirmish line and the timber. He got there just as Reno left the timber and participated in that action. This would lend support to Reno's observation that the timber was not defensible by 3 companies without quick support.
The Indians had the numbers willing to fight within an hour and made fewer mistakes then the cavalry. The Indians never had to actively engage more than 3 companies within supportive distance of each other at one time. A major mistake of the cavalry. It wasn't till Reno-Benteen that the cavalry had more than 3 companies together in support of each other. It still wasn't a sure thing for the cavalry but they survived.
AZ Ranger
|
| Brent |
Posted - September 12 2008 : 07:11:48 AM
Believeable only if you believe the Indians knew how many of themselves there were.
DC: You've often commented on how we should all not take Indian "testimony" very seriously. Do you believe they counted themselves, or could have come up with these nearly exact numbers??
Not counting that very slight discrepancy about the Cheyenne numbers, of course---. |
| AZ Ranger |
Posted - September 11 2008 : 10:24:20 PM
Oglala Sioux, Crazy Horse, chief, 350 warriors
Uncpapas,Sitting Bull, chief, 1000 warriors
Minneconjous,Buffalo Bull,chief,700 warriors
Uses Bow, Spotted Eagle, chief, 300 warriors
Cheyennes,Little Coyote, chief, 45 warriors
Rosebuds (Brule Sioux, Flying Chaser, chief, 80 warriors
Santees, Red Top, chief, abt. 40 warriors
Yanton, White Eagle, chief, 40 warriors
Total = 2555
Hardorff, Lakota Recollections
The footnote states the Cheyenne number is low at 45 with Wooden Leg estimating the number of Cheyennes at 1600
|
| AZ Ranger |
Posted - September 11 2008 : 9:51:52 PM
Joe When did the Cheyennes et al attack Reno? What Indian account do have to support your statement:
" The same Indians that fought against Reno are the very same Indians that destroyed Custer. Every credible information source will testify to such a scenario."
Please list this source?
So Herendeen is lying at RCOI when he says what time he heard the heavy fire at Custer battlefield?
Thanks
AZ Ranger |
| joe wiggs |
Posted - September 11 2008 : 9:10:08 PM
[quote]Originally posted by Dark Cloud
Not true. I find no conspiracy and didn't postulate one, and never do.
Joe Wiggs
DC, you ought to be ashamed. I can not believe you wrote the above. Your reality is full of conspiracies! Any post, footnote, theory, speculation, possibility, that does not label Custer an Idiot is the epitome of nefarious collusion in your mind. Take Hughes for example, here's a man who falsified Terry's orders to salvage his brother-in-laws reputation which did not need salvation anyhow and you ask when did he do this, when did he do that, and how do you know he did it.
Please, give us all a break. You've had conspiracies running across this forum for five years. Five years of describing every action of Custer's as idiotic while extolling Benteen and Reno as beyond reproach. How well you love to chirp: "I never said Custer was an idiot, never, tell me when I did, I dare you, I did not I tell you." You slay be DC, you really do. Please never stop posting, this forum needs you.
PS. Anyone who calls Donovan a "novelist" then points Connell out as a "source" should consider therapy. I love you dude!
|
| joe wiggs |
Posted - September 11 2008 : 8:51:26 PM
[quote]Originally posted by AZ Ranger
Since you and Joe think that Sherman used 1800 as an estimate and the Indian agent didn't have a good count give us a range + or -. Say 1500 to 2100 for instance.
Joe WiggsBrent, I can not tell you how honored I am to have my name mentioned along side of yours.
|
| joe wiggs |
Posted - September 11 2008 : 8:41:05 PM
quote:
Originally posted by AZ Ranger
Since you and Joe think that Sherman used 1800 as an estimate and the Indian agent didn't have a good count give us a range + or -. Say 1500 to 2100 for instance.
The bottom line for me is that Indians that fought against Reno were not needed to wipe out Custer. Most Indian accounts say they were to late.
Joe Wiggs
The same Indians that fought against Reno are the very same Indians that destroyed Custer. Every credible information source will testify to such a scenario. As Reno and company dashed towards Reno's Hill, the embolden warriors hotly pursued them. As the frantic soldiers leaped, jumped, and fell into the river, they were hotly pursued by warriors who had the smell of hot blood in their nostrils, across the river and up the hill. Not to mention those Indians who lay in wait atop Reno Hill. Suddenly, the SAME Indians pulled up, and dashed north were a short time later the sound of firing was heard from a distance. Why did these "savages" thirsting for more blood suddenly spare them?
Things became so placid that Reno was able to climb down the ridge and retrieve mementos from the body of Hodgeson, unmolested by anyone.
AZ
The vast numbers of Indians that fought Custer did not fight Reno. They were either located at the other end of the village and/or were still getting ponies, and/or getting their war gear together.
Joe Wiggs
While I believe the village was actually much smaller than is normally thought, Lets say that it was 3 1/2 miles long. How long does it take a warrior to sprint on their fast ponies form the southern end of the village to Medicine Trail Coulée? I rest my case.
AZ
I am not sure how you are doing you math. Are you saying the total Regiment count versus you low estimate number of warriors? The division of the Regiment was before the start of the battle. If we take your low number of 1500 and 500 attacked Reno that would leave 1000 to Custer's 210 men. That would be closer to 5:1. Further the division of the battalion into wings and removing horseholders such as with Keogh the ratio is even worse against Custer.
Joe Wiggs
I have always been lousy at math. I must admit though, quoting equations sure make you sound intelligent. Anyhow, for those of us who are mathematically challenged I propose the following. The Indians did not fight in columns, platoon, or any regimental structure. They fought in groups led by leaders. the group could consist of a few warriors or many. They followed whom they chose. the exception to that rule occurred when their families were threatened. then they would all rush to succor their loved ones;still in groups! Custer's position threatened these loved ones. Reno's initial threat was dissipated by his "charge." therefore, the same Indians who chased Reno away were also responsible for the untimely demise of Custer and his command.
|
| Dark Cloud |
Posted - September 11 2008 : 7:50:53 PM
Not true. I find no conspiracy and didn't postulate one, and never do. Nothing about the LBH requires a conspiracy, which always fail anyway. Since the actual question isn't revealed, or when, we don't really know if it involved ALL the Indians, or the ones around Reno Hill, is my point. Benteen's remark is odd, a non-sequitor since the warriors weren't mounted at one time in a field of vision but on foot and hidden, and this especially since his letter to his wife doesn't meld with that, if I recall.
Further, you'll find this piece by Hughes came out well after the fact, long after concerns about memory should arise. You see no mention of referenced notes. This is a brother in law protecting Terry after death. Anything that appears in print for the first time after the RCOI, or even a year previous, is utterly suspect and surely tainted. That's normal, requiring no malice, and certainly no conspiracy which, in any case, only involves Donovan. |
| Brent |
Posted - September 11 2008 : 3:10:02 PM
DC: You see a conspiracy in everything!! Of course the only officers who could be interviewed would be the survivors on Reno Hill. And I would imagine that many (if not most) of the warriors who dispatched Custer would have been at Reno Hill right after, longing to get their hands on the rest of the regiment.
But who knows? My guess is that Hughes quoted Benteen almost verbatim, just as he said he did.
You can believe whatever you want--I'm sticking with 1,500 to 1,800 warriors. More than enough to do what they did.
PS: I did find a couple of books available online that appear to contain the entire article that Hughes wrote---. |
| Dark Cloud |
Posted - September 11 2008 : 1:03:01 PM
Right. When did Hughes commit his thoughts to paper for the public? Donovan conveniently does not say, nor does he state Hughes' presence at these interviews, only allowing him to recall Benteen's. This is important because, say, at Terry's death, Miles presented the entirely implausible Mary Adams affadavit story and some were trying to blame Terry. Hughes was trying to insist that Terry's plan and instructions to Custer were more rigid than they were or could possibly have been, and would have worked had Custer not violated it (which Custer had not) and the numbers of warriors needed to imply doability.
You do not mention that estimates in famed note 42 went to 2500 warriors, and the 15-1800 only for those on the Reno side of the action, where 1800 would be a compelling amount about them, and they wouldn't see the others, unless you believe that all the warriors from Custer also attended Reno Hill for convenient number count.
Of all scouts, Donovan chooses a near child, Billy Cross, who does not agree with either Herendeen - who mentioned and understood the village had moved at the RCOI, it was not a little known fact at all to those there - or Girard. Cross counted fewer. Donovan avoids pointing to the RCOI where the innocent might meet Herendeen and his estimated 1800 lodges. And everyone agrees, though, to lots of wikiups.
And Connell, the story teller, cheerfully recounts the various numbers and says nobody knows, which is the truth. Donovan notes selected and carefully phrased accounts. |
| Brent |
Posted - September 11 2008 : 12:00:42 PM
DC: See Donovan Page 468, note 42. Taken from Captain Robert Hughes, Terry's B-in Law, and it sounds as though he was there when Terry first interviewed the officers. Benteens name and quote is pretty specific. None of the other officers are named. Can't see any reason for something like that to be "made up"--
AZ: The math is pretty simple, depending upon what #'s you use. Don't even divide the regiment and you are outnumbered 3 to 1. Since no one really knows how many Indians did Custer in, nor how many actually drove Reno away, any definite ratio is suspect. So if 1,000 Indians actually converged on Custer, he's outnumbered 5 to 1. If 1,200 actually got him, he's outnumbered 6 to 1. If it was only 800--4 to 1. Same math for Reno. And the whole point being that the initial odds of 3 to 1 were made that much worse by having the Indians deal individually with those seperate commands.
|
| Dark Cloud |
Posted - September 10 2008 : 10:00:47 AM
Brent,
Which officers 'originally' said 1800 warriors total in the camp. When did they say they held this opinion, when did they first say they held that opinion at that time? |
| AZ Ranger |
Posted - September 10 2008 : 09:27:42 AM
Since you and Joe think that Sherman used 1800 as an estimate and the Indian agent didn't have a good count give us a range + or -. Say 1500 to 2100 for instance.
The bottom line for me is that Indians that fought against Reno were not needed to wipe out Custer. Most Indian accounts say they were to late.
The vast numbers of Indians that fought Custer did not fight Reno. They were either located at the other end of the village and/or were still getting ponies, and/or getting thier war gear together.
I am not sure how you are doing you math. Are you saying the total Regiment count versus you low estimate number of warriors? The division of the Regiment was before the start of the battle. If we take your low number of 1500 and 500 attacked Reno that would leave 1000 to Custer's 210 men. That would be closer to 5:1. Further the division of the battalion into wings and removing horseholders such as with Keogh the ratio is even worse against Custer.
AZ Ranger
|
| Brent |
Posted - September 10 2008 : 07:20:56 AM
But as Joe suggests--an estimate.
You guys can insist that there were multiple thousands of warriors--I stick with those who believe it was much less--like the 1,500-1,800 originaly estimated by the Seventh Officers just after the fight, (and a # of the students of the battle today).
Plenty of Indians which gave them a 3 to 1 advantage to start with, and probably double that on each part of the field as they individually whipped Reno and Custer in succession. |
| AZ Ranger |
Posted - September 09 2008 : 8:45:03 PM
A very large estimate but it was based upon counts of those missing. So 1800 plus 600 all ready there equals less than 1800? |
| joe wiggs |
Posted - September 09 2008 : 5:52:28 PM
I would take it as an estimate as well. |
| AZ Ranger |
Posted - September 09 2008 : 09:39:14 AM
What do think of Sherman's message to Terry of the 1,800 lodges leaving to join the others at LBH? |
| Brent |
Posted - September 09 2008 : 06:35:46 AM
Actually I think many Indian accounts are reliable--taken in the context of what they happened to see where they happened to be at the time. In the case of He Dog--unless he was Sitting Bulls official Lodge counter, he had no way of knowing how many lodges there were. If he'd said "Many" I'd tend to believe him. Same with Crazy Horse-- |
| AZ Ranger |
Posted - September 08 2008 : 8:41:59 PM
Here is Major James Mc Laughlin, United States Indian Agent estimate. Godfrey attests to his opinion as being truthful and uses it as follows. The minmum strength of thier fighting men may then be put down between twenty-five hundred and three thousand. It was his job to count Indians.
Crazy horse stated afterwards when he surrendered to General Crook at the agency that he had no less than 6,500 men in the fight. He was there.
General Sheridan dispatched a message that 1,800 lodges had set out to join the hostile camp. The message reached Terry a few days after the fight. Sheridan was not there so could not be accused of battle over estimating. We also see where that magic number 1,800 comes from. None other than General Sheridan.
June 8th despatches were recieved by General Crook notifying him that all able-bodied men had left the Red Cloud Agency.
These are all in Godfrey's account. No one accuses Godfrey of being a Reno lover. Do you?
AZ Ranger
|
| AZ Ranger |
Posted - September 08 2008 : 7:29:44 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Brent
As much as you do to suggest he IS reliable--which is NONE!!
And of course I'd "challange" those opinions that don't fit mine. If I didn't, then they would be my opinions!!
Like you "challanging" those who reasonably suggest that a lot of what those trained observers thought they observed were the remains of an older village and the miles wide and miles long village just wasn't so.
I never said he, Red Dog, was reliable but I am not trying to impeach him just provide his account. You are the one that is saying Red Dog is not reliable. Based upon what? That he was an Indian?
The actual size of the village is not fact. There are many theories that make it smaller but these would have no effect on how many warriors were there since they would all fit in less than one half of a mile. Estimating the length of village is much different then estimating numbers of Indians.
Benteen's 9,000 estimate has to be taken in context of how many he thought it would take to wipe out Custer like they did in a reply to a question at the RCOI. I see it as more respectful of Custer than saying it was fair fight of equal numbers. In all of Benteen's reports close to the event he does not use that number.
My opinion is there was sufficient Indians that the Indians engaged with Reno had no effect on what happened to Custer. There were plenty that did not respond to Reno because of various reasons and those were the ones that wiped out Custer.
AZ Ranger
|
| joe wiggs |
Posted - September 08 2008 : 3:48:27 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Brent
DC: The LAST estimates I'd take as accurate were from the ones who were there! I'm not sure how "trained" they were as observers, but I do know the very human tendency to exaggerate--
AZ-I doubt He Dog made any sort of Lodge count.
Of interest perhaps--lots of people get their only "knowledge" of things from encyclopedias. This is from online Wikipedia--949 lodges with between 900 and 1,800 warriors.
[u]
Joe Wiggs
The number of tipi's and warriors have run the entire gamut for sometime and, for various reasons. From Benteen's second estimate of 9,000 warriors to Russell Means 800 or less. Needless to say, the truth lies somewhere in the middle.
I believe the exaggerated numbers were the result of military estimates either consciously or subconsciously. The larger the amount the more justification for their failure to subdue the Indians. As I previously posted, when we view this incident through the eyes and mentality of the average "American" during this time period, the possibility that such a thing could happen was unthinkable. As time passed, fiction became fact until the village reached ridiculous proportions.
Brent, your estimate is very reasonable and, adhered to by the mainstream authorities. |
| Dark Cloud |
Posted - September 08 2008 : 1:54:15 PM
Experienced officers and men on the ground are to be assumed reliable. Herendeen, no fan of Reno, is to be assumed reliable. Herendeen knew the camps had moved and he still thought 1800 lodges and more wikiups. Even granting error and the inflation that comes with fear, it's still way above the low counters, who personally benefitted from the low counts for reasons contemporary to their discovery as previously discussed.
Further, this camp was a SB call for action and there would reasonably be a higher percentage of young men than normal from the rez. The Crook fight had the suggested number of the LBH low count and the village had grown hugely after that battle from all accounts. |
|
|
