|
Post by steve1956 on Apr 19, 2012 7:27:12 GMT -6
An awful lot of Indians.......So..Correct me here,but the basic accounts I've read imply the group that fought Crook went out from and returned to the same village.....ie It was much the same force as at LBH...I take it this is an unwarrented assumption?
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Apr 19, 2012 7:47:45 GMT -6
Steve: Fred has never once led me down the garden path. Figures I have seen range from 900 (utter nonsense) to 5000 (a little to high for my taste). That is dismissing the 9000 of the RCOI as a mis-speak.
Running his numbers quickly in my head 2/3 of the village at Rosebud would make the 1200 of Rosebud 1800 full TO&E. 800 more on the double trail (sounds reasonable). That takes it to 2600, and say another grand on the trail detected post battle and we are in the neighborhood of 36 Double 0.
That would make the odds 6 to 1. That would make the odds a bazillion to one at any given point of contact were all to be engaged against any one force, which they were not. In any case such numbers tell us one important thing. There were sufficient forces to fight three battles here and win without resorting to anyone reinforcing anyone. Case in point. Had not one warrior that faced Reno gone after Custer, there would still be plently left to thump him. Had not any warrior that fought Custer or Reno gone after the Reno Hill position there would still be enough to contain Reno/Benteen and had they set their mind to it defeated them. All this given that they had deliberatly divided themselves three ways. 1200 after Reno's 150. 1200 after Custer's 210. 1200 after Reno/Benteen' s approx 375.
Numbers mean something, unless like our other friends, these numbers are manipulated downward to fit a theory of the battle which is completely dishonest on the face of it.
|
|
|
Post by fred on Apr 19, 2012 7:54:28 GMT -6
Correct me here,but the basic accounts I've read imply the group that fought Crook went out from and returned to the same village.....ie It was much the same force as at LBH...I take it this is an unwarrented assumption? Steve, This is one of the constant battles I have with some people. Every indication I have come across tells me "more" rather than "less." To me, figuring this is sort of like figuring the "time" events: you need to start with a pretty firm number and add or subtract from there. There are three fairly well accepted numbers: (1) the Bradley/Boyer figures of 350 to 400 tepees on the Tongue and lower Rosebud, along with the attendant number of 800 warriors; (2) the Crook estimates of 1,000 to 1,200 warriors; and (3) a reasonably accepted % of Indians left behind to guard a village of families, 1/3 to 1/2 of available warriors. Since we can only make reasonable and intelligent estimates based on what we have before us-- adding in a little logic-- we should conclude that the Indians that attacked Crook included all those whose trails were seen in the Rosebud valley. So if you accept 1,200 attacking Crook, then use the most conservative estimate of those warriors left behind, that would be another 400. We are now at the 1,600 figure, minimum. How many came down the LBH valley? Define a "very heavy trail." To answer your question... simply augment the group that attacked Crook, the group along the Rosebud, with the additional force that came down the LBH valley. To do that, you have to define that heavy trail. That's the number on June 25. Best wishes, Fred.
|
|
|
Post by steve1956 on Apr 19, 2012 8:06:59 GMT -6
Yes,even if Crook overestimated(possible), 2000+ sounds a good minimum to me........Question,as I feel my way through this...Is there one book which just contains all the participants stories on both sides?......No commentary,no theories,just what they wrote /said.....I need to lose authors ideas........
|
|
|
Post by fred on Apr 19, 2012 8:20:12 GMT -6
Steve and Queenie,
I did a little study I included in this new book of mine (well... at this point, manuscript). I started with the average number of Indians reportedly fighting Reno, then went through every document I had containing names of warriors known to have been in each phase of the battle, and culled out those who were known to have fought only Reno. That gave me a percentage. Multiplying that % by the Reno fighters, it gave me an approximate number of warriors that joined those that fought only Custer. It was of minimal significance and not enough certainly to matter.
To me, that negates two arguments. Argument #1-- fewer Indians rather than more; and argument #2-- that Reno's supposedly hasty retreat from the timber released the Indians that caused Custer's defeat.
The issue is that the only "proof" those who disagree have is emotion. Participant accounts coupled with even a modest attempt at empiricism are all discarded and replaced with that emotion.
A few years ago, a poster who disagreed with me after I put up more than 40 examples of "more," examples left behind by participants, their contemporaries, census numbers, ration numbers, etc., said, "Well, the best information..." he saw.... Think about that comment within the context of our discussion: what "best information"?
We were never told.
Best wishes, Fred.
|
|
|
Post by fred on Apr 19, 2012 8:26:30 GMT -6
Is there one book which just contains all the participants stories on both sides?......No commentary,no theories,just what they wrote /said.....I need to lose authors ideas........ I hate to sound like a racetrack tout, but the book I had published lists almost 1,500 Indian participants and brief biographies of most. It also gives a breakdown of Indians known or believed to have fought Reno; known or believed to have fought Custer; and several other aggregate groups. In addition, I am planning to submit another manuscript with the writings and accounts of more than 200 participants-- white and red-- collated from whatever sources they contributed to. The problem with this latter one is that it will be about 1,000 pages. Don't know how to get around that unless it is published in volumes. Best wishes, Fred.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Apr 19, 2012 8:56:09 GMT -6
Steve: You are fairly new here, and probably do not know that I personally feel a lot more comfortable with the Alamo than I do and probably ever will about LBH.
That all said, a book such as you describe would be the holy grail. There are two about the Alamo that fit this discription thankfully.
The first is the "Blood of Noble Men" witten by Alan Huffines and illustrated (maps and drawings) by Gary Zaboly. This book divides the seige by day and inserts only the various bits of testimony for each day. The drawings illustrate where each of these testimonial events took place. Wonderful book
The second is the "Alamo Reader" by Todd Hansen. It collects every known Alamo document, bit of testimony and later journal articles by participants/witnesses., 835 pages worth.
So these things can be done. They have been done. Problem is though that while the Alamo has its partisanships, they are nothing compaired to LBH. Such a book, to see the light of day would probably not be much of a commercial success, because they would be subject to the same old crap we hear on the other board. When a piece of information casts a bad light on a particular "hero" the first word you hear is lie, followed by drunk, coward, libertine, obfuscator and so forth. About the only thing I have not heard about Benteen and Reno is that they were in a long lasting clandestine sexual relationship with their horses. So that as I see it is the obstacle.
Now the names Benteen and Reno could be easily substituted for by anyone who happens to be one their S**t list du jour. The they in question is the Irish Buffoon, him of the cheap costumes and overinflated sense of importance, his acolytes, lap dogs, ass kissers and favor seekers. The Clown Prince of Pretention despises those who dare besmirch the name of he who is all holy, and automaticly cast into the camp of the Custer haters anyone that is critical of anything to do with Custer from generalship to shoe size. With such people sense cannot be made, theories developed, or outlines made. It is all about taking sides and it is a major distraction to those who only wish to reach an appreciation of what happened, and the aproximate reasons why.
But who knows - someday.
|
|
|
Post by Margaret on Apr 19, 2012 10:38:03 GMT -6
A reconnaissance was made to-day by Captain Ball, of the Second Cavalry, along the trail made by the Indians when they left the valley. He reports that they divided into two parties, one of which kept the valley of Long Fork, making, he thinks, for the Big Horn Mountains; the other turned more to the eastward. He also discovered a very heavy trail leading into the valley that is not more than five days old. This trail is entirely distinct from the one which Custer followed, and would seem to show that at least two large bands united here just before the battle...."
....I was quite intrigued when I read that some time ago as it sounds quite dramatic but on reflection, I wonder if Captain Ball misread these trails as did all the others leading up to it, apparently. The reason I question this is because the Indian village after leaving the forks of Reno Creek went down to the Little Bighorn and then turned south up the valley - not sure how far - but camped for about 5 nights before about turning and going back down the valley northwards just before the battle. Interestingly, I think, they also camped on the East side of the Little Bighorn during these 5 nights. Looking at the map perhaps the area around Owl Creek/Grey Blanket Creek might have been a suitable camp ground on that side.
I imagine it must have been perplexing for Captain Ball to find so many trails going this way and that, arriving, leaving and coming back again, but he could not have known that the village went one way and then backtracked. It also ties in with his 'heavy trail leading into the valley' and 'not more than five days old'....
I would also have thought that if there was another such large trail, quite separate by a different group of Indians, that at some later time, somebody somewhere would have noted evidence of it and made some comment for history, but I don't recall reading anything on that other than what Mr Ball has said.
I am only going by what Kate Bighead had to say as reported to Thomas Marquis:-
...The six camps moved the next morning down to the east side of the Little Bighorn, above the mouth of Reno creek. We stayed there five nights. There were more Indians in those six camps than I ever saw together anywhere else..... the chiefs from all the camps, in council, decided we should move down the Little Bighorn river to it's mouth.....All the Indians crossed to the west side of the Little Bighorn.....
I accept that Kate, as thought by others, may have got her east's, west's, norths and souths mixed up, I'm not sure, but in this instance I feel it's clear which side she meant. ...does this mean anything to anyone?
|
|
|
Post by stevewilk on Apr 19, 2012 12:39:03 GMT -6
Is there one book which just contains all the participants stories on both sides?......No commentary,no theories,just what they wrote /said.....I need to lose authors ideas........ I hate to sound like a racetrack tout, but the book I had published lists almost 1,500 Indian participants and brief biographies of most. It also gives a breakdown of Indians known or believed to have fought Reno; known or believed to have fought Custer; and several other aggregate groups. In addition, I am planning to submit another manuscript with the writings and accounts of more than 200 participants-- white and red-- collated from whatever sources they contributed to. The problem with this latter one is that it will be about 1,000 pages. Don't know how to get around that unless it is published in volumes. Best wishes, Fred. steve1956; try these two: Lakota and Cheyenne: Indian Views of the Great Sioux War 1876-1877Battles and Skirmishes of the Great Sioux War 1876-1877: The Military Viewboth compiled and edited by Jerome A. Greene
|
|
|
Post by fred on Apr 19, 2012 12:48:03 GMT -6
I doubt Ball misread anything.
You are correct by saying the Indians left the Reno Creek valley and turned left, up the LBH, making camp for a few days. They did not crossed the river in that instance, however, until their scouts informed them of the large herds to the north. That was when they crossed and wound up where they were at the time of the fight. The camp up the LBH was not terribly far and I think we need to give these soldiers a little more credit for understanding the difference between tracks "coming" and tracks "going." I think we also need to give them a little more credit for understanding the age of the various camps, despite the Seventh's blundering along the Rosebud. Even Godfrey had to be able to tell the difference between a horse going one way and a horse going the other.
It is the same thing with the village at the battle site when a number of tepees were moved the night of the 25th. I think even I could tell the difference between a one-night lodge and those being in place for two or three days.
And while I appreciate inquisitive minds I find it increasingly annoying with all the second-guessing of these various accounts, especially since most of it is done to fulfill some theory. And Helford, don't blow your stack or take umbrage at what I am saying here, but this is a common trait amongst people with hoary old preconceptions. The "meaning" of the Martini note is a perfect example; Benteen's instructions are another... and so on. When you add all these things together, they intimate "conspiracies" or that notion, whether someone thinks they began ten minutes after the last man died, 2 1/2 years later, or 40 years later. My response is, "Nonsense." I question things that do not make sense or that are contradicted by other sources, but I have to give experienced men the benefit of the doubt, especially since Ball was used to this sort of thing and had been in this valley before (though not that far up).
It sort of leads me back to the pretender who said, "Well, the best source I know of...." Yet this "source" is never mentioned and why would it be better than 40 others that were involved?
Best wishes, Fred.
|
|
|
Post by Margaret on Apr 19, 2012 17:03:57 GMT -6
hi Fred, thanks for the reply...
...it's just that I feel I am being asked to accept the presumed expertise of a Capt Ball and those who may have advised him, over the likes of Boyer, Crows and Custer's men.
I'm not suggesting that a large band did not join up with the main one just before the battle, which inflated the numbers considerably, but, according to Capt Ball, this large unknown band following a route 'entirely distinct from the one Custer followed', must have presumably crossed the upper Rosebud, maybe near where that battle took place and then ventured into the Little Bighorn via some regular trail - like Sioux Pass for instance - which brought them out above the main camp to unite with the other further down.
Now that's perfectly possible, yet no one else to my knowledge, has ever been recorded as reporting any evidence of this - no tracks, debris, remains of a moving village...
I realise Terry and Crook's men later went East and North away from the area, but I would have thought that troopers and scouts from Fort Custer, built the following year, might have come across some signs that surely would still have remained, during their excursions in the vicinity.
If Crook had mentioned that Capt Ball had noted that one band had first moved south and then northwards, that would be proof, but Crook in his report doesn't indicate that the Capt. was aware of this. Perhaps it wasn't necessary but in accommodating Kate Bighead's recollections, I think one is entitled to question that Ball got it right.
|
|
|
Post by fred on Apr 19, 2012 19:36:09 GMT -6
...it's just that I feel I am being asked to accept the presumed expertise of a Capt Ball and those who may have advised him, over the likes of Boyer, Crows and Custer's men. Helford, I don't understand your point here. Custer, the Crows, and Boyer would have nothing to do with Ball's findings up the LBH valley. Custer, et al., never went that way and would not have seen any camps south of Reno Creek. How would that relate to what Ball reported? He claimed-- if I may paraphrase his intent here-- large numbers of Indians were traveling down the LBH valley-- northward-- and would have passed through that camp, probably because the river swung to the west and Indians moving toward the camp would have traveled along its eastern side. Not necessarily. My books and newer maps are packed away, but I have a copy of Terry's map and it is easy to see how Indians could have swung south of Crook and entered the LBH valley without Crook knowing it. We tend to forget about Eugene Carr and the Fifth Cavalry. Sheridan was concerned Indians would escape to the south and he was concerned more and more would leave the agencies so he ordered Carr out along with eight companies of the Fifth Cavalry and the scouts, “Buffalo Bill” Cody, Baptiste “Little Bat” Garnier, William F. Schmalsle, and Jonathan White. Carr couldn't control the agencies and his columns continuously reported very large trails leaving them and heading in the direction of the Big Horn Mountains. Very few reported travois trails indicating warriors as opposed to families. Fort Custer was built at the confluence of the LBH and Big Horn rivers and I see no real reason for sending patrols a great distance up that way... or at least so far to check old Indian trails, especially since the Sioux and Cheyenne had been mostly corralled by that time. I do not understand this at all. Ball had nothing to do with Crook; he was part of Gibbon's command and Crook didn't get into the LBH valley. Crook got more heavily involved in the campaign after the Custer fight and Indians moving down the LBH valley prior to the battle would have been merely incidental in relation to everything that went on later. Besides, many of the Indians at the LBH simply returned to the agencies and were not involved in the festivities in late-1876 and 1877. I also see no issue with what Kate Bighead had to say or how it even relates to anything Ball claimed. Indians came and went from this "mother" village every day, and there are numerous reports from other Sioux sources saying more Indians joined after the Crook-Rosebud fight. Best wishes, Fred.
|
|
|
Post by El Crab on Apr 20, 2012 0:47:12 GMT -6
Yes,even if Crook overestimated(possible), 2000+ sounds a good minimum to me........Question,as I feel my way through this...Is there one book which just contains all the participants stories on both sides?......No commentary,no theories,just what they wrote /said.....I need to lose authors ideas........ This is my beef with Hardorff. He seems to be the worst about interjecting his own beliefs into what probably should be just the accounts. That said, I already own several of his books and did just order two more. It's just that I agree with Steve here. I don't understand the point of compiling accounts into a volume, then correcting or stating the meaning of the accounts. If you're putting together a sourcebook, fill it with sources. If you want to write a book on your theories, do that. Fortunately, the accounts that Hardorff compiles are intact, and his interpretations are in the footnotes lower on the page. So it is relatively easy to avoid the opinions and read just the accounts. The editing Hardorff does, as far as I can tell, is just adding in words to make the accounts easier to read, and he brackets said words.
|
|
|
Post by Margaret on Apr 20, 2012 4:25:53 GMT -6
hi Fred,
I'm so sorry for getting Crook and Terry mixed up in my final paragraph. Of course it was Terry that Ball reported to and it was Terry's report incorporating Ball's findings that we are referring to here, not Crooks - I do apologise.
Where I referred to Custer's men, Crows and Boyer, it is considered that they - as a group - misread the trails up the Rosebud. Some very experienced people there, yet I am to accept Capt Ball's readings of the trails he found up the LBH valley as accurate and therefore to be trusted. That was the comparison I was making. I'm not sure I can give Ball that kind of credit.
Obviously I am inferring that the village Kate Bighead was talking about on the East side of the LBH river where they spent about 5 days, south of the Reno Creek confluence, was the same that Capt Ball saw and mistook for an altogether different village entering the valley at that point - wherever that may have been. Therefore 2 large bands did not form there but it was the same band, albeit already growing from incomers following the trail down Reno Creek. That's what I think, and yes I'm afraid I'm accusing Capt Ball of getting it wrong - who am I to argue?... but of course I accept that so many more Indians joined after the Rosebud fight, during those few days before the battle.
Eugene Carr and the 5th were operating much further east near the Black Hills. I wasn't referring to those trails but nearer to hand, some unknown trail between the Rosebud and LBH. I would have thought someone somewhere would have noted something.
I have an opportunity here - unusually - to correct you on a point regarding Fort Custer and it's patrols.
Tom Le Forge was a fort interpreter who also scouted with patrols from that Fort. He reported to adjutant Lt. Roe and usually accompanied Lt. Doane on missions, usually chasing renegade Piegan's stealing stock, and sometimes white raiders, the occasional Sioux or even Crow horse stealer. He often found himself patrolling up the Little Bighorn valley as far as a place today called Wyola. In fact, at this place there was a noted trail leading eastwards to the Rosebud [presumably up Pass Creek], and they had to kill a white raider in this region.
He also spent a lot of time in the battlefield area, often camping below Custer Hill, escorting visitors to the site and spent many hours alone wandering around.
''I saw remnants of soldier bodies as far away as Rosebud Creek, 25 miles to the eastward, rotted army clothing and occasional firearm or ammunition belt, scattered all about the region for ten or fifteen miles....''
he attributed these to missing men who escaped the Custer field, but I suspect they were thrown by Indians or left behind by Crooks and Terry's men when they passed through again later.
''I discovered here and there among the hills the remnants of what once had been a daring and hardy cavalryman following the banner of Custer. In an old blue blouse I found one time a tintype picture of a young woman. I kept it. I never made report on any finds of the human remains, it was not expected of me. I was at times with soldiers when discoveries were made, we merely looked, wondered, conjectured, and went on our way....''
The point here is that patrols from Fort Custer did travel extensively in this area and were not solely confined to the Yellowstone or north of it.
|
|
|
Post by fred on Apr 20, 2012 6:21:48 GMT -6
This is my beef with Hardorff. He seems to be the worst about interjecting his own beliefs into what probably should be just the accounts.... I do not find this to be the case. I agree to a certain extent, but not "the worst." Walter Camp-- to me-- was far worse, interjecting opinions he treated almost as fact and throwing off the reader. I realize Camp probably never wrote that stuff for public consumption, wanting to eventually compile it all into a book of his own-- sort of like Dustin-- but still, one gets some poor routes to follow if reading Camp literally. I am thinking of doing this, but I do not think side commentary is wrong. There is too much stuff that is misleading and I think an author's opinion is valuable as a tool to keep things going in a certain direction. I would be very interested in opinions on this. If you take a look at the "Kanipe" and "Martini" threads, you will see what I mean.Best wishes, Fred.
|
|