| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| hunkpapa7 |
Posted - March 31 2005 : 2:33:43 PM
The Sioux and the Cheyenne left 13 dead on the field, when they went away that afternoon. There were probably others killed, but it was a sacred honor for these warriors to retrieve their dead, and they did so, often in great danger.
This is taken from Crooks 1876 campaigns.
The above was reported death toll of Sioux & Cheyenne,this after a open fight,lasting a few hours.
His force of 1,300 men was reinforced with Shoshone & Crow scouts,which included 175 infantry.
They expended 25,000 rounds in this fight,so why do people think,that GAC and his command killed 100's,in which the Indians mostly on foot and hidden,fired at sitting ducks ?
Apart from Calhoun Hill,where they repulsed the first attack,before being routed,and a half hearted charge by the Greys,plus the Grand Finale, an abundance of unused ammo was left.In give or take a few minutes either side of a hour,a figure in the hundreds dosn't make much sense !
Please enlighten.
|
| 11 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| joe wiggs |
Posted - July 11 2008 : 9:02:47 PM
How I wish I could see a picture of Bloody Knife's marker. That would be fantastic! When you speak to Bob again, please tell him that I miss his posts. When he departed, the site loss a very valuable member. |
| frankboddn |
Posted - July 09 2008 : 11:50:20 PM
It was also about this time last year that I saw the new sign with the three markers, including Bloody Knife's. I think it was Bob Reece who emailed me that it was temporary and that there would be a new sign explaining that the three scouts fell in the valley below. I don't guess anyone has been to Reno Hill and seen if a new explanatory sign as gone up??? |
| joe wiggs |
Posted - July 09 2008 : 8:53:09 PM
Frank, I see your point! In an era of P.C. the need to be correct may sometimes be pretty much a powerful incentive. let's hope for the best! |
| frankboddn |
Posted - July 09 2008 : 5:42:37 PM
Every time I go to the LBH, I see more red Indian markers on the field. It seems there doesn't have to be a lot of proof for the NA to make a claim that one of their kin was killed here or there and a marker goes up. I'll be very interested to see how many markers for the Indians there are in, say, ten years. |
| joseph wiggs |
Posted - October 07 2006 : 9:36:39 PM
quote:
Originally posted by AZ Ranger
Is there any data that shows the demographics of age and sex of Indian tribes during the 1800s?
"Fighting was the prerogative of all able-bodied males between the ages of about 17 and 38 years. Men over 38 fought only under exceptional circumstances. they may fight if they did not have at least one son in the battle. Under ordinary circumstances the young warriors took it as a reflection on their own courage and ability if men over 38 joined in on the battle."
Charles Kuhlman |
| AZ Ranger |
Posted - September 26 2006 : 10:16:26 AM
Thanks
It is my impression that over time the accounts all show low number of Indian males killed in action yet near the end of the Indians wars there appears to be lot less adult males than when the wars started or populations were overestimated.
AZ Ranger |
| joseph wiggs |
Posted - September 03 2006 : 9:13:26 PM
Richard Hardorff has developed extensive demographics regarding the deaths of Native American warriors during this battle. Their deaths were memorialized as blessed defenders of the faith while the deaths of non-combatants were not so emphasized;in a "warrior" society such a philosophy is understandable.
Regarding the death of Indian women and children, your analogy of a "bomb on a city" is painfully apropos when one considers the martial tactics of Col. Chivington at Sand Creek which is exemplified by the following;
"Thirty or forty squaws who had attempted to hide in a depression or hole in the river bank sent out a little girl with a white flag, but the child walked only a few steps before a trooper cut her down." Son of the Morning star, page 177.
There are other references to the deaths of Indian women and children during this battle. Chief Gall is said to have lose several wives and children during Reno's initial "charge" towards the southern end of the village. I remember reading about statistical information regarding the average age of a typical Indian warrior, and the circumstances in which a Indian male was called upon to defend the tribe. I'll get back to you with this information once I re-find it. |
| AZ Ranger |
Posted - December 18 2005 : 11:00:26 AM
Is there any data that shows the demographics of age and sex of Indian tribes during the 1800s? There seems to fewer able bodied males as compared to current conditions. The fact that villages were attacked would lead to casualties of older men, women, and children. The same as when you drop a bomb on a city. My question goes to the estimate of warriors in a village before an attack. Also what age was considered to be older men. Over 30? |
| joseph wiggs |
Posted - June 04 2005 : 10:22:16 PM
Richard G. hardorff accomplished some intensive studies into this very area, Indian casualties. His calculations are somewhat surprising. He compiled the documentation of every credible historian and Indian witnesses available. He discovered that the names of Indian casualties (deaths) from this battle were listed and documented by Indian historians. After reviewing the claims of these witnesses, 19 of them reported 30 to 40 deaths. This figure was the mean, between the extremity report of only three deaths occurring (see page 130). In other words, 53% of all Indian witness report this number of deaths (19). While there exist no certainty in this matter, an approximate number of fatalities may be surmised. No matter how one looks at it, Indian casualties were surprising low. |
| hunkpapa7 |
Posted - April 17 2005 : 09:07:07 AM
http://www.frontierheritage.org/abpbrpt.htm |
| joseph wiggs |
Posted - April 16 2005 : 9:09:46 PM
quote:
Originally posted by hunkpapa7
The Sioux and the Cheyenne left 13 dead on the field, when they went away that afternoon. There were probably others killed, but it was a sacred honor for these warriors to retrieve their dead, and they did so, often in great danger.
This is taken from Crooks 1876 campaigns.
They expended 25,000 rounds in this fight,so why do people think,that GAC and his command killed 100's,in which the Indians mostly on foot and hidden,fired at sitting ducks ?
Apart from Calhoun Hill,where they repulsed the first attack,before being routed,and a half hearted charge by the Greys,plus the Grand Finale, an abundance of unused ammo was left.In give or take a few minutes either side of a hour,a figure in the hundreds doesn't make much sense !
Please enlighten.
Prior to any attempt to reply to your inquiry, we must first define the manner is which the word "people" is being utilized. In my mind, we may start by categorizing the term "people" into four general categories:
A. Custerphiles: Individuals so obsessed with the mythological Custer of undaunted courage, fame, savoir faire, élan, and infallibility, that any martial endeavor committed by him must result in certain victory. As he did not achieve this goal, then surely, he must have slain hundreds of these heathen savages before this "Greek Hero" himself succumbed to a glorious death. Custerphiles do not wish to be confused by the actual facts of the battle.
B. Custerphobes: Individuals who classify Custer in the same genre as Bozo the Clown, Clem Kadiddlehopper, and Idiotis Supremis. A vain-glory fool who got his men killed needlessly (never mind the fact that his brothers and nephew were with him). They too do not wish to be confused by the facts of what really occurred.
C. American Society of 1876: Similar to Custerphiles in their earnest conviction that a group of "savages" could never defeat an American Army unless devious dealings were underfoot. They initiated fables such as Sitting Bull attended West point (thus his great generalship)
White renegades aided and abetted the warriors in preparing a trap, and some of Custer's scouts betrayed him.
D. People who read: A perusal of all the facts, concerning this battle,in an impartial manner, will lead to natural conclusions regarding the approximate amount of Indian fatalities during this battle.
Those who would insist that hundreds of Indian warriors met their demise in the famous Battle of the Little Big Horn probably may be found in group "A" and "C". |
|
|
