|
Post by lilsandbay on Aug 15, 2008 8:43:55 GMT -6
Indirect arrow fire was effective with massed archers against a massed target, although even Agincourt was apparently much over rated. Cetrtainly not your LBH scene at all. Maybe there's a logistical consideration being overlooked. First, arrows, even given iron trade points, are not easy and simple to produce. That given, how many could an individual be expected to possess or carry into battle? Remember those longbows and arrows of those Englishmen in 1415 were masse produced to standard specs. Unless there was a lot of prebattle confidence, those arows were one way, one time events unless your side controls the battlefield at the end, then they just become moot. Indirect arrow fire might be right down there with the beloved Hollywood thrown tomahawk myth. The best way ,of course, to get a fine hand weapon into the other guys hands is to throw it at him.
|
|
|
Post by conz on Aug 15, 2008 9:44:54 GMT -6
Good eye to worry about the logistics of mass arrow use. These certainly aren't the Mongolians or Persians with their sophisticated supply systems for arrows.
At LBH, each Warrior would have carried with him a stock of arrows, probably no fewer than 20 and perhaps as many as 40, or even 60, if well-stocked. They made their own arrows, of course...I've asked over at the NA forum if there was any "centralized" system of making arrows, but nobody has responded. I'm guessing, only, that the best fletchers in the tribe made most of the arrows and bartered them to the rest of the Warriors.
Besides this on-hand supply, the village was right near, and Warriors could easily expend their stock, and ride down to the valley to get more, then return to the battle. We do know that many testified that they went back and forth from the village to the fights quite often. In addition, young bucks and women could carry more arrows to the men at the "front."
In any event, I don't think a massive "cloud of arrows" lasted for very long. Probably not long enough for any Warrior to actually run out of his stock at hand. 1,000 Warriors firing 40 arrows each should be plenty to saturate every living thing on LSH will multiple wounds, eh?
Clair
|
|
|
Post by lilsandbay on Aug 15, 2008 10:16:22 GMT -6
I guess my point was I'm relatively sure that in fact there was no "centralized" supply system in place. A bow and necessary arrows were a "custom" made effort and unless made as a gift were made by the individual. Against that rule may have been knapping stone points which were frequently farmed out to an artistian, but by LBH I doubt you would find many if any usage of those "old time" items. I suspect that arrows were fairly near and dear and subsequently the number in possession and carried was rather low.
|
|
|
Post by crzhrs on Aug 15, 2008 11:41:10 GMT -6
By 1876 many of the reservation Indians had access to firearms and ammo and I can assume that many of the "hostiles" were able to trade with their reservation kin for weapons.
Still the bow and arrow was a primary weapon used by Indians for hunting and warfare. Most warriors had become expert archers since they probably learned to use the B&A since childhood.
There were not really that many dead soldiers from Reno's command and any weapons/ammos taken from them would not have made a big difference in fighting Custer.
I have to believe that the B&A was a primary weapon due to the fact that arrows could be fired from concealment and at a rapid rate to fall on soldiers and mounts to take it's toll. In addition "spent" arrows could be re-used whereas cartridges were more difficult to reload due to lack of powder.
In addition many of the younger warriors may not have been able to acquire firearms and had to rely on the B&A for warfare.
|
|
|
Post by conz on Aug 15, 2008 12:17:44 GMT -6
Well, you expand the discussion to the more basic points of what kinds and number of weapons the Sioux and Cheyenne Warriors here were using, and how they used them.
Here are some assumptions I make, and anyone is invited to challenge or expand on them:
1) Only 30% of the Warriors had any kind of firearm, and half of them obsolete. Let's call 30% to be around 700 rifles/smoothbore muskets, and out of those, maybe 200-250 Henrys, Winchesters, Spencers, or Sharps modern weapons. So out of perhaps 2,100 warriors, 200 of them had weapons akin to the Soldiers.
2) Of these 700 Warriors with rifles, only 100-200 of them could hit the broadside of a barn with them. They had no marksmanship training, and never enough ammo to train with them if they did. A few dozen Warriors, only, could be considered "crack shots" ala the best Soldier sharpshooters.
3) Nearly ALL the Warriors carried bows and arrows, even the ones that carried rifles. And nearly ALL these Warriors were expert bowmen, by Western standards (certainly among themselves they rated each other as better or worse, in a relative way, just like riding ability).
4) Warriors used the bow and arrow primarily for hunting. Natives rarely hunted in this day with their precious amount of gunpowder munitions. Rifles were for warfare; bow and arrow was for hunting and warfare.
5) At every firefight except the long-range skirmishing at the Reno defense site, more Soldiers were initially hit by arrow fire than rifle fire. More Soldiers were killed by knives, hatchets, and lances than by any kind of ranged weapon. Most Soldiers died in hand-to-hand combat, not by fire at all.
In short, contrary to public perceptions, most Soldiers died in close combat, and the Soldiers that did die by fire, it was by arrow fire, not rifle fire.
Clair
|
|
tatanka
Full Member
Live for today like there was no tomorrow
Posts: 125
|
Post by tatanka on Aug 15, 2008 13:33:52 GMT -6
In Luther Standing Bears' "Land of the Spotted Eagle", there is an excellent account of how both the bow and the arrow were made. The hunting bow and the war bow were made differently. The hunting bow was so powerful it could fire an arrow clean through a buffalo.
|
|
|
Post by clw on Aug 15, 2008 15:05:33 GMT -6
I pretty much agree with Claire. Especially regarding the fact that hand to hand combat brought down most.
As to arrow supply, I think that's somewhere in the middle. There wasn't a 'village arrowmaker' per say. But within each tiospaye there was likely a guy who helped keep the family supplied. However, the norm was for a warrior to make his own. After all, when he wasn't hunting or fighting he didn't have much else more important to do than seeing to his weaponry. There were plenty of arrows, I'm sure.
|
|
|
Post by bc on Aug 15, 2008 21:38:58 GMT -6
Makes me wonder: What types of weaponry did Crook face at the Rosebud?
|
|
|
Post by biggordie on Aug 15, 2008 22:46:17 GMT -6
The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune.
Gordie
|
|
tatanka
Full Member
Live for today like there was no tomorrow
Posts: 125
|
Post by tatanka on Aug 16, 2008 5:45:07 GMT -6
He was fortunate, right enough!
|
|
|
Post by runaheap on Aug 18, 2008 13:18:50 GMT -6
One of the things that lends itself to this thread, is the information that is known. I beleive it was Benteen in his description of the battlefield as stating "I only saw two dead indian ponies on the field". Obviously the indians weren't riding over the 7th ala Errol Flynn in "They died with their boots on". The 7th wasn't loaded with a buch of carbine experts, but they could surely hit a horse. There had to be a lot of indians dismounted and in defilade (the ravines and rolling ground that would offer protection for the indians is significant). No doubt those with firearms were on the crest of this defilade and the indians with bows were elbowing each other for a shot. Along with this conjecture, however, (if one takes any value of the Fox Archeological find) the lack, or small portion of arrow heads discovered. I realise that flint tips aren't going to be located by any metal detectors! I also wonder how many arrows were retreived by the indians ( I'd bet a bunch). So if we look at the terain and the amount of indian partisipants, I would have to say the air was probably dark with the nasty things.
|
|
|
Post by sherppa on Sept 3, 2008 20:50:48 GMT -6
Thank you all, for you assistance and input.
I have surmised that the bow and arrow were the primary weapon of the Warriors followed by guns, and then by close contact weapons, (knives, clubs, lances).
sherppa
|
|
|
Post by conz on Sept 20, 2008 11:30:14 GMT -6
A Kate Bighead interview, who was there, and watched the action closely...
"The Indians were using bows and arrows much more than they were using guns. Many of them had no guns, and not many who did have them had also plenty of bullets. But even if they had been well supplied with both guns and bullets, in that fight the bow was better. As the soldier ridge sloped on all sides, and as there were no trees on it nor around it, the smoke from each gun fired showed right where the shooter was hidden. The arrows made no smoke, so it could not be seen where they came from. Also, since a bullet has to go straight out from the end of a gun, any Indian who fired his gun had to put his head up so his eyes could see where to aim it. By doing this his head might be seen by a soldier and hit by a soldier bullet. The Indian could keep himself at all times out of sight when sending arrows. Each arrow was shot far upward and forward, not at any soldier in particular, but to curve down and fall where they were. Bullets would not do any harm if shot in that way. But a rain of arrows from thousands of Indian bows, and kept up for a long time, would hit many soldiers and their horses by falling and sticking into their heads or their backs."
Clair
|
|
|
Post by AZ Ranger on Sept 21, 2008 16:53:40 GMT -6
So the Indians that went after Reno had all the guns and then didn't use them for Custer?
There is very few arrow casualties with Reno at least if shot means firearm wound. Also any competent hunter should know the difference between an arrow wound that killed and a bullet wound. Unless there was no blade it would trauma damage around the blade entrance hole. If you shove an arrow in a bullet hole of a dead animal or person it cuts but does not leave the trauma.
AZ Ranger
|
|
|
Post by conz on Sept 21, 2008 19:52:56 GMT -6
Okay...so we focus our research a bit...what is the evidence for what kinds of casualties Reno's men took during his retreat from the valley?
Surely you are not including any wounds endured after getting to the top of the bluffs, right? Only those in the valley count...
But, very few casualties were taken in the valley until the end of his retreat, and don't you agree that most of these were in close combat, and not arrow nor rifle fire?
So what casualties are you talking about? Surely you understand that Reno's position on top of the bluffs had long fields of fire that precluded the use of arrow fire...only their few rifles could reach that far (well, they easily more then doubled their ownership of long-range modern rifles and ammunition after taking Custer's weapons).
So I'm not sure you can use any of the Reno fight as evidence against the premise that most of the fire fighting against Custer was done with arrows, and not rifles, as Kate and many others have testified.
Clair
|
|