|
|
Post by HinTamaheca on Jul 24, 2009 7:52:48 GMT -6
The Battle of Rosebud Creek, 17 July 1876, Lakota and Cheyenne under Crazy Horse turned back troops commanded by General George Crook, thereby cutting off reinforcements that might have aided Custer at the Battle of the Little Bighorn. Given the number of combatants, the Battle of the Rosebud was one of the largest confrontations waged in the Indian Wars.
In the spring of 1876, the U.S. Army took to the field against the Lakota (Sioux) and Cheyenne. The tribes had not met an ultimatum to return to their reservations in the Dakotas and Nebraska after U.S. negotiations to acquire the sacred Black Hills had failed in the fall of 1875.
Brigadier General George Crook moved 1,050 soldiers and 260 Crow and Shoshone scouts north into the Rosebud Valley, Montana Territory, after his scouts reported a significant concentration of Lakota and Cheyenne there. Crookâs column represented one of three tactical columns placed in the field in the summer to ferret out the natives.
On June 17, a roughly equal number of warriors led by Crazy Horse assaulted Crook's force along Rosebud Creek. The confused battle over uneven ground separated into three pitched skirmishes. There were numerous brave acts on both sides, including a Cheyenne girl who rescued her brother after his horse had been shot out from under him. Thereafter, the Cheyenne referred to the battle as "Where the Girl Saved Her Brother."
After six hours and much lead shot, the Lakotas and Cheyennes called off the fight; the braves had fought Crookâs men to a standstill. Crook's force suffered 10 killed and 21 wounded, and the warriors sustained similar casualties. Crook claimed the day because he believed he had driven the Indians from the field, but his claim was empty.
The fight was at most a stalemate, and Crook's badly hit column withdrew to its base camp on Goose Creek near present-day Sheridan, Wyoming. As a result of the battle, one of the three army columns converging on the Indians was effectively incapacitated and taken out of the campaign for two months.
Some say the battle set the stage for the Indian victory involving many of the same warriors eight days later and 30 miles away, at the Battle of the Little Bighorn. At least partial blame has been laid at Crook's feet for Custer's disaster because the latter failed to rout the Indians, give chase, and conceivably force them north into other U.S. Army columns. Instead, the reasoning goes, the action gave the Lakota and Cheyenne a psychological boost.
But other scholars say Crook is wrongfully implicated in Custer's demise: The former had barely enough provisions for his soldiers through June 18, which suggests he would have had to reverse course the following day. In addition, Crook could not have advised General Terry, Custer's commanding officer, of the battle's outcome soon enough to aid Custer.
To historians of the battle as well as Native Americans today, the Rosebud is acknowledged as a positive chapter in the Lakota and Cheyenne defense of their lands and lifeways.
However, it was not a simple fight between whites and Indians. To the Crows and Shoshones who scouted for the Americans, it was their battle too, against the Lakotas and Cheyennes who were encroaching on their lands and lifeways.Taken from: www.u-s-history.com/pages/h1382.htmlOther online resources: www.astonisher.com/archives/museum/rosebud/index.htmlwww.wyomingtalesandtrails.com/rosebud.htmlwww.rosebudmontana.com/rosebud_battlefield.htmen.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Rosebudwww.essortment.com/all/battlerosebud_rfks.htm |
|
|
|
Post by conz on Jul 24, 2009 12:12:00 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by conz on Jul 24, 2009 12:27:08 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by wolfgang911 on Jul 24, 2009 14:33:58 GMT -6
Conz please continue like this, your images are way more helpful as your written posts  However, it was not a simple fight between whites and Indians. To the Crows and Shoshones who scouted for the Americans, it was their battle too, against the Lakotas and Cheyennes who were encroaching on their lands and lifeways. [/i] [/quote] well that was little short sighted of both parties and is in my opinion the 2009 political correct version for the all indians united league for any board and battle site sign (here died XX for defending the arikara way of life ?? scouting?) for the land : was already settled between tribes for the way of life : well we know who were crying 10 years later or else ask shoshone mike! it was just shortsighted italian like vendettas between tribes and no way of life blabla |
|
|
|
Post by Diane Merkel on Jul 4, 2021 9:32:44 GMT -6
"General Crook Camps in Sheridan in 187 6" from Sheridan Media: At the Battle of the Rosebud, Crookâs troops did indeed have their hands full. The Rosebud battlefield is surrounded by rough, red shale rock ridges, and the Indians attacked from above. Both sides tried to gain the advantage of the hill tops, but neither side could get an advantage, and the battle was considered a draw, and Crook withdrew back to the Goose Creek Camp. Article: sheridanmedia.com/news/51271/general-crook-camps-in-sheridan-in-1876/ |
|
|
|
Post by noggy on Jul 5, 2021 1:56:24 GMT -6
(...)and the battle was considered a draw, and Crook withdrew back to the Goose Creek Camp. The NAs would take a draw like that any day. I could agree on it being a tactical draw, but strategically fending of 1 out of 3 columns was a blow to any US chances of succeeding in defeating the NAs in/around the LBH-river(s). Has Crook gotten a little easy off? Was it 2 months he stayed in camp after the battle? All the best, Noggy |
|
|
|
Post by backwater on Jul 5, 2021 7:42:30 GMT -6
"Concerned for his wounded and short on supplies, Crook retraced his steps to his camp on Goose Creek, near Sheridan, Wyoming, and remained there immobile for seven weeks awaiting reinforcements." His scouts left also, think he got word of LBH battle 8 day's after the fact. Should he have sent some cavalry and N.A. scouts on the Sioux trail as he withdrew with the wounded? Just a scout to find the big camp? Maybe he did, I'm not sure.
|
|
|
|
Post by herosrest on Jul 5, 2021 8:49:20 GMT -6
I was led into the finer detail of this fight by Grinnell's 'Fighting Cheyennes' book which looked at the tactics and ritual of the fighters. Crook's response to the onslaught is well documented but the Indian tactics less so. Mounted battles were charging affairs swaying back and forth in measured pursuits, halts and retreats intended to pick off those who fell or fell behind. You had to be brave if you had a slow or fast pony. In rummaging around the history I found enough to indicate that the opening instance was a stealthy attack by a small group of Cheyenne & Sioux scouts moving on the guarded cavalry horses as Crook's command were at rest for coffee. The army scouts detected this and alerted the camp. Just a little tuppence worth into the pot. There were as well mounted attacks and retreats across the field and a number of army casualties were the result of falling back from skirmish to mount and manoeuvre. White Shield attributed coups to this aspect of the cavalry fight. The terrain helped Crook with rifle and carbine fire keeping the indians at distance and mounted. It seems to me also, that the Indian attacks were attempts to lure cavalry battalions beyond supporting rifle fire. The battle is well unnderstood but not from the Indian point of view - light cavalry trying to isolate elements of the enemy force to overwelm in detail. If crook understood that it explains him recoiling from further progress as his firepower was depleted keeping the hostile force at bay. He shot away his primary advantage. The Cheyennes certainly knew not to close with sabre wielding cavalry after the skirmish with Sumner at Solomon Fork in 1857, which killed Two Moons father.
|
|
|
|
Post by hunkpatila on Jul 5, 2021 12:42:54 GMT -6
"Concerned for his wounded and short on supplies, Crook retraced his steps to his camp on Goose Creek, near Sheridan, Wyoming, and remained there immobile for seven weeks awaiting reinforcements." His scouts left also, think he got word of LBH battle 8 day's after the fact. Should he have sent some cavalry and N.A. scouts on the Sioux trail as he withdrew with the wounded? Just a scout to find the big camp? Maybe he did, I'm not sure. Crook made no such attempt. After the battle he did hold a council that evening during which he pitched the idea of a night march to find the Indian village he still believed was located further down the Rosebud in order to attack it the following dawn. The Crows and Shoshone were not enthusiastic about the idea, probably unimpressed with Crook's leadership qualities because they saw the battle as a relative failure in fighting terms. Without the involvement of his Indian allies Crook withdrew and returned to Goose Creek the following day. The Crows left that evening and the Shoshones left when the command reached Goose Creek. "Hunk" Papa |
|
|
|
Post by noggy on Jul 6, 2021 2:32:31 GMT -6
"Concerned for his wounded and short on supplies, Crook retraced his steps to his camp on Goose Creek, near Sheridan, Wyoming, and remained there immobile for seven weeks awaiting reinforcements." His scouts left also, think he got word of LBH battle 8 day's after the fact. Should he have sent some cavalry and N.A. scouts on the Sioux trail as he withdrew with the wounded? Just a scout to find the big camp? Maybe he did, I'm not sure. Crook made no such attempt. After the battle he did hold a council that evening during which he pitched the idea of a night march to find the Indian village he still believed was located further down the Rosebud in order to attack it the following dawn. The Crows and Shoshone were not enthusiastic about the idea, probably unimpressed with Crook's leadership qualities because they saw the battle as a relative failure in fighting terms. Without the involvement of his Indian allies Crook withdrew and returned to Goose Creek the following day. The Crows left that evening and the Shoshones left when the command reached Goose Creek. "Hunk" Papa I don't get why the Crows and Shoshones left. Personally, if I got to choose, I would ratherget paid to sit and play cards or fish than go looking for a pissed off Crazy Horse. In all seriousness, if expended ammo and 20-30 wounded was enough to ut the strongest of the 3 columns out of play for months, one shoul think the US never had a winning chance in any campaign agains the NAs. (The battle itself was handled well by both parts, as far as I can see) Noggy. |
|
|
|
Post by "Hunk" Papa on Jul 6, 2021 5:31:12 GMT -6
Crook made no such attempt. After the battle he did hold a council that evening during which he pitched the idea of a night march to find the Indian village he still believed was located further down the Rosebud in order to attack it the following dawn. The Crows and Shoshone were not enthusiastic about the idea, probably unimpressed with Crook's leadership qualities because they saw the battle as a relative failure in fighting terms. Without the involvement of his Indian allies Crook withdrew and returned to Goose Creek the following day. The Crows left that evening and the Shoshones left when the command reached Goose Creek. "Hunk" Papa I don't get why the Crows and Shoshones left. Personally, if I got to choose, I would ratherget paid to sit and play cards or fish than go looking for a pissed off Crazy Horse. In all seriousness, if expended ammo and 20-30 wounded was enough to ut the strongest of the 3 columns out of play for months, one shoul think the US never had a winning chance in any campaign agains the NAs. (The battle itself was handled well by both parts, as far as I can see) Noggy. In brief, Crook had made promises to the Crows about how he would defeat the Lakota, their traditional enemies, but at the Rosebud those promises did not reach fruition. The same applied to the Crows that joined Gibbon as they only agreed to join him after they had received assurances that the soldiers would really defeat the Lakota this time. Promises to these warrior people were not just words to them, they were in effect, a binding contract. We can look at the situation from the point of view of our own culture and cut Crook some slack but from the Crows' point of view, he had let them down. Much the same is true of the Shoshone who had originally taken some persuasion to join Crook I believe. The fact that the Lakota/Cheyennes attacked Crook's column in force and with some semblance of cohesion was totally unexpected and but for his Indian allies things might have been worse. Crook, ever the cautious, was not going to risk a second confrontation without getting reinforcements, hence the retreat to Goose Creek. The effect it had at LBH was that the so-called hostiles considered that they had beaten Crook because he withdrew, which filled them with great confidence. This, plus Sitting Bull's vision of soldiers falling upside down into their camp, gave them a steely resolve, previously unheard of when facing an attacking force of soldiers. Hence they rubbed out Long Hair. "Hunk" Papa |
|
|
|
Post by noggy on Jul 6, 2021 7:34:47 GMT -6
I don't get why the Crows and Shoshones left. Personally, if I got to choose, I would ratherget paid to sit and play cards or fish than go looking for a pissed off Crazy Horse. In all seriousness, if expended ammo and 20-30 wounded was enough to ut the strongest of the 3 columns out of play for months, one shoul think the US never had a winning chance in any campaign agains the NAs. (The battle itself was handled well by both parts, as far as I can see) Noggy. In brief, Crook had made promises to the Crows about how he would defeat the Lakota, their traditional enemies, but at the Rosebud those promises did not reach fruition. The same applied to the Crows that joined Gibbon as they only agreed to join him after they had received assurances that the soldiers would really defeat the Lakota this time. Promises to these warrior people were not just words to them, they were in effect, a binding contract. We can look at the situation from the point of view of our own culture and cut Crook some slack but from the Crows' point of view, he had let them down. Much the same is true of the Shoshone who had originally taken some persuasion to join Crook I believe. The fact that the Lakota/Cheyennes attacked Crook's column in force and with some semblance of cohesion was totally unexpected and but for his Indian allies things might have been worse. Crook, ever the cautious, was not going to risk a second confrontation without getting reinforcements, hence the retreat to Goose Creek. The effect it had at LBH was that the so-called hostiles considered that they had beaten Crook because he withdrew, which filled them with great confidence. This, plus Sitting Bull's vision of soldiers falling upside down into their camp, gave them a steely resolve, previously unheard of when facing an attacking force of soldiers. Hence they rubbed out Long Hair. "Hunk" Papa Yes, I get that they left due to idleness (is that the word? My English fails me at times), poor joke from my part. The whole "promise" of a fight is very interesting, and for my part the NA aspect of the battle / Indian Wars is perhaps more interesting than that of the victors. Can't remember now if it was you or someone else who mentioned how the battle of the LBH was won, not lost. I like that angle, personally. All the best, noggy |
|
|
|
Post by "Hunk" Papa on Jul 6, 2021 10:25:08 GMT -6
In brief, Crook had made promises to the Crows about how he would defeat the Lakota, their traditional enemies, but at the Rosebud those promises did not reach fruition. The same applied to the Crows that joined Gibbon as they only agreed to join him after they had received assurances that the soldiers would really defeat the Lakota this time. Promises to these warrior people were not just words to them, they were in effect, a binding contract. We can look at the situation from the point of view of our own culture and cut Crook some slack but from the Crows' point of view, he had let them down. Much the same is true of the Shoshone who had originally taken some persuasion to join Crook I believe. The fact that the Lakota/Cheyennes attacked Crook's column in force and with some semblance of cohesion was totally unexpected and but for his Indian allies things might have been worse. Crook, ever the cautious, was not going to risk a second confrontation without getting reinforcements, hence the retreat to Goose Creek. The effect it had at LBH was that the so-called hostiles considered that they had beaten Crook because he withdrew, which filled them with great confidence. This, plus Sitting Bull's vision of soldiers falling upside down into their camp, gave them a steely resolve, previously unheard of when facing an attacking force of soldiers. Hence they rubbed out Long Hair. "Hunk" Papa Yes, I get that they left due to idleness (is that the word? My English fails me at times), poor joke from my part. The whole "promise" of a fight is very interesting, and for my part the NA aspect of the battle / Indian Wars is perhaps more interesting than that of the victors. Can't remember now if it was you or someone else who mentioned how the battle of the LBH was won, not lost. I like that angle, personally. All the best, noggy It wasn't the idleness as that only really began after the command got back to Goose Creek, it was more the feeling that the Indian allies had that the relatively poor showing by the soldiers [personified in Crook] at the Rosebud, did not live up to the promises they had been given. It is an attitude reflected in their own cultures, where successful leaders (in horse stealing, war parties etc.,) always had a large following, as did Crazy Horse for example, because their 'medicine' was good. But just one failure and they were quickly deserted, especially if they had been responsible for casualties. You're right, the Native Americans' way of life and warfare, particularly the Plains tribes (for me), make for a fascinating study. An anarchic lot but never dull. I cannot claim to have made that comment to you, but I have said it to others in the past. There are some who cannot see past Custer as the reason for the defeat at LBH, but in my view some 2,000 or so Indian warriors had more to with it. "Hunk" Papa |
|
|
|
Post by noggy on Jul 7, 2021 1:16:44 GMT -6
Yes, I get that they left due to idleness (is that the word? My English fails me at times), poor joke from my part. The whole "promise" of a fight is very interesting, and for my part the NA aspect of the battle / Indian Wars is perhaps more interesting than that of the victors. Can't remember now if it was you or someone else who mentioned how the battle of the LBH was won, not lost. I like that angle, personally. All the best, noggy You're right, the Native Americans' way of life and warfare, particularly the Plains tribes (for me), make for a fascinating study. An anarchic lot but never dull. I cannot claim to have made that comment to you, but I have said it to others in the past. There are some who cannot see past Custer as the reason for the defeat at LBH, but in my view some 2,000 or so Indian warriors had more to with it. "Hunk" Papa Same, but I have strond interest in the Apache. That's also a bunch I'd rather not have messed with if i were a pioneer in the 1870s. Well, it could have been myself i'm thinking of; I made the point in an article I've been writing for a military history magazine here for years and years without finishing. However, even if I think the whole "loosing view" comes often from Americans looking at it from their/the soldiers point of view rather than the NAs, there is some validity to it; the mistakes made by GAC & friends are so big that they affected the battle more than the (re)actions of the NAs. At lat I think so. Not everyday they got to deal with an regiment piecemeal. They didn't at Rosebud, or in the later battles that Autumn. Noggy |
|
|
|
Post by "Hunk" Papa on Jul 7, 2021 5:31:37 GMT -6
You're right, the Native Americans' way of life and warfare, particularly the Plains tribes (for me), make for a fascinating study. An anarchic lot but never dull. I cannot claim to have made that comment to you, but I have said it to others in the past. There are some who cannot see past Custer as the reason for the defeat at LBH, but in my view some 2,000 or so Indian warriors had more to do with it. "Hunk" Papa Same, but I have strond interest in the Apache. That's also a bunch I'd rather not have messed with if i were a pioneer in the 1870s. Well, it could have been myself i'm thinking of; I made the point in an article I've been writing for a military history magazine here for years and years without finishing. However, even if I think the whole "loosing view" comes often from Americans looking at it from their/the soldiers point of view rather than the NAs, there is some validity to it; the mistakes made by GAC & friends are so big that they affected the battle more than the (re)actions of the NAs. At lat I think so. Not everyday they got to deal with an regiment piecemeal. They didn't at Rosebud, or in the later battles that Autumn. Noggy Before I launch into another of my diatribes, could you please confirm what mistakes you believe Custer & friends made at LBH? The Apache eh? Cochise, Geronimo et al. Yes, a fierce people, made so by the harsh environment in which they eventually had been pushed. Oddly enough, they had the same language root as the Inuit, so the assumption can be made that they had been pushed quite a long way from their original home. Fascinating too that many of the tribal names we label them by were not what they called themselves. "Hunk" Papa |
|
