|
Post by Yan Taylor on Apr 12, 2013 6:13:24 GMT -6
Good morning you lot, I enjoyed last night’s banter, petty I couldn’t take part.
You have all been discussing totals; well I look at it this way;
In Iraq and Afghanistan it is estimated that the U.S. has fired 250.000 rounds for every insurgent killed.
Custer’s Battalion had around 21000 Carbine rounds and 5250 pistol rounds, that is a grand total of 26.250 rounds, but the hit percentage due to the Troopers being lousy shots would make this total null and void, so if the number of warriors was 1000+ that would be sufficient.
I would love to meet up at LBH with you guy’s, and you never know one day I might just do that.
Ian.
|
|
|
Post by fred on Apr 12, 2013 6:16:49 GMT -6
Now let me see if I have this straight. More numbers serves the Army flacs. It serves the poor George look what he was up against crowd. Fewer numbers serves the vested interests of the Indian flacs. That serves the Indian interests.... Chuck, That is the hoary old excuse, similar to the ones certain idiots who visit this board from time to time and others who are regular next door like to use. If a participant's account are contrary to one's theory, well then, that participant lied. It's like using Martini's 1922 account rather than his RCOI account. Personally, I generally eliminate the extremes, then go with the middle... or the majority. I also think there was a lot more truthfulness and honesty among those men of that era than what we have today. If you count manners, it's a no-brainer. Best wishes, Fred.
|
|
|
Post by fred on Apr 12, 2013 6:19:55 GMT -6
I would love to meet up at LBH with you guy’s, and you never know one day I might just do that. We go every odd-numbered year, generally in June. Generally for 10 days, wandering around the LBH and other battle sites, as well. You would be more than welcome. This year it looks like we will be able to meet with "zekesgirl" and AZ Ranger... hopefully. I am also hoping BC will make it... again. Best wishes, Fred.
|
|
|
Post by Gatewood on Apr 12, 2013 7:07:15 GMT -6
One thing I am troubled by is how these estimates of warrior per shelter were obtained and just how valid do you both think the methodology stands up? QC, I, as I am sure you, have seen numerous accounts by officers and others in which they made statements as to the typical number of warriors per lodge. However, it is impossible to know whether those statements were based upon detailed analysis, just casual "ballpark" observation, or even repeating what they themselves had heard. If I had to guess, I would say that it was mostly casual observation, which may or may not have been particularly correct. Another thing that might come into play is where the observations were made, as the typical numbers of warriors per lodge around the agencies or when "in camp" may have been different from what it was when "in the field". The big uncertainty to me as it pertained to the LBH was how many warriors were visiting. We always talk about the wickiups housing the young roamers from the agencies, and try to estimate their numbers that way, but I have also seen it said, and it seems logical to me, that a good number were also staying as guests in the true lodges, which would naturally drive the average number of warriors per lodge upward to something above the "typical" numbers, and I'm not sure that those particular warriors are adequately accounted for. Another thing that we discuss from time to time but then seem to lose sight of for a while is the arms carried by the various warriors. Perhaps a more important issue for Custer than the number of warriors that he would be facing was the number of modern rifles or carbines that he could anticipate encountering. He knew that many of the Indians had only recently left the agencies and had probably not yet been able to attain adequate arms, so he could well have viewed a large portion of the warriors as being combat ineffective and downplayed the risk on the basis of that. Not saying that was the case, but just speculating as to what might have been as we struggle to understand Custer's mind set and actions.
|
|
|
Post by shatonska on Apr 12, 2013 7:13:26 GMT -6
here are my numbers
reno faced no more than 500 warriors , when on the hill the number in the valley had reached around 800
custer faced maximum 1500 (probably much less )
example , cheyennes led the fight against custer at the beginning , but cheyennes had around 120 lodges (the other 80 lodges were at the agency )with 200 warriors , not all fighting
at the end probably hundreds of boys joined but custer was doomed by around 1000 warriors , more than enough on that battle ground
|
|
|
Post by fuchs on Apr 12, 2013 7:37:20 GMT -6
One thing I am troubled by is how these estimates of warrior per shelter were obtained and just how valid do you both think the methodology stands up? QC, I, as I am sure you, have seen numerous accounts by officers and others in which they made statements as to the typical number of warriors per lodge. However, it is impossible to know whether those statements were based upon detailed analysis, just casual "ballpark" observation, or even repeating what they themselves had heard. If I had to guess, I would say that it was mostly casual observation, which may or may not have been particularly correct. Well said. What is troubling is that reliable data is available, specifically the surrender counts, and to a lesser degree accounts of travelers and traders among the Indians earlier in the 19th century. Example from the Crazy Horse surrender ledger: 145 lodges 217 / 24% adult males 312 / 35% adult females 370 / 41% kids 899 people in total more than 2200 horses On average: 6.2 persons per lodge 1.5 warriors per lodge 10 horses per warrior 2.5 horses per person The Crazy Horse people were involved in pretty heavy fighting, and likely lost quite a few lodges over the winter 1876/77. Accordingly, the number of people per lodge is a bit higher, and the percentage of warriors a bit lower than the average values of 25% warriors and 4-5 people per lodge. EDIT: We always talk about the wickiups housing the young roamers from the agencies, and try to estimate their numbers that way, but I have also seen it said, and it seems logical to me, that a good number were also staying as guests in the true lodges, which would naturally drive the average number of warriors per lodge upward to something above the "typical" numbers, and I'm not sure that those particular warriors are adequately accounted for. That probably refers to a line of argument I was pursuing some time ago on the other board. Argument part 1: no need for wickiups for single warriors - Most of the summer roamers were out complete with their families - Any potential visitor without family had close relatives in the camp - In Lakota society it would simply be inconceivable to deny even a not-so-close-relative a place in the lodge Argument part 2: strong evidence that a lot of the "wickiups" were in fact sweat-lodges - There were lot of "wickiups" before any of the summer roamers arrived - There were a lot of "wickiups" in the Cheyenne camp which comprised the complete Northern Cheyenne tribal division in late 1876- Most/all people that wrote about the Indian summer camp could not distinguish between "wickiups" and sweat-lodges. - there were sweat-lodges in the LBH camp, and quite likely a lot. Argument part 3: if wickiups were used, then not only by single warriors - (real) wickiups were in use in the camp for other purposes that housing single warriors - if the wickiups were used by warriors, it would be both those with and without families (see Arg.1) Most of these bulletpoints are directly from contemporary sources. The details are scattered about this thread: thelbha.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=miscindian&thread=1674&page=1
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Apr 12, 2013 9:07:20 GMT -6
Fred: In case you had not noticed I am a hoary old guy. What you quoted from me was an excuse list,
It would be nice to know the exact numbers I suppose. I think though, that whether the number was as low as 900, or as high as 4000, it is safe to say that they were more than sufficient for the task at hand.
|
|
|
Post by fred on Apr 12, 2013 10:01:32 GMT -6
reno faced no more than 500 warriors , when on the hill the number in the valley had reached around 800 custer faced maximum 1500 (probably much less ) example , cheyennes led the fight against custer at the beginning , but cheyennes had around 120 lodges (the other 80 lodges were at the agency )with 200 warriors , not all fighting at the end probably hundreds of boys joined but custer was doomed by around 1000 warriors.... Not a bad summation, though statistical studies will show your numbers against Custer are way too low. Estimates fighting Reno were in the 500 to 600 range, until Crazy Horse showed up. Crazy Horse traveled at the head of some 200 to 250 warriors. That would average out to about 900 warriors at the maximum in the valley at around the time Benteen showed up. That estimate is very good and was attested to by several eye-witnesses. A statistical analysis of known warriors fighting either battle and both battles-- Reno, then Custer-- indicates some 399 Indians who fought Reno, also fought Custer. Based on the same statistical methodology, it would indicate just under 2,100 Indians engaged in the Custer fighting. Best wishes, Fred.
|
|
|
Post by fred on Apr 12, 2013 10:12:24 GMT -6
Most of the summer roamers were out complete with their families - Any potential visitor without family had close relatives in the camp - In Lakota society it would simply be inconceivable to deny even a not-so-close-relative a place in the lodge I would like to see proof of this, and not just some link from the other boards... which I do not visit. To me, these are assumptions that fly in the face of too many contemporary accounts. As I said before, I am flexible on the total number of Sioux living in 1876, but considerably less so regarding the numbers at the LBH. I see no reason why 55 to 60% or more of all living Sioux could not have been there, especially considering reports from experienced frontiersmen and scouts claiming this was the largest assemblage of Sioux they had ever heard of or seen. You are also ignoring descriptive commentary of the battle by a number of the Indians that fought it. Best wishes, Fred.
|
|
|
Post by fuchs on Apr 12, 2013 10:27:17 GMT -6
Fuchs, I have no doubt the numbers were inflated, but I find it extremely difficult to believe so many people could be so fooled for so long. Who cared back then? What was issued to the Indians in annuities and rations was likely the literal "peanuts" in the great scheme of things, especially considered the reputation for rampant corruption of the administration at the time. Agents got their posts not because they were qualified for the job, but due to cronyism or happenstance. Back in the east almost no one had much of a clue what went on on the reservations. Could you explicitly cite some numbers/sources from pre-1875 that support a Lakota population well in excess of 20000? Numbers that are based on analysis and/or experience with the Indians? Gray does cite several in his book supporting a number of 15000, of people who knew the Indians and traveled among them, and who did the analysis down to the separate tribal divisions: (Table 8, Centennial Campaign, Yanktonnai+Cheyenne excluded, rounded to 100s) 15800 ; 1850, Culbertson (Fur Trader) 13400 ; 1861 Annual report of the Commissioner of Indian Affairs 15500 ; 1866 Treaty negotiator Edwards 14400 ; 1867 Jim Bridger and Mitch Boyer 12900 ; 1869 Annual report of the Commissioner of Indian Affairs (General Stanley) In Bray's paper there are several more primary sources cited that support a Lakota population growing from about 10000 to 15000 between about 1800 and 1875. The references to the primary sources are in the book/paper. I cannot check the primary sources, but unless shown otherwise one would have to assume that those numbers are indeed correctly cited. Not everyone, my argument would rather be that those knowledgeable and analytical enough to get to sound numbers were far and few in between, especially in the army. Almost nobody in the army was interested in the Indians. Experience showed that the Indians, on average, were obviously no serious thread to any remotely competently led military unit, no matter the numbers. The army could do its job without getting the numbers right down to scientific standards, most of the time. But, if your detachment just gloriously defeated a number of savages, what numbers of hostiles will likely get reported? Conservative or generous estimate? How much more so if you just got unexplainably whipped? The small community of people more familiar with the Indians (scouts, traders, some agents that were trying to do a good job, and the very few soldiers that were genuinely interested in the Indians (e.g. Lee, Clark)) I would expect to get the numbers much closer to correct. It is very probable, yes. How many of you have looked at the Indian side of the Plains wars? In several cases where I was able to compare the reported numbers by the Army with what Indian accounts and independent scholarship indicated, there were huge discrepancies regarding the number of warriors, and much more so the number of warriors claimed to killed. You won't need to look further than the Washita for an example: thelbha.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=washita&thread=1102&page=1#30095In aggregate, my personal rule of thumb is to halve the "established wisdom" number of opposing warriors. Warrior casualties are even more difficult, in some cases next to impossible to get even a handle on the correct order of magnitude. Entirely in agreement with that. I assume you are talking about Bray's "Crazy Horse", where apparently he went most of the time with what would result in the most exciting/controversial story, not what could be supported as most probable by the aggregate of the sources. But even if the interpretations of both authors tend to be questionable, that doesn't mean that data that they are quoting verbatim from primary sources is equally unreliable. Those numbers I'm putting forward again and again ARE directly from primary sources, any interpretations and adjustments are noted by the authors (Bray's early historic numbers are a bit fudged to get a more streamlined image, but this doesn't change the conclusions for our purposes). And for me as, a numbers guy, those numbers are consistent and anchored much more reliable compared to any number of estimates that are not anchored on any verifiable data. Unless, of course, the authors massively misrepresented those sources. Once again the question, where are those estimates for a Lakota population of 20000-30000 from before 1870 or after 1890? Again, I'm fully with you there. But this doesn't automatically taint the sources they are citing. Well, you have certainly made clear where you are coming from, yes ;D
|
|
|
Post by fuchs on Apr 12, 2013 11:03:53 GMT -6
Most of the summer roamers were out complete with their families - Any potential visitor without family had close relatives in the camp - In Lakota society it would simply be inconceivable to deny even a not-so-close-relative a place in the lodge I would like to see proof of this, and not just some link from the other boards... which I do not visit. To me, these are assumptions that fly in the face of too many contemporary accounts. As I said before, I am flexible on the total number of Sioux living in 1876, but considerably less so regarding the numbers at the LBH. I see no reason why 55 to 60% or more of all living Sioux could not have been there, especially considering reports from experienced frontiersmen and scouts claiming this was the largest assemblage of Sioux they had ever heard of or seen. You are also ignoring descriptive commentary of the battle by a number of the Indians that fought it. Best wishes, Fred. I don't see how what I've posted there contradicts what you writes there. Uh, probably some language problem from my side. A agree that it's likely that close to 50% of the reservation Indians were away from the agencies in the summer of 1876. But the surrender counts and counts on the reservations under strict military supervision indicate that most of those were complete families. Mom, dad, Grandma and the kids. Add the about 15% of the total Lakota population that were winter roamers and you are indeed at about 50-60%. But not all those that were out were necessarily in the main camp during the Battle.
|
|
|
Post by fred on Apr 12, 2013 14:01:31 GMT -6
Uh, probably some language problem from my side. Fuchs, It is not from your side. If I could speak German as well as you speak English I would be a smart person for sure. I am embarrassed at how bad my German is... and I lived there for more than three years. I would question this, however. There were reports-- both white and red-- that a lot of single warriors snuck out of the agencies and snuck back in. Also, many stayed out. This is not an unusually large number, however, so I would not spend a lot of time arguing with you over it. So, basically we are very close to agreement... battle and camp figures are my primary interest, not total population. Best wishes, Fred.
|
|
|
Post by fred on Apr 13, 2013 5:55:21 GMT -6
Could you explicitly cite some numbers/sources from pre-1875 that support a Lakota population well in excess of 20000? Numbers that are based on analysis and/or experience with the Indians? To be honest, fuchs, no, I cannot. My two main sources for believing "more" rather than "less" are the Connell figures I cited earlier, and reports during the Connor campaign of 1865 of separate Sioux villages of 1,800 and 2,000 lodges. If we apply the two figures we have, i. e., 4.6 people per lodge and 6.2 people per lodge, we have somewhere between 17,480 and 23,560. I find my numbers, above, no less compelling than the figures Gray cited. I find it rather hard to believe some fur trader (who was just as likely to be illiterate as not) and some treaty negotiator who was probably afraid of his own shadow and couldn't wait to get back east were more proficient at estimating numbers than troops who saw and battled Indians on an almost daily basis. I also agree with you about graft and corruption at the agencies, so I concede that the Connell figures are too high... but more than double too high? Gray also cited Mitch Boyer. That was the same Mitch Boyer who told Custer this was the largest Indian village he had ever seen. I am also considerably more prone to believe census figures, however illusory, than estimates by people who "traveled among them." It would also be rather interesting to see how the Indian Office reconciled General Stanley's report of 1869 with the agency figures Connell provided. I understand that, fuchs. Actually, I trust your scholarship more than I would trust either Gray or Bray. You speak, as well, of primary sources. I am sure Connell's primary sources were just as primary as anything Gray or Bray used. I have been accused of not using primary sources in some of my work, but only by people with an agenda. In virtually every comment or statement I make I provide the source, primary or not, and let those who are reading be the judge. Those who have accused me of not using primary sources claim their source is superior... more primary! Yet when you have two sources you can claim are primary and they conflict with one another, which do you chose? That is where the accusations lie. Best wishes, Fred.
|
|
|
Post by AZ Ranger on Apr 14, 2013 7:24:18 GMT -6
What was the degree of certainty of census accuracy regarding total Indian population? ( + or - 100%?) Did the census estimate the population not subject to be counted. I would think the census was at best an estimate of the average reservation population but would miss the fluctuating population and those that refuse to go to the reservation. Lastly if an individual considered himself a warrior would he be less likely to be counted as compared to the total population sampling procedure.
The Indian per square mile certainly was not very high in the west. How well does our current census estimate the homeless nomadic population? Today those numbers may be insignificant and not worth the cost to find out. As compared to some of the 1800's census numbers they are similar.
Flagstaff in the summer has an increase of 1,000s of homeless living in the forest and by winter down to the hearty few. I will start asking them when was the last time they were questioned by a census taker.
Regards
AZ Ranger
|
|
|
Post by fuchs on Apr 14, 2013 8:38:20 GMT -6
What was the degree of certainty of census accuracy regarding total Indian population? ( + or - 100%?) Both agents and Indians were very interested in keeping the numbers as high as possible. Accordingly, the accuracy was extremely dependent upon who did the counting, and how stringent the safeguards against cheating were. The data that are available to me strongly suggest that the highest number for the Lakota ever reported, in 1875, with about 35000 (including the "hostiles", excluding the Cheyenne and Dakota) was more than twice the real number of likely around 15-16000 . The last count I have the data for was in 1890 with about 15500. Before 1875 there were no complete census data available, only combinations of counts and estimates (even in 1875 the "hostiles" had obviously to be estimated, at 3000) In the years between those dates, the numbers were fluctuating wildly, and not always due to real population changes. There is a very instructive graph in "Centennial Campaign", (chapter 26,Figure 1 page 315 of the paperback edition). As far as I'm aware, the absentees were not included in the census data. Due to the reasons mentioned , the census data was almost always to high, not sometimes more, sometimes less than the real number The counts that were conducted were usually at a time when the summer roamers were on the reservation. No counts = no rations, so the summer roamers had a big incentive to show up. For 1875, the estimate for the number of winter roamers was likely more accurate than the actual census data, estimated at 400 lodges/ 3000 people, in reality probably closer to slightly below 400 /2000-2500. This is unlikely. Compared to our atomized modern society, the Indian society back then was extremely family-orientated. Yes, the Indians especially the young warriors were moving around on and between the agencies a lot, but either with their families, or as visitor with relatives in other bands. In addition, the demographic was almost identical for all instances were reliable counts were available, including those virtually at gunpoint. it was always very close to 25%men/35%women/40%children. Any substantial amount of unaccounted for warriors would have shown up there. The summer roamers (by definition) went out completely each year, barring maybe a few invalids and ill persons that would stay with relatives among the agency Indians. There might have been a few restless young men from the nominally "tame" agency Indians that tagged along, though. But for drawing rations, they would to have been in the census. It was rather the opposite, as the census dates for the different agencies were not identical, it was possible for the same persons to get on the census rolls for different agencies, and draw multiple rations.
|
|