| Author |
 Topic  |
|
dave
Captain
Australia
Status: offline |
 Posted - January 07 2005 : 03:20:03 AM
|
Recently reading Graham's "The Story of the Little Bighorn" I came across the following description of the Indian losses
"After the hurried depature of the Sioux, two tepee's containing the dead bodies of some twenty two warriors were found standing in the village. The bodies were dressed as for burial, and the tepee's were surrounded by the bodies of ponies, arranged in accord with savage burial custom. Several more bodies were discovered along the trail taken by the Indians, these being supultured in trees and on scaffolds.
Altogether, about forty dead were thus accounted for"
I guess everyone here, excepting myself, already knew this. But a few questions.
Where I come from, 22 + a several wouldn't equal about forty. Typically in Australian usage the word "several" describes a number less than half-a-dozen. I assume that with the plurals of scaffolds and trees being used that Graham was using the word loosely.
But did he mean that about 18 bodies were observed along the Indian trail. Or did the Indians leave some of their dead on the battlefield?
The other question is, from that description, obviously some effort was made to follow the Indians track. How far did they follow the Indians, and was any contact made with the departing column?
|
|
|
Anonymous Poster8169
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - January 07 2005 : 05:27:59 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by dave
Yes- a captain named Edward Ball was sent to trail the Indians on June 28th. "He reports," says General Terry (letter to AAG same day) "that they divided into two parties, one of which kept the valley of Long Fork, making, he thinks, for the Big Horn Mountains; the other turned more to the eastward. He also discovered a very heavy trail leading into the valley that is not more than five days old. This trail is entirely distinct from the one which Custer followed, and would seem to show that at least two large bands united here just before the battle" (see Overfield, "Little Big Horn 1876" for a full copy).
Ball left no account, that I know of, and that's about all we know reliably about his scout, except for some additional details that Reno gives in his report of 7/5. While talking about the Indian losses, Reno goes on to say, "I saw the bodies of 18 and Captain Ball, 2d Cavalry, who made a scout of thirteen miles over their trail says that their graves were many along their line of march."
Note that the number of dead Indians found on the trail is not specified. I don't know why Graham would figure that 40 had been accounted for, though the number 18 in Reno's report is suggestive. I think it's possible that when Graham was writing that chapter he was working from his notes, not the original, and from that distance may have misunderstood Reno to have been saying that 18 dead had been found along the trail, a figure which he then combined with whatever report he used for the 22 village dead (there are all kinds of different numbers, given by different sources) to make 40. The word "several" is used so loosely in practice that I wouldn't make too much of it.
R. Larsen |
  |
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - January 07 2005 : 10:41:05 AM
|
To the point, is there info from any source, solo or in aggregate, that suggests Indian losses were in any way heavy? Is there any combination of existing evidence that points to a total of, say, over 200 dead from the LBH battle? Over 100?
Some of those bodies discussed might have been those who died from wounds obtained from Crook. That, after all, was the case of She Bear (?) and the lone lodge on Reno Creek. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - January 07 2005 : 2:46:02 PM
|
Warlord
When Custer fell dead he had effectively destroyed the war making capability of the prairie indians.
Against a modern developing industrial nation of 30 millions a primitave aboriginal hunter gatherer tribal people had no war making capability.Perhaps you mean a defensive capability.
Custers death was a waste and did nothing more than delay the inevitable.
The real losses at the LBH could easily be well over 1,000 indians dead or dying afterwards.
The two main actions of the LBH were when Reno turned tail and ran and when Custer did likewise.Reno's retreat was littered with dead men and if only 30-40 made it to LSH then there was little or no opportunity to inflict serious casualties on the enemy.Keogh and Calhoun might have given a good account of themselves.The Reno/Benteen position was an all round defensive one so their fire was diverging as opposed to the indian much more effective converging fire.Are there not stories of the Indians engaging in this practice of counting coup?If so it does not say much for the effectiveness of the 7th's fire.
I think 30 to 40 fatalities with maybe 5 times that number wounded would be a reasonable number of casualties.
|
|
|
|
Heavyrunner
Captain
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - January 07 2005 : 5:47:29 PM
|
Common sense and, hopefully, a sense of this particular history tell me that relatively few Indians would have been killed in the Custer portion of the fight, particularly since it took only about a half hour to wipe out his column.
I don't believe Reno's column could have done much damage, if any at all, in human life until his men dug in at the hilltop. So, 30-40 Indian dead strikes me as reasonable.
As for following up a tactical victory with a strategic one, I don't think that was the Sioux-Cheyenne style. The Little Bighorn was about the closest thing ever to a pitched battle in the west, only occuring because the tribes were initially caught by surprise. Custer had to have expected another Wa****a. He was mistaken. |
Bob Bostwick |
|
|
|
Heavyrunner
Captain
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - January 12 2005 : 7:54:29 PM
|
In a standup fight, plenty of Indians would have been killed. However, Custer's column was stopped cold and on the run. I don't think a routed column; spread out, split up, semi-scattered and surrounded is going to do serious damage to its attackers. From Deep Ravine to Calhoun Hill and beyond, it was a real mess. That was one aspect that struck me profoundly upon my first visit there--complete breakdown in the chain of command. One of my reasons, by the way, for believing Custer was a very early casualty.
Badly hit and rapidly dwindling, I see no feasable way that the 7th could have created 250 casualties, much less dead, on the Indian side.
At Reno Hill, it was a seige, with both sides staying behind cover.
I realize the 7th had plenty of guns and ammunition, but cavalry, hauling fanny over tea kettle, trying to dismount, trying to get away and under attack from three or four sides simply isn't capable of doing much damage, particularly in such a short time. Oh, I forgot--and outnumbered 10-1, or so. |
Bob Bostwick |
|
|
|
dave
Captain
Australia
Status: offline |
Posted - January 13 2005 : 10:38:04 AM
|
Well Warlord, I think that sometimes we have to challenge what we accept as history. Specifically in the case of the LBH we might ask ourselves why we think the Indians suffered so few casualties.
When you first posted on this forum you made the statement that you believed that the Indians had suffered severe casualties, 1300 dead I think was the figure you stated. It was partially due to your comments that I fastened on the quote from Graham posted above.
If we are to accept your argument - what happened to the bodies? 1300 bodies don't just bury themselves. Graham accounts for 22 in the remains of the village, and then an unkown number - maybe 18, littered along a 13 mile length of their trail to the Bighorns. Thats a pretty big discrepancy, even making the completely reasonable assumption that there were Indians dying from their wounds days, weeks, even months after the battle.
In predicting the Indian casualties its pointless making the argument, that x number of bullets were fired, generating y number of hits because we have no idea how many of bullets the average trooper fired, and even less of an idea how often he hit. |
|
|
|
Heavyrunner
Captain
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - January 13 2005 : 1:11:59 PM
|
Warlord,
Sorry, pal, can't buy it. Even the skirmish lines, tiny as they were, received considerable fire from all sides. As for LSH, those very few who made it seem to me to have stumbled there, rather than retreating in any organized manner.
While I don't share your view of Custer as a hero, I'm opining, I think, objectively. Taking a metaphor from recent world events, Custer's column appears to have been overwhelmed by a tsunami of fighting men, enraged and probably fearless in their defense of the village.
Call this an educated perception, but a dead or dying commander and a command split, quartered and surrounded won't last long. I would argue that the battle was lost in the first 10 minutes, the deaths of those still alive only 20-30 minutes hence. As Custer's men scrambled up those hillsides, they probably had the Sioux and Cheyenne advancing rapidly at their backs. I can see where advancing cavalry can be a smashing force. I can also see where retreating cavalry cannot possibly inflict heavy casualties.
This case was even worse. Rather than a retreat, it was a mad dash, certainly disorganized and probably a panic. I would also argue that the final few minutes of the battle left the 7th with every man for himself. Many of their weapons and much of that vast supply of ammunition were probably used by Indians to finish off the wounded.
I really believe that Custer was thinking of Black Kettle and a repeat of that unfair fight. Meanwhile, Crazy Horse, Gall and the rest on their side were probably thinking of Fetterman.
Again, viewing the battlefield first hand presents a fairly stunning picture to the mind's eye.
|
Bob Bostwick |
|
|
|
Heavyrunner
Captain
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - January 13 2005 : 5:41:09 PM
|
| Heavy has left the building.... |
Bob Bostwick |
|
|
|
joseph wiggs
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - January 13 2005 : 8:37:02 PM
|
Richard G. Hardorff did an intensive study into the quantity of Indian deaths during this battle. Perusing the archives of noted investigators such as Camp, Miller, Marquis,etc., and Indian informants such as White Buffalo, White Bull, Kicking Bear and others, he surmised the following:
The Indian casualty rate spanned a range of a minimum deaths-less than twenty to a maximum of 61 to 83.
Red Horse created a series of pictographs (five)representing a casualty rate of sixty-four. |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - January 14 2005 : 12:00:15 AM
|
If there was a shred of plausibility to your theory - and there is none - you'd be able to point to a battle where such shooting accuracy occured on the soldier side, and such suggested casualties on the Indian side. There is none. If Custer's guys were that good, he would have killed all the warriors in Black Kettle's village when he hit them by surprise at close quarters when he outnumbered them. Nothing remotely like that occured.
No such shooting was demonstrated by their own testimony when they hid in timber on the Yellowstone and fought the same Sioux in '73 while waiting for rescue. Just like Reno in '76 only, of course, the commander actually did come and save them.
It's just wishful thinking on your end. In any case no disgrace attends losing this battle to either Custer or the men. He took a chance and lost. If the Sioux had panicked for any reason - like no central command and no clue what was going on or how many soldiers there were - this could have been the greatest victory. He just lost a roll of the dice, is all. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - January 14 2005 : 11:05:55 AM
|
I've never remotely implied expertise. It's a straw dog. As to your complaints, you don't find them in my postings.
"Custer really fouled up when he didn't kill all the warriors in Black Kettle's village!" Never said that. Merely said that if he or the 7th were remotely as gifted shots as you say, here was a chance for evidence of this to turn up, given complete surprise and they 7th outnumbered the attacked village. It doesn't.
"The army cannot shoot well, has never shot well, and probably never will shoot well!" I specifically referenced the 1876 Army, and there's no evidence to suggest it ever did shoot well in aggregate.
"I engage in wishful thinking!" Correct, although I hesitate to call it thinking. You want to prove the 7th killed a bunch more Indians rather than find out what happened, and you want to do so in a way that reflects favorably on yourself.
"It is no disgrace to lose." Never said that. But one lost battle ought not to destroy his overall reputation.
"Custer gambled in combat!" He did and many good commanders do periodically. Educated guess, gamble, playing the odds, it's all the same.
Actually, Warlord, you'd have problems proving Red Cloud said much of anything, even at your inverted-word battle. He certainly was unlikely to use phrases filched from Victorian poetry. Of course, marksmanship is claimed as important all the time, because it is, and some soldiers and civilians were great shots. But the Army, taken in aggregate, was not an imposing set of sharpshooters.
You seem to be under the impression the plaque at the Wagon Box fight reflects what happened. Nobody with an IQ much less adequate background on the Indian Wars thinks anywhere near 3k Indians were killed. Garbage. Certain participant soldiers left quite a different testimony, and this was discussed at great length here on this forum.
If Indians were taking heavy casualties - and this would be a low number by current standards - they took off. They didn't hang around pointlessly to die for no purpose.
"Nah Nah..." A brillaint encapsulation of your level of argument. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
Edited by - Dark Cloud on January 14 2005 11:12:40 AM |
|
|
|
BJMarkland
Colonel
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - January 15 2005 : 12:05:03 AM
|
Without involving myself in the lovefest between DC & WL, I have a question.
The majority of the 7th Cav. troops at LSH, if I understand correctly, were stationed upon high ground. If someone is not a marksman or has not been trained correctly, shooing downhill without adjusting for the slope of the land causes the bullet to go high. Perhaps the troops tried to use some of the range advantage inherent in the Springfield over Winchesters, bows & arrows, and .50-70 rifles the Indians had and wasted ammunition by overshooting the target?
Just a random thought.
Billy |
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - January 15 2005 : 05:14:23 AM
|
shooing downhill without adjusting for the slope of the land causes the bullet to go high.
I'm just being facetious BJ but how does the bullet know it's going downhill? |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - January 15 2005 : 12:14:34 PM
|
Actually, Warlord, name one vanity publication a hundred years old that I've every referenced. One. Actually, name a vanity publication I've ever referenced. That's easier.
Conversely, show any evidence the 7th cavalry wes composed of remotely adequate shots. Show where the opinion of the North brothers and others was wrong and how they could be so wrong.
Rather than trying to intimidate people, something that attracts you because you can't do it, stick to Custer and what's on the board for discussion. Detailed retreads of weapon history so that you can, yet again, brag about your supposed warriorhood, is just about you. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
joseph wiggs
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - January 15 2005 : 8:47:19 PM
|
Kudos to both Billy and Paul for their insight into a prevalent dilemma that frequently occurs during actual combat situations. During battle soldiers usually display a tendency to fire high. Presumably something similar took place during the Big Horn battle. The Indian warrior Lights told Walter Camp that he had been "near enough to look them (soldiers) in the eyes." Lights further stated that the soldiers became so demoralized that they would fire their "guns into the air."
Stressors such as fear, anxiety, and panic produce sudden surges of adrenaline which, abruptly, increases strength. This in turn has a direct effect upon motor skills thereby causing spasmodic motions which are counter-productive for the required calmness utilized in fire arms control. These factors also produce psychological prohibitors that work against the process of "aiming" which is required to utilize "sighting" which will greatly heighten the possibility of accurate shooting for a specific distance using a specific type of weapon.
Iron Hawk stated, "Custer's men in the beginning shot straight but later they shot like drunken men, firing into the ground, into the air, wildly in every way." As panic set in, described by the Indian metaphor "drunken men", accuracy in firing became increasingly deminished. |
Edited by - joseph wiggs on January 15 2005 8:52:45 PM |
|
|
|
lorenzo G.
Captain
Italy
Status: offline |
Posted - January 16 2005 : 05:53:21 AM
|
I don't believe they were 20. I believe they were much more. Indians had the habit to take out the bodies from the field.
It's interesting to say however that, from the White Bull list were 4 indians from Reno fight,hilltop and up bluffs;6 in the Reno valley fight;16 in the Custer fight. This establishes an interesting and unequivocal percentage. |
If it is to be my lot to fall in the service of my country and my country's rights I will have no regrets.
Custer |
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - January 16 2005 : 10:12:42 AM
|
BJ: Good point! Most soldier's tend to shoot (shoo!) high anyway. Being mostly above the indians in elevation at almost all points on the battlefield could have caused a significant number of shots to fly high.
Unless the slope was greater than 45 degrees and the firing was long range it would have little or no effect on the trajectory of the round.What effect it would have on a trooper's aim I have no idea.
Anyway if you think the battle was an extended firefight then the sloping terrain must have had the opposite effect on the Indians. |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - January 16 2005 : 12:14:14 PM
|
Most everyone tends to shoot high, not just soldiers.
There's no evidence there was an extended fight. None. Again, the officers who rode the field two days after noted none of the characteristics of a well fought battle, and referred to it as a rout. Except for Calhoun, there was no sign, to them, of an organized defense. Wouldn't they know?
Under such conditions, discussions of trajectory and firepower at 500 yards are bovine. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
Anonymous Poster8169
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - January 16 2005 : 9:54:23 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Warlord
Custer being an early casualty was a hypothesis of Fox
It was?
quote:
But since Fox and other "authors" like to guess about casualties, so do I. My guess's are just more relistic. I like to think.
It's not guessing to cite evidence from many, many Indians putting the death figures comparatively low. What they say squares with the post-battle observations of the military, who saw all signs of a rout. There just wasn't any reason to think that the Indians had been mauled, and when Walter Camp asked Hare what he thought about the reports that only 40 or so Indians had been killed, Hare said he believed it totally, and added that the 7th weren't very good shots. See the last page of his interview in "Custer in '76". What you call "guessing" is just ignoring the words of everyone who should have known.
R. Larsen |
|
|
|
Anonymous Poster8169
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - January 17 2005 : 01:53:10 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Warlord
That I'm not Dark Cloud is pretty obvious to anyone clever enough to notice different styles and beliefs. As far as I recall, the only people who have ever accused us of being the same are you and Wiggs, which is a list that speaks for itself. If anyone here is under suspicion of having debates with themselves under aliases, it's you, several respected posters having identified you and Whistlingboy as the same person.
You may as well debate with yourself about irrelevancies, since you've shown little interest in contributing anything actually on-topic. Take for an example this contentless response of yours to my content-filled post. It's not hard to see why you're so afraid of debate, as you've shown in the recent talk about casualties and Libby Custer that you don't really know much about any of the stuff we talk about here, and that your opinions --- "guesses" --- are founded on nothing.
This wouldn't be a problem if you were genuinely interested in learning more about the period, and what things were like; lots of people come on here and ask questions, ask for books to look into, sound out others on what they think about a particular issue, and so on. That's great --- it's what makes a board like this work. Then there's you. I've pointed you to several sources that talk about Indian deaths, ALL of which are easily available for you to examine. Others did the same in the Libby Custer thread. You haven't addressed any of them, except to insult somebody, which might as well be shorthand for saying "I'm an idiot".
I find the subject this board is here for fascinating, and were I in your position, I WOULD seek all those sources out, and for someone who spends as much times on these boards as you obviously do, I find it baffling that you lack that basic curiosity.
R. Larsen |
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - January 17 2005 : 10:39:31 AM
|
Under such conditions, discussions of trajectory and firepower at 500 yards are bovine.
In case you haven't noticed DC the only thing bovine on this board is the bull****e you and a certain other contributer bore us with. |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - January 17 2005 : 11:58:38 AM
|
| Yes, Wild. Explain why shooting at 500 yards applies to the LBH? And what percentage of either Indians OR soldiers do you think were good enough shots at that range to have an effect? Hence, discussion of it is pretty bovine. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
BJMarkland
Colonel
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - January 17 2005 : 12:46:08 PM
|
Bovine?
Sheesh, DC, you have beef on the mind don't you?
Wild, while we would typically think the converse is true, i.e., that if soldiers shoot high while shooting downhill, the Indians must shoot low shooting uphill. I don't think that really is true as it is my impression that the bulk of the attackers used bow & arrow and "lofted" the arrows upwards. Yes, there were plenty of firearms being used but I would hazard a guess that the typical warrior was equipped with bow and arrow, and, since they had been shooting those from childhood and had grown up hunting in that terrain, I would again hazard a guess that they were more familiar with the effect of terrain on aim than the majority of the troopers.
For what it is worth, while rereading Vaughn last night/this morning, it struck me that in his chapter on the Rosebud fight, he independently corroborates Fox & Scott's findings of numerous Winchester/Henry rifle shellcases at the LBH. I will wander upstairs shortly and get the book to properly source the correct pages.
Best of wishes,
Billy |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
|
|
BJMarkland
Colonel
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - January 17 2005 : 1:52:30 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Cloud
It gets close to discussing cartridge load and muzzle velocity and angle of fire at the St. Valentine's Day massacre. May be true. May not be true. Irrelevant.
So, if it is irrelevent in your opinion, it is not worthy of discussion? Come on now, be realistic! This has as much to do with the demise of GAC and his men as the thread started by a you entitled, "On Custer".
Billy |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Indian Casualties
