| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Anonymous Poster8169
Forum Guest
Status: offline |
 Posted - August 27 2003 : 11:13:45 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by pjsolla
Frankboddn and 2321: This, as the Custer battle, has it's "tales".
I know that Finn Burnett said that Adolph Metzger, the bugler, was the only body untouched and that they, the Indians covered him with a buffalo robe for respect of his bravery. Yet, John Guthrie states that weeks after the fight, Crows and fur trappers said a "last survivor", who fought hand to hand (Metzger?) was carried off to the the Indian camp and totured to death. So, this probably requires more indepth studying by myself. Again, this whole thing could get as bad as trying to reconcile events from the LBH.
All bodies were accounted for, so the Guthrie tale doesn't sound very likely. He was writing 66 years after the battle, and his story is rather garbled and confused, so I wouldn't put too much stock in it. In the same article Guthrie also recalls a "Bugler Footer" whose body lay near Fetterman's, which is confusing, because there was no Footer killed in the Massacre, and only one bugler (Metzger). "Lee Bontee the guide" is another phantom.
quote:
Lastly, concerning Brown and Fetterman. Granted, those temporal gunshots could have been the "coup de grace" as was with Custer. I am not sold on that. They were fearful of being captured. But it also takes big ones to pull the trigger on yourself. Even if you are exchanging shots with someone staring you in the face. So, that also will require a bit more reading on my end.
The post surgeon who performed the autopsy on Fetterman's body believed that the cause of death was a throat-laceration. Since he saw the corpse, and was presumably a lot more competent than anybody else to know what he was looking at, I'm inclined to accept his opinion also. Brown may have shot himself, though nobody really knows.
quote:
Yes, this is quite the experience with this whole Ft. Kearny story. This was a chess match that Red Cloud ultimately won. He always said he would drive the white man from the area. That he did!
Red Cloud ended up a reservation Indian, so his victory wasn't very lasting. And to call it a "chess match" I think overstates the conflict, and overrates Red Cloud. It was mostly just a string of casual skirmishes, snipings, horsethievings, and random murders. It didn't require much thought or co-ordination, and indeed, in the few cases where the Indians DID attempt a plan, the results were very mixed. The ambush of Fetterman worked, but similar attempts at the Hayfield and Wagon-Box fights were inglorious failures.
R. Larsen
|
  |
|
|
Anonymous Poster8169
Forum Guest
Status: offline |
Posted - August 27 2003 : 11:30:28 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Anonymous Poster2321
No need to re-visit Wagon Box. There's a picture of the plaque on a website, surely. It does say 3k, which is absurd.
I have a picture of it in one of my albums. The inscription reads:
"This monument is erected to perpetuate the memory of one of the famous battles of history. It is dedicated to the courage and bravery of twenty-eight soldiers in Company C, 27th United States Infantry, and four civilians who held their improvised fort made of fourteen ordinary wagon-boxes against three thousand Sioux warriors under the leadership of Red Cloud, for a period of six or seven hours under continuous fire. The number of Indians killed has been variously estimated from three hundred to eleven hundred."
Forget 3,000 Indians ----- it's those casualty figures that are really insane. Straight out of pulp fiction and C. T. Brady.
R. Larsen
|
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
|
|
pjsolla
Major
Status: offline |
Posted - August 27 2003 : 8:37:59 PM
|
I know the Indians were always gunshy about taking casualties. If they saw that they were sustaining losses they would back off. I cannot for the life of me figure out why, with 3K (?) warriors, they just didn't overrun the Wagon Box defenders? 32 in number. Surely it could not have been that difficult for them.
Frankboddn, Larsen and 2321: You guys seem to have a bit more info on this than I. The numbers of 3K warriors and 300-1100 warriors killed seems to be of conflict. Several references I have seen state "heavy losses" by the Indians but make no mention of numbers. Even with new Springfield breech loading rifles, I find it hard to see warding off 3K Indians coming at you. And we know that the Springfield carbine had a history of ejector problems if it got too hot. Now it happend at the Custer battle. And that was 10 years later. Surely the rifle or carbine was not as advanced at the Wagon Box as it was for the Custer battle.
28 soldiers and 4 civilians?? 3K Indians. A nice defense. While the record is what it is, this is another area I am having a hard time reconciling. Maybe only a couple of hundred Indians were involved? Though they threw roughly 1000-1500 against Fetterman. Why any less for Wagon box?
If you have any thoughts or answers, please post. |
|
|
|
pjsolla
Major
Status: offline |
Posted - August 27 2003 : 8:51:28 PM
|
Larsen:
I don't think calling this a "chess match" overstates the conflict and overrates Red Cloud.
These were not knee jerk reactions by Red Cloud. He thought out what he was going to do before each attack. And he pretty well stuck to his plan.
Yes, he had some failures. What commander doesn't? Overall, from what I read about what happened at Ft. Kearny, it is evident that Red Cloud's plan was to chip away at livestock, woodcutters, cavalry, etc. until defenses were reduced substantially. Again, my take on what I have read. He knew they were hundreds of miles from supplies, relief, etc.
On Wagon Box, I understand that so many of Red Clouds "prime" warriors were killed in that conflict that he altered his plans of attack during the altercation. Fact? Can't be sure. I read this stuff the same as you, Boddn, 2321,etc.
|
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - August 27 2003 : 9:25:46 PM
|
Here we go.
Because the US got walloped, it had to be by a gazillion savages. What is the source of 1500 warriors for Fetterman? Again, that could be correct, but what has happened is a guess that conveniently excused the defeat has become fact. And it is being used as a reference for another battle. Argh! as Charley Brown would say. Indians could not count to 1000 I don't think. If they had numeric words or actual numerals for such numbers, I've never seen them. They had no need before the anal white man's money entered their lives, so it's no slam.
Second, and I apologize for being Captain Bringdown, but Red Cloud had no power to strategize a war because no chief did. (Centralized political and military command - as King Phillip, Tecumseh, Osceola, and the Confederacy discovered - is not a given to certain mindsets even at need.) The other chiefs of warrior societies could tell him to get bent (they eventually did)with no worries, they'd fight or not as they wished. I really think it's an error to attribute our values and thinking to them. It's not like they kept a mental diorama of the Powder River country and worked out tight schedules for raids and supplies. If they had enough bored young men, suddenly a fight was needed.
Third, the jamming guns. Other than Godfrey, who else ever said the Springfield was prone to jamming (everyone pretended to it after LBH as it was a great excuse)? True: if you carry your bullets in a pocket and load without wiping them off, the chamber could get bad and jam ..... as with any gun. But Crook to my knowledge reported no such problem nor has anyone else ever. To the contrary, it apparently was a pretty rugged weapon. It was the WRONG weapon for cavalry, but who knew?
And I agree: the Bozeman and Powder River wars, aside for being the template for forts and battles and all the fiction (if any of the soldiers in Ft. Apache ever woke up in Phil Kearney, they'd have thought they were in heaven....), far more interesting than Custer and that one battle. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
El Crab
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - August 27 2003 : 11:00:48 PM
|
I wouldn't say the Red Cloud War was more interesting than the whole of Custer's military career. And I'm not even sure I'd say its more interesting than the Little Big Horn for me. And the amount of books and articles and movies on the subject are proof positive that some other people find the LBH battle than the Red Cloud War.
I don't know that many have said the Fetterman Massacre was due to an overwhelming force facing the soldiers. It happened because Fetterman clearly ignored strict orders (though some question whether the orders were amended after the fight) and didn't think the warriors were, however many there were, capable of defeating even a small force of US soldiers. His arrogance and idiocy (he fell for the oldest trick in the book) are to blame for the massacre. And it definitely qualifies as a massacre. His tiny force was overwhelmed in minutes, and most were found in a very small space. |
I came. I saw. I took 300 pictures. |
|
|
|
pjsolla
Major
Status: offline |
Posted - August 27 2003 : 11:10:47 PM
|
Number of warriors? I only know what I read and see in the record. If it is different, I am open to a correction.
Red Cloud still spearheaded the attacks. Maybe not in the sense of a centralized command as the US military, but he nonetheless was the head figure.
Jamming of the Springfield carbine was mentioned in several studies before the LBH battle. I cannot recall off the top of my head, but there was enough question (a year or two before) concerning it that a request was made to replace it with the repeating rifle. And yes, though there was jamming of the carbines during the LBH batle, not enough evidence was produced to show that it affected the battle. I think Fox and Scott showed that if affected 2 or 3 % of the weapons, or some relatively insignificant number. Yeah, I know, a lot of talk was directed at the fact that jammed carbines was reason for the demise. A number of early reports suggested that the verdigres from the ammunition belts caused the problem. However, that was also laid to rest as the belts were found not to be at fault. Yeah, just plain ole superiority in regard to the fighting. Nothing more or less. Benteen/Reno survived. Custer did not. Same odds. Well, Custers command was split between Calhoun Hill and Last Stand Hill. Anyhow------------------------------- |
|
|
|
pjsolla
Major
Status: offline |
Posted - August 27 2003 : 11:22:17 PM
|
| El Crab: I think as has been said before, the LBH battle just happened to be in the right place at the right time. It literally overshadowed the Fetterman fight because as some have said, it was the second time it happened. The US elected to respond to it, unlike the Fetterman fight. |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - August 27 2003 : 11:49:38 PM
|
Really? Several studies? The Army did studies? All I've seen are compendiums of anectdotal notes that don't amount to much. There were officers that fought for the repeaters for the obvious to us reasons. Buford at Gettysburg was able to hold on the first day because he had equipped his men with breach loaders based on his experience fighting Indians and being a good officer in general.
The repeating rifle issue was an old one, having to do with the fact that the brass didn't think the soldier was smart enough to use it (this was true through the First WW and into the Second)coupled with agony at the cost of ammo for training. Underlying all this is the horror of black troops with repeating rifles.....
In WWI half the British Army Manual was devoted to feeding horses and slinging camels aboard ships. One machine gun was good enough for each battalion because the bayonet and charge were the real weapons. Yup. Hard to imagine how such brilliance led to 400k British dead alone at the Somme, isn't it?
As a rule of thumb, 5% of any human action is denoted by incompetence. 2 or 3 % of the troopers didn't keep the carbine clean and it jammed? There's a shock. I'm surprised it was that low. That's not the weapon, that's the idiot who owns it. But please tell me Fox and Scott didn't say that. They could say 3% of the cartridges they found were deformed by prying, but they cannot say more. And again, how come Crook - who ignited the atmosphere with the firing of 25k rounds, never had this called to his attention? If a problem, it seems to have been isolated to Custer's regiment. Of course, the amount of time he spent training his men could not be understated. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
El Crab
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - August 28 2003 : 12:03:28 AM
|
It wasn't mentioned with Crook because he basically fought a draw. He and 200+ soldiers weren't annihilated. What excuses are needed when you know all the facts? Hell, Crook said he won, since he was left in command of the field, which he had to begin with. But he lost. His command burned 25,000 rounds of ammunition, and killed probably 20 warriors. And he had to retreat. And the force he "defeated" came out, attacked him, broke off the attack and returned to their village in a pretty defiant mood. Yeah, he won alright.
The jamming carbines is a non-issue. It was brought up because SOMETHING had to explain Custer's defeat. |
I came. I saw. I took 300 pictures. |
|
|
|
pjsolla
Major
Status: offline |
Posted - August 28 2003 : 12:33:37 AM
|
DC (Got it right) & El Crab:
I used studies. Should have said "observations" by officers who made note of how many "carbines" jammed or had extractor problems. Have to get the figures but one officers numbers were rather high. A problem with the weapon or operator?--------- Improperly kept weapons? A problem. Extractor problems due to overheating? Thats a fact. It had nothing however to do with Custers defeat.
And I can go along with El Crab's take on things.Crook didn't matter because the entire command was not annihilated. They all made it back. So, the issue of jammed carbines was not an issue.
Now I didn't say that 2 or 3 % of the carbines failed due to maintenance problems. I said that 2 or 3 % failed due to extractor problems. Was it due to overheating, verdigres, etc. I have no idea. |
|
|
|
Anonymous Poster2321
Forum Guest
Status: offline |
Posted - August 28 2003 : 12:52:04 AM
|
Remember at Gettysburg they found several rifles with slugs and charge all the way up the barrel, with the metal rod (what is it called?)that packed it in within the barrel. On both sides. Guys screw up and don't notice, or are so terrified they don't care and seek refuge in procedure.
Other than Godfrey, I'm still not aware of anyone complaining about the extractor before the battle. And if it happened to Crook's men we'd have heard about it, because no soldier would want to have his life risked by that. Soldiers have been known to make their feelings known about stuff like that. |
|
|
|
frankboddn
Major
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - August 28 2003 : 01:31:59 AM
|
 Wow! Lotta action. Even though this is a Custer forum, it's sure fun seeing all the witty observations on the Bozeman Trail wars. I only have one comment regarding Beecher Island. Dark Cloud your term of calling Forsythe's scouts "rangers" was interesting. I'd never seen that term describing them before.
El Crab, you're right that Fetterman's fall was because of his arrogance and idiocy. It was also because he clearly disobeyed Carrington's very specific orders about not crossing over Lodge Trail Ridge. There's nothing ambiguous about those orders, unlike the many discussions we see about whether GAC disobeyed possibly ambiguous orders. It was also due to overwhelming odds, despite what some of you have said, and the fact that you had 80 men, some cavalry and some infantry, spread out so thin over the course of three-quarters of a mile or whatever the distance is from the Wheatly-Fischer rocks and the Fetterman-Brown rocks. And also the total surprise. So, no, it wasn't just a couple hundred Indians surprising 80 soldiers being inflated to 1500 or so warriors to appease white society who couldn't believe anything less than that amount could totally wipe out Fetterman and his hapless crew.
Anonymous 8169, as to Metzger's location, you mentioned he was found near Fetterman. I'd never heard that. I'm going by the signs on the ridge, the one telling his story, obviously by some teary-eyed white-eye, and showing where he was supposedly found.
Someone mentioned Carrington's orders to Fetterman being amended after the fact??? Never heard that. I have read some accounts as to just how specific Carrington's orders to him were initially, and Carrington even ran to the gate and shouted them out again as they were leaving. Sounds to me pretty specific about when they were given.
Dark Cloud the troopers at Ft. Apache would've thought they were in heaven if they'd have served at Ft. Phil? I guess if you want to trade off the terribly hot desert weather with days and days of boredom when they were out looking for Apaches, trade that for subfreezing winters, daily raids on the woodcutting detail, on Pilot Hill, on anyone who left the fort--see poor Mr. Glover--and the memory of Fetterman's command's annhialation and horrible mutilations, and they'd have thought they were in heaven? I guess it's all a matter of preference
And PJSOLLA, as to the number of warriors that attacked the wagon box, if you have it, take a look at a book by Jerry Keenan called "The Wagon Box Fight, An Episode of Red Cloud's War." Besides an interesting, detailed account of the battle by the participants, he also, in his latest edition, goes into the archeological surveys done in the past and recently where shell casings, arrowheads and artifacts have been found to try to recreate positions, etc.
As to the number of warriors, since the Indians couldn't count to 1000 if they had to(I think I heard that in this forum), I think that we (anyone who likes to read about this stuff) are relying on the firsthand accounts of the white guys. Here's a few things Jerry Keenan has to say. I don't know how accurate these estimates are, coming only from the white dudes.
"The war party that attacked the wagon box corral consisted primarily of Oglalas under Crazy Horse and Miniconjous under High Back-Bone. A few Sans Arcs were also represented, as was a party of some 60 Cheyennes under Little Wolf. The approximately 1,000 warriors comprising the Fort Kearny contingent departed from their Tongue and Rosebud River campsites, probbaly about July 31, and reached the general area of Piney Island on August 1, where they camped and made preparaons to atack the wood cutters the following day."
"In his official report, Powell said that 'About 9 o'clock in the morning, 200 Indians attacked the herders in charge of the herd, driving them off; at the same time some 500 attacked the train at the foot of the Mountains, driving off the men belonging there and burning it."
Max Littman was 21 at the time and unable to speak English. Max , in later years, stated, in part, "The reader must remember that two persons will often see things in an entirely different light; and for that reason I am statng only what came under my own personal observations in this fight.
"When we saw the hundreds upon hundreds of savage warriors pressing forward against our little improvised fort, not a man in the entire command expected to come out of that fight alive. The battle could not positively have lasted half an hour longer than it did, for we were almost completely exhausted by the awful heat of the day" (kinda like those boys at Ft. Apache I guess )"and from the smoke occasioned by the fire arrows which the savages shot into the corral, and which ignited with scattered bits of hay and dry manure which collected ..."
"No person inside the corral was killed by an arrow. It was always a bullet that did the deadly work. However, our losses were very slight, and it seems almost beyond belief that it was a case of but 32 desperate men against 3000 infuriated Sioux. They must have lacked the right sort of leader, for had they attacked us in full force at any one time, not a man of us would have been spared except to be reserved for torture."
"No such battle as this has ever been recorded in all the Indian engagements of the west--I mean, where the whites were so overwhelmingly outnumbered--and were outnumbered nearly a hundred to one. Neither has there been such a successful combat with Indians anywhere in the United States at to numbers killed in comparison to thoser fighting against them. The closest approach to it was the Beecher Island fight on the Arickaree Fork of the Republican River in 1868, where fifty meen stood off about 700 Cheyennes for several days before relief came. The more one goes into the details of the fight, the more deeply is one impressed that it was the greatest Indian battle of the world. 32 men struggling for six hours against 3000 well trained, dogged Indians." Of course, that's just Littman's estimate, and Capt. Powell's was significantly less.
As a note in the rear of his book, Keenan says, "Estimates as to the size of the attacking force vary greatly. George Bird Grinnel believed there were only 300 Sioux and 75-100 Cheyennes. The estimate of Cheyennes is substantiated by Willis Rowland, a government interpreter at the Lame Deer Agency who got the figure from the Cheyennes. See 'News Release From Richard Randolph, Lame Deer, Montana, April 18, 1927,' found in Hagan Coll.
"Vestal and Hyde agree that the force numbered about 1000, while C.T. Brady put the number at 3000. Robert Larson says the force was mainly Oglalas and numbered 800-1000. Littman thought the attackers did not exceed 2000 in number, though he believed there may have been as many as 3000 between the corral and the fort.
Well, that's about all I can remember from y'all's posts. I'm sure someone will provide fodder for the next discussion. |
|
|
|
Anonymous Poster2321
Forum Guest
Status: offline |
Posted - August 28 2003 : 02:23:08 AM
|
While winters would be cold, the other seasons would have been rather nice. Water, wood, lots of food. The Army inspector thought it the best fort in the nation and said so. No scorpions, tarantulas. A band. Grass. Women. Heaven. Lots of fighting, though, as you say.
However, the sources for Carrington's 2x order seem to be from Mrs. Grummond who, by the time she set pen to paper, would soon replace the late Mrs. Carrington as the second Mrs. Carrington. So aside from changing husbands (Grummund, not an admirer of Carrington, was killed with Fetterman), she may have changed her mind about what was said and done. Screaming such odd orders twice is awfully assertive for someone who just let Brown go and turned command over to Fetterman who had publicly complained about not getting it. Could be true. Might not.
You take inexperienced soldiers and put them in a terrifying position and their reports will all be different and with greatly exaggerated numbers of enemy. If you want to believe that amateurs defeated odds of 100 to one - including Oglalas under Crazy Horse - and use as evidence the elderly recollections of someone who didn't speak English at the time and whose explanation for the escape is that the Indians lacked a Manly Man as a leader, go ahead. It's puffery, pure and simple. Apparently Crazy Horse wasn't a good enough leader? Come on.
Grinnell, who was experienced and would know, has the most likely number: 500 or under. Ten to one is a lot.
So what is the evidence for overwhelming odds with Fettermen? Saying it doesn't make it so. There were small bunches of men spread out by your own description, badly led, cold, and inexperienced and about half on foot. Couple of hundred Sioux could have done it easy. Party of twenty, party of fifty, stragglers, all in turn. The infantry had muzzle loaders, if I recall. Try reloading those babies in panic and cold. The Indians could smother them with arrows pretty quick.
As to the archaeological digs, weren't they mostly amateur? Was there an actual archaeologist there throughout? And what were their findings? |
|
|
|
frankboddn
Major
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - August 28 2003 : 02:58:26 AM
|
Anonymous 2321: The archeological survey was done by a real, honest to God expert, with the help of volunteers. They used paper and pens and pencils and all kinds of modern things to conduct their survey. I'll dig up the results for you tomorrow. It's getting late and I haven't had a chance to hit my RV'g forum yet. Good night. |
|
|
|
pjsolla
Major
Status: offline |
Posted - August 28 2003 : 03:25:27 AM
|
Frankboddn & 2321: Some hefty exchanges here. The numbers of Indians at Wagon Box are even more confusing now. But ya know, even with 1000 or as little as 500, I am stil stymied that they just didn't charge the soldiers.
Regarding Carringtons orders. And DC, I am putting this one in your court. Carrington personally issued the first order. His second order however, he gave to his acting adjutant, Lt. Alexander Wands. He told him to hurry after Fettermans troops, halt them at the gate, and repeat the order. Whether Mrs. Grummond put this on paper later on, I don't know. I do know that this is what Lt. Wands said. So, this is not a matter of some "lovestruck" woman protecting her man. It was an explicit order given by Carrington. And approximately 15 minutes later, Carrington repeated the same order to Grummonds mounted troops, "do not cross Lodge Trail Ridge under any circumstances. So, this makes three times. Grummond then left to rendezvous with Fetterman.
In any event, nice posts guys. |
|
|
|
frankboddn
Major
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - August 28 2003 : 03:34:09 AM
|
PJSOLLA< I stand corrected on Carrington personally running after them to repeat the order. But it was done. I think never were orders any more clear. I've even seen some accounts where Fetterman was hesitant to disobey the order, but finally gave in at the insistence of his good buddy, Brown.
Now, DC, I can't remember if the "account" was from one of the several novels I've read on the subject, since no one survived the fight on the white guys' side. Has anyone else heard this from any source? |
|
|
|
Anonymous Poster2321
Forum Guest
Status: offline |
Posted - August 28 2003 : 12:01:26 PM
|
Fetterman was a world class, letter sweater moron, we're in utter agreement. We only argue about the number of enemy. Because ST. Claire Cooke or whoever (JEB Stuart's father in law) in Omaha or wherever had reduced the federal property, all the wood needed was outside federal land and soldiers couldn't be used to cut it, and so civilians had to be hired. Sharp, huh?
And given that lots of people were killed on these wood expeditions, and Carrington had not the men nor the wherewithal to chase after the Sioux, its hard to fathom why the Sioux would feel the need for lots of men to polish off these predictable retaliatory charges by the soldiers, given half were infantry, and that they could not have had a high opinion for the soldiers at this point.
How many cavalry were there in deep snow? Forty ish on high, visible ground? How many bullets and arrows from ambush would that take?
How hard would the infantry be with their old weapons or even new ones?
As to the orders, you could be correct. But what coldly objective participant source relates two orders tO FETTERMAN which was the original issue. I think only the Mrs. Powell is another issue. Fetterman is still an ignorant moron.
And didn't Jim Bridger (maybe Phillips)give an estimate WAY below 1500 for the fight? Isn't it interesting that the huge figures for Indians always come from the most ignorant and inexperienced participants, and the lower figures from the most experienced? And who ought to be believed?
Right, the ones with the most dramatic potential. |
|
|
|
Anonymous Poster8169
Forum Guest
Status: offline |
Posted - August 28 2003 : 12:16:39 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by pjsolla
Frankboddn, Larsen and 2321: You guys seem to have a bit more info on this than I. The numbers of 3K warriors and 300-1100 warriors killed seems to be of conflict. Several references I have seen state "heavy losses" by the Indians but make no mention of numbers.
For what it's worth, in his official report Captain Powell claimed 60 killed (IIRC). I have a hard time believing even this though, since normally the only time Indians took that degree of casualties was if they got taken by surprise in a village. But in an attack? And without succeeding in getting close to the troops?
I'm doubtful they would have tried carrying a futile attack on to the point of taking 60 killed ----they weren't Zulus ---- though of course nobody knows for sure how many they lost, including me. As it is, Powell's figure could only have been an estimate, since the bodies were carried off the field by the survivors.
R. Larsen
PS: At the Hayfield Fight, Indian casualties were reported by Lt. Col. Bradley to be 8 killed, and 30 wounded. Since the Hayfield and Wagon-Box Fights were basically the same thing, I think it's likely that Indian casualties at the Wagon-Box were something a lot more closer to Bradley's figures than they were to what Powell came up with.
|
|
|
|
Anonymous Poster8169
Forum Guest
Status: offline |
Posted - August 28 2003 : 12:25:59 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by pjsolla
Larsen:
I don't think calling this a "chess match" overstates the conflict and overrates Red Cloud.
These were not knee jerk reactions by Red Cloud. He thought out what he was going to do before each attack. And he pretty well stuck to his plan.
He did? Like I said before, Red Cloud's War was mostly a collection of random murders and horsethefts. Pretty much the same standard stuff you see in every Indian war. I don't see in such actions Red Cloud's guiding hand maneuvering the pawns and rooks.
What evidence is there that the Indians were all following his orders in these little skirmishes, anyway?
R. Larsen |
|
|
|
Anonymous Poster8169
Forum Guest
Status: offline |
Posted - August 28 2003 : 12:49:42 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Cloud
Third, the jamming guns. Other than Godfrey, who else ever said the Springfield was prone to jamming (everyone pretended to it after LBH as it was a great excuse)? True: if you carry your bullets in a pocket and load without wiping them off, the chamber could get bad and jam ..... as with any gun. But Crook to my knowledge reported no such problem nor has anyone else ever. To the contrary, it apparently was a pretty rugged weapon. It was the WRONG weapon for cavalry, but who knew?
According to Major Reno, only six of the carbines used by his men on the hilltop jammed to where they couldn't be used.
R. Larsen
|
|
|
|
Anonymous Poster8169
Forum Guest
Status: offline |
Posted - August 28 2003 : 12:56:13 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by frankboddn
Anonymous 8169, as to Metzger's location, you mentioned he was found near Fetterman.
No, I did not. I don't know where he was found.
R. Larsen
|
|
|
|
pjsolla
Major
Status: offline |
Posted - August 28 2003 : 1:12:31 PM
|
Larsen: Whatever Red Cloud's methods, he carried them out, on a regular basis. Hit and run, hit and run. From what I have read, he was going to keep cutting away at livestock, woodcutters, etc. until he reduce the command substantially. Where is it written? Nowhere. But you have to look at his actions and try surmize what he was trying to do. It's strictly reading the record and trying to make some sense out of it, same as you and all the rest. It's like you accepting Bradleys account of the killed and wounded at the Hayfield fight. Might someone have other figures? Maybe so. All any of us do is try and reconcile the record based on available info we have. Nobody on here wants to present erroneous info.
And as far as evidence that "Indians were following Red Clouds orders in those little skirmishes". Again, based on what I read, Red Cloud's involvement in the written record, etc. I have to assume that these other bands of warriors were not just loose cannons, but part of a more integrated attack plan. I just don't see all these warriors acting in a helter, skelter, unilateral fashion. Yes, I know, the plains Indian did not work under the same pecking order as the US Army.
But from what I read, Red Cloud did exercise a "fair" amount of input into what their actions would be.
Thats about as conclusive as I can give you. I am sure there are interviews with Indians stating a whole plethora of views as well as soldiers. Look at the numbers for killed Indians, soldiers, Indian participants, etc. in the Fetterman incident. They are all over the place. Soldier casualities are a bit more accurate as they know the amount that were in Fettermans and Grummonds command.
This gets almost as bad as the stats and statements surrounding the Custer engagement. Numbers all over. Just look at what you and I posted on Deep Ravine ID's. And forget you and I, look what came in from Scott, Doerner, and Fox. Again, we try and reconile the record based on what "we" read and accept.
Again, all I can hope to do is read, present my interpretations, and exchange views on here. We all have material that we consider "gospel". I can appreciate that.
So, with that said and done, the previous are my reasons why I feel about certain issues.
And DC: I think Carringtons repeat of the orders "twice" to Fetterman was because he knew Fetterman was going to ignore him and he wanted to reinforce what he wanted done. Almost akin to a kindergarten teacher repeating orders to students. Carrington knew Fetterman was going to try and subvert his orders. How do I know? I have to assume. Why have your adjutant run to the gate to reinforce orders "again". Simple. You have a gut feeling that "this officer" has intentions of ignoring what you said.
Anyhow, always appreciate your posts and views. And I am always open to anything new. May not always agree, but I read it carefully. Some of it does change my mind. |
|
|
|
Anonymous Poster8169
Forum Guest
Status: offline |
Posted - August 28 2003 : 1:35:15 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by frankboddn
I've even seen some accounts where Fetterman was hesitant to disobey the order, but finally gave in at the insistence of his good buddy, Brown.
I've often wondered whether the movement over Lodge Trail Ridge may have been caused by Grummond. The standard account goes that the soldiers were paused on Lodge Trail Ridge, when the cavalry suddenly broke after a bunch of taunting Indian decoys, after which the infantry came along, slowly following behind. Well, Grummond had pulled this same exact trick two weeks earlier, in the skirmish of December 6 in which Lt. Bingham was killed. Without orders, Grummond deserted the command, and chased off after a bunch of decoys with Bingham and a few others. They galloped right into an ambush, and Grummond barely escaped with his life. Bingham and a sergeant didn't.
Upon returning to Carrington, Grummond bitterly lectured him for not following after. "Couldn't you see I was fighting Indians, you coward?" That's a paraphrase, but it's not far from what was actually said ---- and this was a lieutenant talking to a colonel, remember. The guy was a disaster waiting to happen.
Fetterman's actions, on the other hand, were competent and reliable in that skirmish. But like Carrington (they led separate commands), he also had to deal with the cavalry deserting him, though they did this under Bingham. Fetterman couldn't "account" for this, though he charitably suggested that instead of losing their collective heads, Bingham merely "deemed it most prudent" to desert the infantry with all his command --- so as to keep them together!
On the day of the Massacre, the cavalry Fetterman had with him were green and unreliable, and they were led by a fool and a hothead --- who was disobedient to boot. That's a scary combination. I've often wondered whether Grummond pulled the same trick December 21 as he had on the 6th, only this time (unlike Carrington) Fetterman made the fatal choice to follow after him with the infantry.
R. Larsen
|
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Fetterman v. Custer
