| Author |
 Topic  |
|
lorenzo G.
Captain
Italy
Status: offline |
 Posted - March 11 2005 : 12:29:49 PM
|
I would like to know your opinion about this. Thanks to all.
One band of soldiers was in rear of the Sioux. When this band of soldiers charged, the Sioux fell back, and the Sioux and the soldiers stood facing each other. Then all the Sioux became brave and charged the soldiers. The Sioux went but a short distance before they separated and surrounded the soldiers. I could see the officers riding in front of the soldiers and hear them shooting. Now the Sioux had many killed. The soldiers killed 136 and wounded 160 Sioux. The Sioux killed all these different soldiers in the ravine.
The soldiers charged the Sioux camp farthest up the river. A short time after the different soldiers charged the village below. While the different soldiers and Sioux were fighting together the Sioux chief said, "Sioux men, go watch soldiers on the hill and prevent their joining the different soldiers." The Sioux men took the clothing off the dead and dressed themselves in it. Among the soldiers were white men who were not soldiers. The Sioux dressed in the soldiers' and white men's clothing fought the soldiers on the hill.
The banks of the Little Bighorn river were high, and the Sioux killed many of the soldiers while crossing. The soldiers on the hill dug up the ground [i.e., made earth-works], and the soldiers and Sioux fought at long range, sometimes the Sioux charging close up. The fight continued at long range until a Sioux man saw the walking soldiers coming. When the walking soldiers came near the Sioux became afraid and ran away.
|
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 |
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - March 11 2005 : 12:47:15 PM
|
I think it's Red Horse, it's inaccurate, and reveals the dangers of bad translation. It also features numbers of the sort that nobody could obtain or write among the Sioux in 1876, since there was no central authority invested in doing so. We have ample evidence of the Sioux and numbers to disregard it.
There was no one Sioux "chief." There is no reason the Sioux would be afraid of "walking soldiers" more than cavalry (yes, yes, the greater accuracy at long range of the rifle......pffttt) especially since this was the smallest of the three armies and they'd defeated the other two.
This fits the white man's desired belief: there was A chief, the soldiers killed many more than originally reported. It also features military nomenclature to exite those that lust for it, but Sioux didn't think like that.
|
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
  |
|
|
dave
Captain
Australia
Status: offline |
Posted - March 11 2005 : 12:57:10 PM
|
Seems basically accurate. You can distinguish most the main parts of the battle. The hunting of Reno's forces across the river. The seperate attacks made by Custer's and Reno's forces etc.
The biggest problem is that its not in chronological order, Red Horse seems to deal with items according to topic. Given the translation problems I would regard it as a fairly credible effort, I just wouldn't try to read to much into it. |
|
|
|
hunkpapa7
Lieutenant
United Kingdom
Status: offline |
Posted - March 11 2005 : 5:10:40 PM
|
Lorenzo,
very selective !
Michno puts this about 5.40pm,under the heading CUTTING THE RIDGE.
In the area of Deep Ravine/Cemetry Ridge,at or about the same time as the Crazy Horse/White Bull splitting L & C
Red Horse total of 296,dead or wounded,is totally grossly exaggerated.
He goes on to say,he got a gun and two ammunition belts,with about 7 cartriges missing.
Wooden leg says about 15 warriors died including Lame White Man.
Rain In The Face said the White companies had to dismount,split the division facing different ways.The Indians circled the troops,and others rode through them.
The fighting was furious,but was over quickly,the only avenue for most of the fleeing soldiers was LSH.
This is probarbly the first hand to hand fighting on the battlefield,uptill now most of it has been from distance,with the Indians shooting from covered positions,unlike the troops who where sitting ducks in the open,even if elevated.
I notice in his Encyclopedia of Indian Wars he has 40 killed,80 wounded. |
wev'e caught them napping boys
Aye Right ! |
|
|
|
lorenzo G.
Captain
Italy
Status: offline |
Posted - March 12 2005 : 04:46:01 AM
|
Very interesting, thanks. BUt this:The soldiers killed 136 and wounded 160 Sioux. The Sioux killed all these different soldiers in the ravine.
Is it referring to Deep Ravine? I see in this account (yes is Red Horse) much temporal incongruences, but this was a habit of indians account. But, is interesting yet. There are references also to the bravery of those man killed in the ravine. This would imply that the men in the cul de sac were not running but fighting - I'm just making only some suppositions.
Points to look into, are in my view the one above, and this: The soldiers charged the Sioux camp farthest up the river. A short time after the different soldiers charged the village below. Does'nt seems here that the attack from North came shortly before the one of the village below?
Still thanks and I hope I'm not boring you. |
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 |
|
|
|
dave
Captain
Australia
Status: offline |
Posted - March 12 2005 : 06:36:27 AM
|
Lorenzo, the Red Horse account seems to be a series of questions and answers that have been clumsily glued together to form a narrative, with little in the way of editting. At least that is how I would explain the time and topical discontinuities in the text.
I'd suspect the part you have highlighted might have gone something along the lines of the interpreter asking Red Horse if any Sioux were killed when they charged the soldiers (the band in the rear of the Sioux). I'd imagine that Red Horse failed to pick up on the context of the question, interpreting it as how many Sioux were killed in the entire battle.
I think the ravine referred to, is the Deep Ravine. I did wonder about the location of the ravine when I read the account initially, but from the photo's I've seen of the MTC and other coulee's, they are generally too wide, too gently sloping to be called ravines. Of course there may have been a translation problem, and terms such as ravine and coulee might have been used interchangeably. And of course there remains the possibilty that it was a ravine other than Deep Ravine, but the archaelogy doesn't support this contention.
As to your last question, I can see where you are coming from, but I read it the opposite way. I think if they had meant it the way you interpreted, then they would have combined the two sentences as:
The soldiers charged the Sioux camp farthest up the river a short time after the different soldiers charged the village below.
Putting the full stop between the two sentences, changes the meaning entirely. |
|
|
|
lorenzo G.
Captain
Italy
Status: offline |
Posted - March 12 2005 : 07:44:50 AM
|
As to your last question, I can see where you are coming from, but I read it the opposite way. I think if they had meant it the way you interpreted, then they would have combined the two sentences as:
The soldiers charged the Sioux camp farthest up the river a short time after the soldiers charged the village below.
Putting the full stop between the two sentences, changes the meaning entirely.
In fact. I made the question because I'm always been convinced of the contrary, so, that Custer attacked the village later Reno. I'm still not convinced from this Red Horse account, or from what the translators done of his account, but I'm still convinced that men in deep ravine were acting bravely. Here there could'nt be a mistake of translation.
The text it's token from a microfilm of the 10th Annual Report of the Bureau of American Ethnology (1893) |
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 |
|
|
|
lorenzo G.
Captain
Italy
Status: offline |
Posted - March 12 2005 : 07:48:53 AM
|
| I reported the Red Horse as it's written, made no changes on commas or points, so, if there were points mistakes are from the original. Why then made this point through the two sentences? |
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 |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - March 12 2005 : 10:35:25 AM
|
Lorenzo,
I think some confusion comes from the fact that the river flows south to north. Upriver is south.
Second, I want to take advantage of this to point to Page 104 of Stewart, a quote from Gibbon on Indian translators, one of which is likely responsible for what some would call Red Horse's first hand testimony. In short, Gibbon says they likely don't speak ANY language all that well, and "be unable to put together a single intelligible sentence", but he's what's there and used. From such people, we are to believe we get these sound byte perfect Indian quotes, or the lofty oratory of Chief Joseph, or truth in any sense.
Also, I just reread Stewart's Custer's Luck, one of the first books I ever had on this back in the Pleistocene, and was embarrassed by how good it is and how well it stands up. I'd sort of consigned it to the past because of SOTHMS and all the new revelations, etc., but his conclusions are solid and his linear approach and writing style is excellent and informative at once. Awful lot in a short book and devoid of phile or phobe prejudices on the part of the author. I also realize where I picked up many of my thoughts about this the first time. Embarrassingly good and currently overlooked book.
|
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
hunkpapa7
Lieutenant
United Kingdom
Status: offline |
Posted - March 12 2005 : 11:18:01 AM
|
Warlord,
thank you for your little spiel,most amusing.
I was replying to a specific action in the battle ie Cemetry Ridge/Deep Ravine only.I assume the passage by Red Horse,was his overall thoughts on all the fights.The Wooden leg,Rain in the Face quotes was from this part of the fight only.
The 15 dead or there about given by Wooden leg,again was from this fight only.
I made no reference to Reno Hill or the valley fight.
The only thing I said was that this was probarbly the first hand to hand fighting on the Custer battlefield.
I dont know how many Sioux/Cheyenne warriors where killed that day,but I certainly dont agree with your Second Trail of tears version.As far as the 260 Rambo's are concerned,with the amount of ammo collected,they must have killed at least 5 per shot !
|
wev'e caught them napping boys
Aye Right ! |
|
|
|
hunkpapa7
Lieutenant
United Kingdom
Status: offline |
Posted - March 12 2005 : 7:01:59 PM
|
Now there's a name eh "Red Cloud",was he not dozing away the hours on his veranda on Pine Ridge Estate at the time of the LBH ?
The killed were Rambo's? Could you explain that further?
260 some heavily armed troopers who died at the fight being able to down more than 30 targets is inconcievable!
Is that concieved or conceived after the pre- ? dont tell me this is another word thats been hijacked from HRH English.
I must correct one thing. Never assume the relics collected by the park service or Fox were what was left after the battle. Small arms, ammo casings and other relics had been picked over for a hundred and more years before they got there! There was maybe a tenth of that was there, that was found by archeologists.
I will take your word for it Warlord,at this moment in time,I havn't read Fox's book or anything from the Park Service.
I have collected a number of books,many including Fox's work,are still unread.
I am slowly coming to the conclusion,that I am wasting my good money buying all this material,when I just have to read the posts put on the board by ALL the members.
Back to Red Horse,
Very good Warlord,you know I was giving a opinion on Lorenzo's full statement,I had already stated what he said at Cemetry Ridge/Deep Ravine
|
wev'e caught them napping boys
Aye Right ! |
|
|
|
joseph wiggs
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - March 12 2005 : 9:41:34 PM
|
Lorenzo, obviously incorrect, disjointed, and periscoped statements such as that of Red Horse have, from the beginning, impeded scholars in their search for veracity to the point of utter frustration. As a result, Indian testimony is often disregarded as a hodgepodge of undecipherable misinformation to be tossed aside.
To disallow this testimony all together, however, deprives us of information that derives from individuals who were actually there, primary witnesses to the events that transpired.
When we understand some of the Indian social motivation,combat achievement for the individual warrior who utilized his martial skills for self-interest, and addressing incidents personally observed as opposed to a collective dissertation of what occurred, we began to comprehend the enormous difficulty we are faced with regarding these statements.
An example, Cheyenne warriors insist that a portion of Custer's troops approached ford "B", an equal amount of Lokota Sioux will emphatically deny that such an excursion occurred. Which group is correct? They both are. Each group reported what they actually observed. The Cheyenne circle stationed near the mouth of MTC confronted Troops "E' and "F". The Lakota circle, station near the southern portion of the village,initially confronted Reno. When the Lakota realized that Custer was threatening the village, they responded there( an approximate three mile ride on horse back), totally missing out on the MTC excursion which had already transpired.
In our metropolitan sphere of time accountability: getting up for work, appointments, schedules and such, the awareness of time is monumentally important. To the Native American, time was inconsequential. No village possessed a "Big Ben" in its center to chime out the hour on the hour. That is why their statements lack any reference to time.
Recent Indian testimony has achieved some credibility through the research of a few scholars.
"One band of soldiers was in the rear of the Sioux. When this band of soldiers charged, the Sioux fell back."
Possible explanation: It has been theorized that groups of warriors infiltrated the Calhoun Hill Skirmish line via Calhoun Coulée and its environs. Suddenly a group of soldiers(possibly "C" or a portion thereof) rambled from Custer ridge towards the "rear" of the entrenched Indians who then fled. The momentarily frightened warriors regrouped under the behest of Lame White man and counter charged.
"The Sioux killed all these different soldiers in the Ravine."
The warriors classified Custer's troops as "different soldiers" as opposed to Reno's men. When warned of the approach of a different group of soldiers toward the village, the warriors rushed toward the new threat. Leaving a few men to keep tabs on the Reno conclave firmly entrenched on Reno Hill. I've often wondered why they no longer deemed these men to be a threat, was in something in the way they performed?
"When the walking soldiers came near the Sioux became afraid and ran away."
The warriors achieve a great victory with a comparably light lost to themselves. Given a preference, the village would have chosen not to fight. They did so only because the choice to do otherwise was taken away from them. Every Indian warrior was a father or son who provided for his family critical essentials for survival; food and shelter. If these fathers and sons could be spared by simply moving away, without lost of honor or hunting grounds, they did so. Calvary units on foot were essentially ineffective as they are trained to perform combat ahorse. When they were deprived of their steeds during the Custer battle, it has been theorized, abrupt panic ensued. Infantrymen, however, are trained to do combat on foot. The lost of horses would do nothing to effect their ability to fight which the warriors may have respected. If Red horse says they were "afraid" of the approach of Gibbon's men, let us give him the benefit of doubt that he knew what he was talking about, he may have been correct.
Regarding the ridiculously high numbers of soldiers killed in Deep Ravine, Red Horse may have been guilty of a very human charateristic, "like the fish the man claimed broke his reel, its growing." (Temptations circa 1964).
Disclaimer: All theories proposed in this thread are the result of readings from numerous source books. No attempt was made to plagiarize from the toils and labors of the many scholars who have preceded us and worked so tirelessly to aid us in our understanding of this event.
Walter Camp
Edgar Stewart
Richard Fox
W.A. Graham
Richard Hardorff
and D.c. |
|
|
|
lorenzo G.
Captain
Italy
Status: offline |
Posted - March 13 2005 : 04:12:02 AM
|
| Very good Joseph. |
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 |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - March 13 2005 : 11:51:33 AM
|
Very bad, Wiggs. You've been to the laundry fence to gossip and have your ego soothed too often. In any case, not being clever, you should not try to be given that all the fantasies and plagiarisms, false quotes and uncredited text, misunderstood passages of others and evidence that meant the opposite of what you thought are still on the board. And while you claim no attempt to knowingly plagiarize - although that would require memorization of chunks of text beyond your abilities - that doesn't excuse it, and you've done it.
As usual, you've utterly missed the point. Red Horse apparently did not speak English, and we have no idea how his thoughts got put into English, if they were actually his thoughts, and if so if they are truth in and of themselves. There is NO first hand testimony of the Indians, and it continues to be absurd to wheel out these stories as if they are.
For those who cannot read well, like Wiggs, that is a slam against the translators and those who believe them without question, not Indians. Dave's read on it touches on how these translations often are composed. Guess and surmise, with the equivilant of a "Hau!" bolted on to terse structure for that authentic feel. It might be totally true, of course, but we can't know that. The fact the passage Lorenzo's identifies "a" Sioux Chief exhibiting control over all those Indians is testimony to iffy translation. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
joseph wiggs
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - March 13 2005 : 12:25:40 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Cloud
As usual, you've utterly missed the point. Red Horse apparently did not speak English, and we have no idea how his thoughts got put into English, if they were actually his thoughts, and if so if they are truth in and of themselves. There is NO first hand testimony of the Indians, and it continues to be absurd to wheel out these stories as if they are.
For those who cannot read well, like Wiggs, that is a slam against the translators and those who believe them without question, not Indians. Dave's read on it touches on how these translations often are composed. Guess and surmise, with the equivalent of a "Hau!" bolted on to terse structure for that authentic feel. It might be totally true, of course, but we can't know that. The fact the passage Lorenzo's identifies "a" Sioux Chief exhibiting control over all those Indians is testimony to iffy translation.
D.c., I have no idea as to who does your translations for you but, that doesn't mean that he/she/it are incompetent. Seriously, I am extremely confused on your insistence that every translator of that era was a charlatan, buffoon, or a monkey on a string. Many, undoubtedly were, many were not. To consign all Indian testimony to
"Never, Never Land" because they did not speak English belies the actual conditions of reality during that era. Did Red Horse attend graduate school and earn a degree in English Literature? Of course not. Is it possible that he picked up some bits of our language during the course of his life time? Of course! Is it also possible that some of the translators (a few of them who lived a large portion of their lives with Indians)knew enough about both languages to render adequate translations?
"For those who can not read well like, Wiggs", a substantial portion of the most reliable resources available today came into existence after scouring those same Indian testimonies D.c. refers to as "iffy." |
Edited by - joseph wiggs on March 13 2005 12:31:47 PM |
|
|
|
BJMarkland
Colonel
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - March 13 2005 : 1:23:03 PM
|
quote:
"For those who can not read well like, Wiggs", a substantial portion of the most reliable resources available today came into existence after scouring those same Indian testimonies D.c. refers to as "iffy."
"...a substanial portion of the most reliable resources available today..."?
Care to clarify and give some of those Joe? I see where both you and DC are coming from and like you, I don't believe all Indian testimony, whether taken by translator or not, should be thrown out. However, DC's point regarding the reliability of both the translator and the person giving the account does have to be taken into account. In Godfrey's article, he even references having had an unreliable translator and having to have the interview retranslated (not sure how he did that). Many of the Indians also, as pointed out on these boards, did not want to implicate themselves too deeply in the battle because of fear of vengence.
Best of wishes,
Billy |
|
|
|
joseph wiggs
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - March 13 2005 : 1:52:39 PM
|
Feb. 27, 1877, Col. W.H. Wood obtained the Red Horse story referred to by Lorenzo. "some of the young men took the clothing off the dead and dressed themselves in it." Red Horse
"This statement by Red Cloud was confirmed by Lt. DeRudio who mistook these Indians for Tom Custer's command." graham
In 1881, Chief Red Horse repeated his statement to Assistant Surgeon McChesney of the Army. There was no significant differences between the two versions. He also supplied pictographs to assist in his explanations, "these pictures show the stars and stripes guidons, type of trumpets used, the headgear and dress of the soldiers, and the manner in which the soldier dead were mutilated and dismembered," Graham.
Thus we have two tellings of one story, years apart, with slight variation, describing historically correct paraphernalia. Could this have occurred in Red Horse understood absolutely no English and his interpreter knew so Sioux? Many Indians learned a rudimentary form of our language, some even excelled in it (Red Cloud.) Just a little research will dispel archaic and erroneous ci ideas about the inability of the Native American to comprehend languages like any other. If one believes that they could only communicate in the white world with a primitive "UGH", you will always "utterly miss the point."
However, If one uses just a little bit of common sense, the realization that through knowledge and skill, a "first-hand" description of the battle cam be derived from Indian testimony. |
|
|
|
joseph wiggs
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - March 13 2005 : 2:14:32 PM
|
Billy, Richard G. Hardorff has written several informative books describing the Cheyenne and Lakota versions of what happened. In Lakota recollections:
"Richard G. Hardoff introduces an impressive array of recollections from fourteen Lakotas, one norther Cheyenne, and a white interpreter with knowledge derived from interviewing many of the tribesmen about the battle." Jerome Greene
Walter Camp, "Custer&Company",edited by Bruce R. Liddic
"Early in his life Camp became interested in Native American culture, studying several languages, including Sioux and the nearly extinct Delaware." John McDermott.
Billy, you are absolutely correct when you say that many Indians were afraid of retribution immediately after the battle and, for decades later. It is also correct that some of the interpreters were devious characters who had no business being there.
My point, and only point, is that it is POSSIBLE to achieve veracity in SOME Indian testimony if not all. D.c.'s slant appears, to me, to ridicule, disregard, and trash ALL Indian testimony as not being "first-hand" therefore, worthless. As always, thank you for an opportunity for further clarification. |
|
|
|
Anonymous Poster8169
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - March 13 2005 : 3:25:38 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by joseph wiggs
Regarding the ridiculously high numbers of soldiers killed in Deep Ravine, Red Horse may have been guilty of a very human charateristic, "like the fish the man claimed broke his reel, its growing." (Temptations circa 1964).
So you'd conclude that the soldiers charged "the rear" of the Sioux in Calhoun Coulee, who then charged back, went "but a short distance" to surround the soldiers, and killed them all .... across the field in Deep Ravine?
I don't think Red Horse's account is very good. It's thin on specifics (locations, horse colors), obviously out of sequence, and makes (either through the fault of him or of his translator) patently false statements. Having all the soldiers killed in a ravine, for example, or casualty ratios of 160 wounded to 136 killed which do not make sense, and it beggars belief that any Indian would have access to such precise, large figures, if true anyway.
The main question I would ask is, does this account attributed to Red Horse help us understand the battle? And I don't think it does. It's too confusing, and contains too much nonsense. There's not much anybody can use.
R. Larsen |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - March 13 2005 : 4:38:08 PM
|
I've never said or remotely suggested that what stories we have of the Indians' be discounted. I only ask that canon be acknowledged for what it is. What it is ain't remotely first hand testimony. Benteen, Reno, other officers gave first hand testimony we have in our possession. Some soldiers and civvies as well. That's it.
What the Indians provided are stories, often recalled at great remove in time and place, given by the hardly coldly objective often under conditions of discomfort and iffy security to alleged translators - sometimes orally, sometimes by sign, often by combination - who then hand it over to editors, officers, publishers, and family members whose handwriting, style, and writing quirks sometimes denote the finished product. It barely rises to the level of hearsay often enough. That is not the fault of the Indian.
|
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
hunkpapa7
Lieutenant
United Kingdom
Status: offline |
Posted - March 13 2005 : 7:01:27 PM
|
Warlord ,what statement did RED CLOUD make,and what has it to do with what I had written.
260 some heavily armed troopers,I would consider a guy well arned as Rambo ! |
wev'e caught them napping boys
Aye Right ! |
|
|
|
joseph wiggs
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - March 13 2005 : 7:49:59 PM
|
| error, I made several adjustments to my threads and wound up with three versions. Sorry |
Edited by - joseph wiggs on March 13 2005 8:37:35 PM |
|
|
|
joseph wiggs
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - March 13 2005 : 8:09:42 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by joseph wiggs
quote:
Originally posted by Anonymous Poster8169
[quote]Originally posted by joseph wiggs
Regarding the ridiculously high numbers of soldiers killed in Deep Ravine, Red Horse may have been guilty of a very human characteristic, "like the fish the man claimed broke his reel, its growing." (Temptations circa 1964).
So you'd conclude that the soldiers charged "the rear" of the Sioux in Calhoun Coulée, who then charged back, went "but a short distance" to surround the soldiers, and killed them all .... across the field in Deep Ravine?
I don't think Red Horse's account is very good. It's thin on specifics (locations, horse colors), obviously out of sequence, and makes (either through the fault of him or of his translator) patently false statements. Having all the soldiers killed in a ravine, for example, or casualty ratios of 160 wounded to 136 killed which do not make sense, and it beggars belief that any Indian would have access to such precise, large figures, if true anyway.
The main question I would ask is, does this account attributed to Red Horse help us understand the battle? And I don't think it does. It's too confusing, and contains too much nonsense. There's not much anybody can use.
Larsen, you are absolutely correct. Your summation of Red Horse's statement is worthy of a first rate barrister. However, let me encourage you to think out side of the box and, undoing so, break the barriers of a deeply entrenched paradigm.
An extremely dedicated individual determined to uncover plausible information regarding this battle will go through extraordinary lengths to do so. Examples are:
A. Cross reference hundreds of transcripts, determine plausible geographic locations of occurrences:
B. Become aware of the Indians perception of direction which is devoid of the White man's "magnetic north";
C. Gain access to Indian oral tradition;
D. Confirm (as much as possible) Indian testimony with archeology findings;
E. Familiarize yourself with a comprehension of predictable, conditioned human responses to acute stress during combat.
As Paul stated, Indian testimony is often "Impossible to translate for those who don't have the basic percepts regarding battles and historical re-writes."
Having accomplished this investigation in an analytical and systematic manner, certain data should be gleaned from a conglomeration of innuendos,possibilities, and impossibilities.
We are pretty much certain that Calhoun established a skirmish line upon Calhoun Hill. It is a geographical fact that Calhoun Coulée dumps into the rear (west) of Calhoun Hill. Calhoun's skirmish line faced south, the coulée would have served as a practical cover for the Led-horses, protecting them from Indian fire-power coming from the south. It is also logical, that some of the warriors would have attempted to infiltrate the Calhoun position.
The warriors moving from the Henryville position (south) would have been penned down by skirmish fire. The Calhoun Coulée corridor would have made a perfect and concealable route to the rear of Calhoun's men.
The commander of the battalion, Keogh, may have sent "C" troop (or a portion thereof) to counter this threat to the horses and men. Indian testimony speaks of such a movement. They were referred to as "some impatient soldiers." As the mounted and heavy steeds rumbled upon the entrenched and crouched warriors, Red Horses' statement, "One band of soldiers was in the rear of the Sioux" suddenly make sense.
The kill ratios offered by Red Horse was an obvious embellishment based upon two criterion.
A. In our society, it is considered crass to toot one's own horn. In the Indian culture it is acceptable and warriors related their prowess during "kill-talks" in which they not only boasted of their feats, they also lamented the deaths of their brothers, fathers, and sons. During this time the Lakota was given the names of Cheyenne warriors who fell, the Cheyenne the Sioux, and so forth. This information was not always confirmed in the manner of our society thus, reports of deaths were exaggerated.
B. The more kills, the bigger the victory, the more the warriors could boast of their exploits. Yes, this factor is but one of the reasons that Indian testimony must be carefully screened.
The short distance in which the troopers were surrounded, killed, and dumped into Deep Ravine is about 3/4 of a mile. Calhoun Hill, to Custer Hill, finally deep Ravine. Certainly this distance is plausible for a robust individual to transverse.
None of the above is established fact. It is conjecture based upon Indian testimony and archaeological findings. However, it is more than fantasy. Oral evidence that is corroborated by physical evidence is a fundamental precept of our Justice system. There are numerous gentlemen on death row who were placed there despite the absence of a "Corpus Delicti".
|
|
|
|
joseph wiggs
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - March 13 2005 : 8:13:40 PM
|
| error |
Edited by - joseph wiggs on March 13 2005 8:30:25 PM |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - March 13 2005 : 8:50:26 PM
|
Well, while robust men "transverse" - a medical procedure? oh, what the hey, it sounds like traverse.... - let's look at the alledged account of Red Horse. It takes a believing mind to think he's talking about the dance of troops currently trotted out for admiration as Custer stays on the offensive, heroically of course.
What is pretty clear to me is by the Sioux he means all the Indians, the camp. Mostly. I think. <my translation queries and assumptions>
"One band of soldiers was in rear of the Sioux. <Custer> When this band of soldiers charged, the Sioux fell back,<left Reno Hill area> and the Sioux and the soldiers <Custer> stood facing each other. Then all the Sioux became brave and charged the soldiers. The Sioux went but a short distance before they separated and surrounded the soldiers. I could see the officers riding in front of the soldiers and hear them shooting. Now the Sioux had many killed. The soldiers killed 136 and wounded 160 Sioux. <Right. Sioux children did numeric drills before bed because exact numbering was essential in Sioux life....> The Sioux killed all these different soldiers in the ravine. <not to the exclusion of the others>
The <Reno> soldiers charged the Sioux camp farthest up the river. A short time after <they had done this> the different soldiers charged the village below.<downriver> While the <these> different soldiers and Sioux were fighting together the Sioux chief <he was elected on the fly but you could tell because his pony had the headphone and antenna> said, "Sioux men, <Sioux women, fetch me a drink, I'm parched, you kids do your homework. Do we have to bring the family to work?>go watch soldiers on the hill and prevent their joining the different soldiers." <Meanwhile, paragraphing be damned, back at Custer> The Sioux men took the clothing off the dead and dressed themselves in it.<The first Re-enactors to dress up as such!! There should be a monument...> Among the soldiers were white men who were not soldiers. The Sioux dressed in the soldiers' and white men's clothing fought the soldiers on the hill. <Okay, everyone was on a hill...what are you talking about?>
<Paragraphing? Hell, let's just invert and go back in time....>The banks of the Little Bighorn river were high, and the Sioux killed many of the soldiers while crossing.<Reno going? Custer arriving?> The soldiers on the hill dug up the ground [i.e., made earth-works], and the soldiers and Sioux fought at long range, sometimes the Sioux charging close up. The fight continued at long range until a Sioux man <A? One Sioux man avoiding the fight happened to be miles north and rode to warn the camp about infantry. The numerous ones who saw Custer by the Rosebud and Crow's Next earlier? Eh. Cavalry, schmalvery....> saw the walking soldiers coming. When the walking soldiers came near the Sioux became afraid and ran away. <knowing they couldn't outrun the infantry without a sixteen hour head start on horseback....>"
Thanks. Clears everything up. Also, this account is devoid of the first person. Was he there for these events? |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
Anonymous Poster8169
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - March 13 2005 : 9:10:44 PM
|
I think you misunderstand my objections. That you can "clarify" some of the statements attributed to him is great for Red Horse, but not terribly useful to the larger goal of trying to understand what took place during the battle. You're hung up on micro issues (how can I turn Red Horse's nonsense into sense?) while I'm trying to judge it from a macro standpoint (how does Red Horse help clarify something about the battle?).
The trouble is that Red Horse's account does not help do that. In and of themselves, in fact, his statements actually impede understanding. They contain too many falsehoods, and where he isn't wrong he's too vague to be understood.
He says that "all" soldiers were killed in a ravine. You helpfully correct him by changing "all" to "some", and then as a further kindness, change "the ravine" to Deep Ravine. On what grounds, I'm not sure; Red Horse might as easily have had in mind the ravine near Keogh's marker, or depending on how loose was the translator's (or his) terminology, Calhoun Coulee itself. Men died in all three places. Trying to narrow it down beyond that seems impossible to me, since his ravine is described so poorly (i.e. vaguely) and inaccurately (all the soldiers were killed there).
Your answer to the impossible casualty ratios is that Red Horse was genially lying. Very well. Again, that doesn't help us understand anything real about the battle, and if one impossibility of his account is to be explained by lying, why does that not explain the others?
I don't know what the story is behind how this interview was put to page, but I also know it contains nothing that helps me figure out what happened to Custer after Martin went away. You can try to pat it into shape all you want, by changing its details and adding others, but I don't think it's really worth the effort.
R. Larsen |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
opinion
