|
Post by AZ Ranger on May 11, 2013 22:05:05 GMT -6
Mike my current opinion of the range is 1,500 to 2,500 warriors with 1,500 as low as I would go and it could be greater than 2,500 without any concern by me. I believe that there were sufficient warriors that did not engage Reno remaining that could do what they did to Custer
Regards
AZ Ranger
|
|
|
Post by Mike Powell on May 12, 2013 5:35:09 GMT -6
Thanks, Steve.
And I apologize for having been so far off in my assumption of where you stood.
Mike
|
|
|
Post by wild on May 12, 2013 6:11:09 GMT -6
Mike my current opinion of the range is 1,500 to 2,500 warriors with 1,500 as low as I would go To the trooper fighting for his life those numbers if augmented by a similar number of second liners will appear overwhelming.He will not be able to differientiate between age groups and all will appear lethal.
|
|
|
Post by AZ Ranger on May 12, 2013 7:21:22 GMT -6
Thanks, Steve. And I apologize for having been so far off in my assumption of where you stood. Mike Mike If the numbers of warriors is less than 1,000 and if they had close to that number attacking Reno then Custer would then have free movement except for a few resident older, children, and women. That plays into the theory that the failure was due to Reno and end of story. My belief it would not take an overwhelming force that remained to attack Custer. A force nearly the size of the one attacking Reno would be sufficient given the terrain corridors and most likely the Custer battalion never went on defense with the five companies in support of each other. We rode the back side of the Keogh area last year and I was surprised at how much cover and concealment was available at close range to where Keogh ended up. It could have easily held a force of sufficient size to overwhelm his position in my opinion. I would like to have had questions asked of Benteen on why his opinion changed. Was it because of how quickly they overwhelmed Custer. The questions was asked how many Indians but he answered in warriors. I would have liked them to clarify that. He still stated what he believed at the time was 2,500 warriors and did not explain what caused his opinion to change. Since it was Benteen's estimate of how many surrounded Reno Hill it would have little bearing on Reno that would cause a negative impact. Without the clarification his 9,000 opinion several years seems a useless bit of data. I believe that the line of questioning did not continue because the answer would further any evidence that would help the judges determine good or bad actions taken by Reno. Certainly 2,500 was sufficient to surround Reno Hill. Regards AZ Ranger
|
|
|
Post by fuchs on May 12, 2013 8:07:15 GMT -6
If the numbers of warriors is less than 1,000 and if they had close to that number attacking Reno then Custer would then have free movement except for a few resident older, children, and women. That plays into the theory that the failure was due to Reno and end of story. My belief it would not take an overwhelming force that remained to attack Custer. A force nearly the size of the one attacking Reno would be sufficient given the terrain corridors and most likely the Custer battalion never went on defense with the five companies in support of each other. According to the warrior names Fred collected where we are reasonably sure if they fought in the valley, Custer/Keogh or both, close to twice the number engaged in the valley was active in total on the 25th. In other words, even if Reno had presented enough of a challenge that no warriors from his end of the fight could have moved on to the Custer fight, still about the same number would have been available for Custer. Plus several hundred more if Custer had actually managed to threaten the families. Are those guys that argue "all would have been well if Reno had stayed longer in the timber" proposing that warriors would had just kept piling into the valley fight? Completely emptying the camp and leaving the families unprotected? Wasn't Custer's advance noticed by significant warrior numbers about around the time Reno performed his charge to the rear/retrograde/flight? Obviously even 500 or less warriors were enough to keep Reno from advancing, still everyone else would have joined there and ignored Custer?
|
|
|
Post by fred on May 12, 2013 14:25:59 GMT -6
My numbers of warriors is based on a number of basic calculations. While I tend to key on Benteen's figure of 900 warriors facing Reno when Benteen arrived on Reno Hill-- or shortly thereafter-- there are several other estimates that when added together, divided, also reach that 900 area. I use the same technique in determining several other things, including time spent doing certain events. The consistency works, because other areas enter the picture to verify... or at least support... that methodology.
As miuch as I would like to believe the Indian figures were in the 4,000-warrior range, I can not support that claim. The best I can come up with is 2,072 warriors, total, involved in the Reno fight and the Custer fight. Any number above that would be warriors that did not get into the fight at all, and I believe there were several hundred of that kind. "Several," to me, has always meant "5" or "6." I cannot justify more than that and I think the only way one might be able to do so would be to more clearly define what they think a "warrior" is.
Someone wanted to know who and where the 1,500 or 1,800 rings came from. In July 1877, Hugh L. Scott counted 1,800 rings from the village, plus a number of wickiups [Walter Camp letters and interviews, Hardorff, On the Little Bighorn With Walter Camp, p. 187].
As for the "9,000" business, I interpret those comments to be Indians, not warriors. Benteen never said "9,000 warriors," specifically, just 9,000 and when you read the context of what and how it was said, he could just as easily have been referring to total Indians. As for Wallace, who knows? Maybe it was just a transposition error... after all, the inquiry was taken down by reporters and maybe they just got it wrong. Anyway, I reject 9,000 warriors and I am the leader in "high" numbers.
Best wishes, Fred.
|
|
|
Post by fuchs on May 13, 2013 1:22:49 GMT -6
Someone wanted to know who and where the 1,500 or 1,800 rings came from. In July 1877, Hugh L. Scott counted 1,800 rings from the village, plus a number of wickiups [Walter Camp letters and interviews, Hardorff, On the Little Bighorn With Walter Camp, p. 187]. Fred, could you clarify what exactly was in the primary source, ">1500" or "1800"? And i would like to note that lodge circles can stay visible for decades or even centuries, and that the LBH site would have been unlikely to been used just once. Could one distinguish between a lodge site that was 1,3, or 10 years old? Just an idea ... (Laubin, The Indian Tipi; the poster "Brock" who was active here a few years ago and toured the countryside extensively with descendants of the "Hostiles") Haven't got my notes here, but I think one witness at the RCOI explained that he reached his estimate of 1500 lodges by counting a sample area with 40 lodges, and extrapolated this to the whole area occupied by the camp. Did this just after the Indians decamped, this would most likely make clear which sites where "fresh" and which not.
|
|
|
Post by fred on May 13, 2013 5:42:17 GMT -6
Fuchs, Hare [RCOI] was with the battalion that burned the lodge poles after the fight. In his immediate area he counted 40 lodge rings. By estimating the entire area he concluded there were 1,500 lodges and 500 wickiups, a fighting force of some 4,000 warriors. “ nd that is a very low estimate.” [297]
Herendeen [RCOI] estimated there were 1,500 lodges. “I have seen a great many camps and this was the largest I ever saw by a great deal.” [261] “I have always estimated them at that number. I have seen 700 or 800 lodges together before and I judge there were all of 1,800 there.” [262] “In my opinion they moved the camp the day before we got there in the morning. It covered a great deal of ground they were not using when we got there.” [261]
Walter Mason Camp’s notes: COL Hugh L. Scott… “Says the [Little Bighorn] river was named after the animal ‘bighorn’, and it should be written ‘Little Bighorn.’ In July 1877 he counted 1800 places where the Indians had tepees in the village the year before. Says there had been wickiups besides these.” [Hardorff, On the LBH With Walter Camp, 187]
Best wishes, Fred.
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on May 13, 2013 7:02:23 GMT -6
I doubt many lodges left a circle on the American prairie visible many weeks after it was taken down, and that only if there was no precipitation, wind, or traffic across it, highly unlikely. The American west would look much different if this were so.
Further, whatever there is to know about lodge circles was probably known to Herendeen and crew who could distinguish new and not as new and factor that in.
Three years previous, in Nebraska, the Brule and the Oglala put together 1k-1.5k warriors (allow for exaggeration and go with 900) and went after the Pawnee, resulting in Massacre Canyon. This was the year Custer fought one or two Indians along the Yellowstone, but they weren't the same guys. Plus those on the Rez, plus those hunting, plus those who wandered about leaving no paper trail at all.
Near all the accounts say that Sitting Bull was looking for a fight, and this was a strong attraction to young men, warriors, to get status, because they couldn't fight each other much anymore.
|
|
|
Post by Mike Powell on May 13, 2013 7:06:27 GMT -6
Fred,
Though my gut wants to reject that Benteen meant warriors when he said "between 8 or 9 thousand" that is I believe the clear meaning of his words since he himself inserts the term "warriors" (the context is the withdrawal of the command from the advance led by Weir):
Q. Give your estimate of the number of Indians that pursued or engaged that command on its return within engaging distance. A. I thought at that time there were about 2500 warriors surrounding us. I think now there were between 8 or 9 thousand.
Q. I refer in my question to the time the command was moving back to take position and not to the engagement that followed. A. I think they were all coming.
As to Wallace, I don't see the possibility of misunderstanding or transposition since he explains his estimate and the arithmetic involved.
Q, What opinion did you form of the number of fighting men in that Indian procession? A. At the time I thought there were some four or five thousand. From what I have heard from Indians since, I think there were nine thousand.
Followed shortly by:
Then in estimating the number of Indians you saw there, on what do you base your estimate? A. Principally on information received from the Indians when I say 9000 warriors. Q. At the usual proportion of women and children, what would have been the population of that village? A, That is what I don't know. The population of the village I can only get at by the stories the Indians tell, their estimate. Q. Do you know anything about the proportion of women and children to warriors in a band of Indians? A. No,sir. I have heard several stories and they state they had 1800 lodges and counted from 5 to 7 warriors to a lodge and there were several wickiups in which visiting bucks were living.
Those "5 to 7 warriors to a lodge" and 1800 lodges give a range of 9000 to 12,600 warriors before "visiting bucks" are added.
Lee clearly heard and understood 9000 warriors; in his report to the Court:
I desire to especially invite the attention of the Court to the great diversity of opinions as to the number of hostile Indians. The estimates vary all the way from 1500 to 9000 warriors.
And his summation of the issue might may point to a rough landing for this discussion thread:
Major Reno in his official report says, "I think we were fighting all the Sioux nation and also all the desperadoes, renegades, half-breeds and squaw men between the Missouri and the Arkansas, and east of the Rocky Mountains, and they must have numbered at least 2500 warriors." It will thus be seen that there are no means of arriving at anything like a reasonably correct estimate of the number of warriors in that hostile village. Judging from the variety of opinions, that matter cannot be settled. I fear it will forever remain involved in doubt and obscurity.
|
|
|
Post by AZ Ranger on May 13, 2013 7:43:19 GMT -6
I would think that from Weir it would be difficult to distinguish a 14 year old, woman, or male over 40. If the battle was over there could be thousands more that would be observed.
I suspect they waited as long as they could before engagement began to give the pack train and wounded time to get back to Reno Hill.
Benteen stated that they we following the trail of around 10,000 Indians. Of that number I doubt he would believe the 8 to 9,000 were warriors.
Without clarifying how he derived the numbers it is what it is . Could be he meant Indians or that they were all warriors once the entered to the battlefield to kill the wounded.
I don't know and neither does anyone else.
The 2,500 was sufficient so any more really didn't matter. That he changed his opinion years later is not relevant to the court of inquiry. What he believed on that day is relevant. 900 hundred in the valley and 2,500 coming to surround them on Reno Hill.
I'll stick with those numbers with a range around them.
AZ Ranger
|
|
|
Post by fred on May 13, 2013 8:06:01 GMT -6
Mike, Steve, and DC,
The problem I have with much of this-- and DC keeps me honest here-- is that none of it is definitive, and even the RCOI went through a number of filters. I do not believe there was ever an "official" recording of the testimonies, but what we have has been given us by "media" of the day reporters. Even that differs somewhat from the various editions we see today, whether they be on the Internet or in Ron Nichol's reprints.
Furthermore, I never use-- in any of my work, DC-- Indian numbers. I do use their accounts, however many years later, and especially if they are corroborated by the accounts of others, regardless of the vicissitudes of translators and sign language.
The only "numerical" I use regarding Indian accounts has to do with time, and even that is restricted to two things: (1) noon, and (2) relatives, i.e., the time it takes for the sun to move the width of a lodge pole. That latter ain't two hours, though it could be ten minutes or fifteen... the difference being irrelevant.
As to "noon," it is the easiest time to assess of all the minutes and hours in a day. Even that, however, has its drawbacks and I consider those drawbacks in my time-lines by making "around noon" estimates. Those estimates work rather well with the very few watch readings we can point to. When I have 30+ accounts telling me the gun fire began around noon, I can pretty much rule out John Gray's 3:18 PM claim of the beginning of Reno's attack.
Again, I accept-- as well as reject-- DC's remonstrances with much of this, by publicly claiming virtually everything we have regarding this thing falls into a "% possibility/probability" curve. It is not science, but otherwise I-- we!-- would have nothing. Not even the Rodney King video tells the truth, does it?
Best wishes, Fred.
|
|
|
Post by fred on May 13, 2013 8:09:25 GMT -6
By the way...
I just realized the situation with Chuck's wife. My sincerest prayers go out to my friend.
I also just realized this loss to "wild." This loss was made all the more poignant to me because on Friday I met my son for the first time in 16 years. We patched up old differences and old wounds... and I would rather pass on than to lose him again.
My very best to all of you... even those without such recent losses.
Best wishes, Fred.
|
|
|
Post by Mike Powell on May 13, 2013 8:37:49 GMT -6
Wallace and Benteen spoke strikingly similar at the Inquiry, in summary paraphrasing;
"I now know there were many more warriors than I thought I saw that day."
For Wallace, "There were about twice as many as I thought."
For Benteen, "There were close to three and a half times as many as I thought."
Of course it does not matter in terms of the actual outcome (there were sufficient times n warriors) but it does raise a question in my mind. Was the 1800 lodge count and Wallace's quoted "5 to 7 warriors to a lodge" so irrefutable that on its face it forced them to completely disbelieve what they had seen? Or was it, for whatever reason, something they now wanted to believe?
When two guys swear, "Yeah, I said that but I was way off base", especially when one of them in particular is held to be a senior, very experienced and reliable hand, I find it curious.
|
|
|
Post by Yan Taylor on May 13, 2013 8:38:42 GMT -6
Good afternoon everyone. I have no idea on the totals you guys are posting, but if the village did contain upwards of 9000 people, would they be able to sustain themselves, maybe so I don’t really know, but to feed a number of this size would take a hell of a lot of hunting.
Thanks Fred, great news concerning your son as family means everything in my book.
Ian.
|
|