Just a thought (1 Viewer)

[OzDigger]

Reb, you had better watch out the next Indian you meet doesn't have his full complement of sticks. You know, those ones with the pointy ends

 

[Spitfrnd]

...
Re:- Indian casualties the 30 dead Indians came I believe from White Buffalo a Sioux veteran of the Custer fight and a tribal historian who compiled a list of 29 warriors who were killed in the battle. But interestingly eight days before when Crazy Horse and 1500 Sioux caught Crook at the Rosebud and fought him for six hours which effectively put him and his column out of the campaign-the Sioux casualties according to the tribal compiler was 29 warriors. Makes one think that the counting capacity of a Sioux historian may have only been up to 29- then he ran out of sticks
Reb.

Interesting mate, well if the Indian numbers were fabricated, it is more likely it was akin the the body count reporting in Vietnam. Of course all that really tells us is that there is an unexplained questionable coincidence; more of that history is hard work stuff I suppose.

 

[eborris]

Even if the Indian account of their casualties was accurate, I believe that would only reflect the count of the that one tribe and there were several tribes involved, who can say with any accuracy what he was counting?

As far as the archeological dig 100+ years after the battle and the two or three reburials of the dead, the harsh winters, rains and floods, not to mention the fire, can we really accept their findings as totally accurate? I for one would be skeptical.

 

[trooper]

As stated before the Indian listing of their dead varies slightly but do take in to account all tribes. For example one account gives 6 Hunkpapa,1 Two Kettle, 6 Sansarcs, 5 Ogalala, 12 Cheyenne and 2 Minneconjou. Total 32. With regard the archaeological survey there was a programme recently where a study of the firing pin and extractor marks on cartridge cases enabled the scientists to identify a particular army weapon and trace it's progress across the battlefield. The problem was as it was a soldier's gun they assumed it was a soldier holding it which, of course was not necessarily the case. The survey threw up some interesting items but I don't think it answered any important questions.

 

[eborris]

Okay, if we accept that count as a starting point, we have 600+ troopers including Reno's and Benteens men, and Custer's and Reno's were both heavily engaged, it would seem unlikely that only 32 or 29 Indians were killed. Even if Custer's troops were eliminated in a matter of minutes, Reno's were engaged for hours. Even accounting for panic and poor marksmenship 32 would appear to be a very low number. I guess it goes back to his story.

 

[Njja]

Part of their basic training was the demonising of the enemy and the old adage of "save the last bullet for yourself" held some merit as the Sioux were notorious for inflicting mutilating torture on their enemies. One only has to read the Surgeon Commander's report on the US bodies after the Fetterman Massacre in 1866 which still makes gory reading today. Scenes like this related to new recruits by veterans were permanently etched on the pysche of soldiers, instilling fear as well as loathing of the "barbaric" Indian.

This statement goes a long way in describing the attitudes held at the time
for the Indians, which is reflected in the treatment they received.

I can't begin to imagine the psychological damage done to the soldiers that
came upon the scene of the carnage of the Little Big Horn.

Events such as this when reported to the public, influence their opinions which did not help the Indians cause.

Today some look at this massacre simply as words written on paper, and have nothing but sympathy, and compassion, for the victors, and perhaps
even contempt for the military skills of General Custer.

I think of those men fighting for their lives, knowing what was in store for them......and their worst fears of mutilation being the actual outcome.

I also remember that of all the senior officers present, the table Grant excepted Lee's surender on was presented to General Custer.
Sometimes actions speak volumes.

 

[trooper]

Okay, if we accept that count as a starting point, we have 600+ troopers including Reno's and Benteens men, and Custer's and Reno's were both heavily engaged, it would seem unlikely that only 32 or 29 Indians were killed. Even if Custer's troops were eliminated in a matter of minutes, Reno's were engaged for hours. Even accounting for panic and poor marksmenship 32 would appear to be a very low number. I guess it goes back to his story.

I entirely agree, the figures seem ridiculous, and yet when Terry entered the abandoned village the troops found 38 Indian bodies on platforms in tepees. Some of these were said to be of men who had died of wounds suffered in the Rosebud fight. Once again we come back to the 30 odd figure. It doesn't seem to add up, but where were the rest of the bodies if the figure was higher?

 

[eborris]

I guess we'll never know, it's not like they kept a muster of their braves.

 

[Spitfrnd]

I guess we'll never know, it's not like they kept a muster of their braves.

Well not is our sense but most Tribes had accurate knowledge of such things. Whether or how that was preserved and the extent to which whatever that is can be accessed is another matter.