|
Post by AZ Ranger on Apr 14, 2013 10:20:33 GMT -6
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.
You don't believe that warriors not attached to families constructed the temporary shelters at LBH?
In my job as a wildlife manager (1979-92) we used statistics to estimate populations. I promoted to Law Enforcement Supervisor in 1992 and have done round ups of homeless persons and observed our forest swell to camps of over 5,000 people.
I don't think in my opinion of what they estimated a reservation population has anything that would be useful for estimating the warrior population for a few days in June of 1876.
The most useful data would be the total population of males that would be considered a warrior. To try to estimate that population from a reservation population even if inflated seems statistically unreliable without knowing factors influencing a count of reservation.
I would more likely accept a military observation of the total estimate of warriors such as Benteen's observation in valley than relying on a census of reservation to restrict the total number of warriors available to have been in the LBH camp.
I have no idea what the warriors actually thought but if I thought there was going to be one last fight I would show up without my family.
Regards
AZ Ranger
|
|
|
Post by AZ Ranger on Apr 14, 2013 10:32:33 GMT -6
Do we know how many times Crazy Horse was counted in a reservation census before LBH?
|
|
|
Post by fred on Apr 14, 2013 11:24:15 GMT -6
I would more likely accept a military observation of the total estimate of warriors such as Benteen's observation in valley than relying on a census of reservation to restrict the total number of warriors available to have been in the LBH camp. I have no idea what the warriors actually thought but if I thought there was going to be one last fight I would show up without my family. I would agree completely with these comments. Best wishes, Fred.
|
|
|
Post by fuchs on Apr 14, 2013 12:02:43 GMT -6
You don't believe that warriors not attached to families constructed the temporary shelters at LBH? Almost certainly a lot of those were not: 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 Though I have to concede that I'm less sure of my opinion than a year ago, that those single warriors would only number in the low hundreds. This is exactly what I am working on here at the moment, complete agreement. That's were I disagree. In my experience the estimates of warriors numbers given in reports from officers after a fight are highly unreliable. They do not check out against Indian demographics, lodge count, estimates that were made in peacetime, by the Indians, by experienced scouts etc., etc., pretty much anything BUT actual battle reports. Some Examples: Washita: I would like to elaborate on why I consider Custer's numbers of 103 (later 140) warriors as improbable. My information come mostly from skimming Greene's book, plus Bent for the Cheyenne side. If anyone can provide additional data, the more the better. Number of lodges: 51, that seems to the most uncontroversial number, apart from one Indian (second-hand) account of 35. Total number of inhabitants estimated from the observed number of lodges before the battle by Ben Clark: 300 Greene estimates 250, and a number slightly below that would result from Bray's 4.5 people per lodge, though it's unclear how far this would be applicable for the southern Plains. Still, the range 230-300 seems to be pretty uncontroversial. Avoiding the debate exactly who would be warrior, and who wouldn't, let's assume a normal Plains Indian demographics, with ~45% of the overall population as males. We get a range between 103 and 135 males in the Camp. So, for Custer's numbers to be valid, it would have amounted to the slaughter of every male Indian in the Camp, give or take. As this sentence seemed to have been not clear enough, I will try again: The number of "killed warriors" as reported by Custer eerily equals the probable totality of males in the camp, from newborn infant to the most ancient blind and arthritic elder. In addition, Custer did not even claimed to have conducted an actual count, his numbers were apparently gained by totaling up all the killed Indians his officers thought to have observed. Revealingly enough, after re-entering the destroyed village, a total of 30 Indians "buried" in Indian style were counted, but this was dismissed with the comment that most of the killed "must have been removed". 2 more dead warriors were found at another campsite along the Washita. Various Indian accounts as to the number of victims of the battle are scattered around ~12 men, and for a lot of those name and circumstance of death could be given. If a number of the total killed (men, women,children) is given, it is about 30. Big Hole (Nez Perce Campaign) Total butchers bill according to the Nez Perce (see "Yellow Wolf"): 10 women, 21 children, 32 men. Colonel J. B. Catlin, commander of the volunteers: "Chief Joseph admitted the loss of two hundred and eight warriors killed in the battle, so there were a larger number of Indians killed than of white men engaged." Total number of Nez Perce on their flight: about 700-800, which had to fight more than a dozen battles. 200 warriors would mean pretty much all the adult males, warrior or not, would have been killed there. Doesn't compute. (The Nez Perce were less warlike than the Plains Indians and were probably closer to 30% of males age 15 and up, though apparently only about half of those would be considered "real" warriors). From Fred's notes: March 17, 1876—Crook’s command—Led by the guide, Frank Grouard, COL Joseph J. Reynolds of BG George Crook’s command attacks the Cheyenne village of Old Bear located on the Powder River. The village consisted of about 110 lodges—some say only 65, including about ten to fifteen Sioux (the warrior He Dog being amongst them)—and 500 – 700 Indians, 250 of whom were warriors. Crook misidentified this camp as being that of Crazy Horse with some Northern Cheyenne and Minneconjou. Those were the fraction of the winter roamers that DID try to comply with the ultimatum, and were coming in to report to the agency. So it would be very likely that the usual 25% warrior ratio would apply. 110 lodges-->700 Indians is on the high end of the plausible range, but not outlandish. But 250 warriors out of 700 is, given the circumstances. Never mind that very likely there were no 90-100 Cheyenne lodges out there in the winter, but according to several sources more like 50. So with the He-Dog tiospaye of about 15 lodges we are at the 65 lodges that "some said" to have been there, which they likely were. So we have 250 imagined warriors and probably slightly less than 100 real ones. Given enough time, you can find plenty of such examples. I have the impression most of the Indians going out in 1876 probably were not looking for a fight. They were simply doing what they did all the years before: Go into the hunting grounds, have a good time, teach the kids how to be a good Indian, get away from those pesky Whites for a while, have a slap at the Crows. The history of the Indian wars is chock full with examples where Indians simply did not realize that an approaching army intended to go after THEM or were even looking for a fight at all. And in this case, from the Indian perspective, not much had changed in 1876 compared to 1875. I seriously doubt most of them fully realized the implications of that ultimatum to come/stay in or be considered hostile, if they got the message in the first place. I know it's hard for you military people to get of of the mindset of analyzing the Indian Wars in the pattern of army vs. army. It wasn't. It was army vs. a people. The warriors were an inseparable component of that people. A people whose mindset was utterly alien to the Euro-american. Do we know how many times Crazy Horse was counted in a reservation census before LBH? Almost certainly never. He might have been several times within the nominal borders of the Sioux reservation as established in 1868, but he almost certainly never got close to any agency.
|
|
|
Post by fuchs on Apr 14, 2013 14:02:55 GMT -6
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. When in the Connor campaign did anyone actually see those villages? I'm aware that they destroyed an Arapahoe camp of about 200(?) lodges, but I understand that apart from that the campaign was rather inconclusive. Who did make those estimates of a total of 3800 lodges? North? Boyer? Bridger? The same Bridger & Boyer that would two years later estimate the Lakota total number to 14400? Apart from that, the tribes that went on a rampage in 1865 were Cheyenne, Arapahoe and mostly parts of the southerly tribal divisions of the Lakota, this might complicate it further to get any useful data from here. The Connell numbers are the same that Bray and Gray have analyzed and found wanting. And I (and apparently AZ Ranger), too You cannot base any conclusions on the difference of two numbers of which at least one is to be known to be wildly incorrect, unless you support them with independent data coming to comparable results. And no, most of those estimates from your notes for the LBH village size are equally unsupported, and, what's worse, are not in good agreement with each other, apart from referring to a whole lot of Indians. From this only follows that at least some of those estimated have to be wildly incorrect too, but you have no idea which of those are close to the mark. The "common sense" method of going with "somewhere in the middle" doesn't work reliably in a case like that. Objectively, the Gray/Bray collection of almost 10 independent estimates that do agree with each other within a comparatively small error range, and agree with actual counts after a mostly fraud-proof counting procedure was established in 1890, and reasonably agree with the sum of the counts at gunpoint of the people that were at the agencies in 1876 plus the people that surrendered in the following years is much, much more likely to be closer to correct. Unless someone could show that there were a whole lot more knowledgeable estimates of vastly higher numbers before 1875, that the surrender census and/or the counts by the military in 1876 are vastly incorrect, and finally explain where to about 6000 Lakota vanished between 1885 and 1890. The results from the pre-1875 estimates show that even if the people who did compile those numbers had no clue, they knew what people they had to ask to get reasonably accurate numbers. What more, the methodology of bottom-up accounting the numbers of the seven different tribal divisions is sound. The numbers for the different divisions fluctuate over time, and for some numbers its is obviously that there were disagreement over which division a certain batch of people is attached to, which indicates that we are looking at real independent data here, not just something someone wrote down someday and everyone else just copied it. There are obviously errors in there, but real data has errors, and for calculating the totals those errors mostly cancel out here, and the final tallies are in good agreement. Wouldn't even a village of 5000 people be fitting that description? It certainly would not have access to the 1890s census data and surrender counts that validate the pre 1875 Reports number in 1876, so it might be inclined to revise the pre-agency data upwards. Someone would surely crunching the numbers like we here, but it would likely end up in some archive without garnering much attention. As mentioned Gray/Bray used the same sources as Connel, but they put it into context with much, much more sources.
|
|
|
Post by fuchs on Apr 14, 2013 14:25:53 GMT -6
Last post for today, I promise ;D I think this point of the discussion might be a good opportunity to put up my ramblings on numbers in general up here (from two years ago), for those that don't like to visit the other board: ------------------------------------------------------- Executive summary: Higher numbers are less likely to be precise, and more likely to systematically err on the high side. The usual disclaimer: This is based on my pretty broad but usually fairly shallow knowledge on a lot of topics; you are encouraged to point out if and where I go out on too thin of a limb. This is not meant to be a denigration of the mental abilities of specific racial or cultural groups, but just a evaluation what we could realistically expect given the cultural backgrounds, and human nature. The following will mostly aim at numbers given by or claimed to have originated from Indian sources. Feel free to draw your own conclusions if and how far that stuff would apply to the soldiers. May I start with two anecdotes: #1 Around 1960 a German zoologist started out and tried to obtain an accurate estimate of the number of big game animals in the Serengeti. This guy was a trained scientist, used to operate with animals in small to moderate numbers. He was unable to get a stable fix on the numbers, until he devised a special method by counting the animals from the air, flying high enough not to disturb them, mentally dividing the surveyed area into grid squares and using one observer to each side of the plane, flying each "grid lane" back and forth, averaging over both legs. This finally resulted in reproducible numbers and they were about 1/3 of the previously accepted "best guess" numbers. #2 While assisting in undergraduate physics courses at one of the better German universities, I was horrified at the inability of the average student to grasp the concepts of relative and absolute precision and to judge if the resulting figures they calculated for their exercises made any sense at all, cross-checked against common sense and their real-live experiences. Sometimes it seemed as if they had been happy to just have gotten through those calculations, wanting to have nothing to do with the number anymore, just taking it "as is". Lets go to human perception. As far as I understand it, it works logarithmically, e.g. for 4 light sources to appear with a constant difference in brightness, they need to have relative luminosities of 10,20,40,80 instead of 10,20,30,40. This is very useful, as the physical range of sensations in our environment is extremely large and gets compressed to a much reduced range by this method, still allowing the same relative precision in perception over that whole range. So it appears sensible to assume that our brain is hard-wired to sort out most or all things that can be quantified this way, i.e. into things like twice/half as much as 100 instead of 50 less/more than 100. Mathematics is a result of "Civilization", and "Civilization" necessarily involves bureaucracy. And for the bureaucrat, absolute precision is necessary. No matter how much taxes you have to pay, they want it all, and exactly down to the last cent. By the way, the majority of the earliest specimens of "writing" are tax-records and stuff like that, not poetry ;D So we have a mismatch between the way our mind treats numbers, and the way most everyday "mathematics" treats number. We are invariably conditioned to give credibility to a "precise" number written down by someone, down to the last digit, no matter if the method in obtaining said number is even remotely capable of such precision. And the mismatch between absolute and relative precision gets the larger, the larger the numbers are. Another potential snag with this, is the problem in calculating averages out of several estimates based on logarithmic perception. If an observer is as likely to overestimate as to underestimate a number by a factor of 2, and you are using the average out of several different observations, your calculated value will most likely be higher than the real one. Example: if a physical number of 1000 will as likely be perceived as 500 as 2000, the average value will be 1250 instead of 1000. The larger the uncertainty of the observation, the higher this will skew the result upwards. In addition, estimating the number of things gets the more difficult the higher that number, with accordingly increasing uncertainty and a tendency to inflate the perception of the real number. So, what might follow from this as to how "Indian mathematics" would work? I would definitively expect it to operate along the lines of logarithmic perception, and accordingly give zero credibility to accounts like: "An Indian returning from the Hostile camp reported 1806 lodges" or "Red Cloud admitted to 1137 dead and wounded". Can we get a lower limit for numbers Indians might operate with comfortably? The Fetterman debacle is pretty useful for this, the very designation of it in Lakota wintercounts usually given as something like wasicun opawinge wica ktepi (One hundred whites were killed), and the actual mnemonics indicating a numbers of 80 or 90. Again, for interpreting this the cultural background is necessary, in considering that a seer obtained a number of "100" prospective victims just before for the battle. And this number would have had a higher significance than the actual bodycount. Regardless of it being 80, 90, or 100, the accuracy in determining the number of enemy casualties compares favorably with what appear to have been the standard for the other side. So it's probably safe to assume that numbers up to 100 could be comfortably handled, and not too much of a stretch to extend that into the low hundreds. Above that, it appears to be increasingly likely that absolute precision would degrade, simply because there was no necessity for it in the daily life. At the latest somewhere in the 10,000s I am running out of ideas as to what might have been useful to get numbered at all in the pre-reservation times, numbers above that were for all practical purposes "infinite" (Philo Clark, after working some years with Indians, came to a similar conclusion. From "The Indian Sign language": "Hundred: Expressed as ten tens by many tribes, but the Arapahoe, Cheyennes, Teton Sioux and some others [have a specific sign for it]" "The majority of Indians have no clear conception of any number beyond a thousand, and many not beyond two or three hundred." I would give a high degree of credibility if numbers given are not absolute, but relative, i.e. there were more lodges in the Oglala circle than in the Cheyenne circle. Congratulations if you persevered up to this point P.S.: If someone should have thought I was talking out of my behind at this point, he was (somewhat) correct. This WAS speculation, and the conscience of a scientist tends to remain unquiet until he can support his speculation with some evidence. And we are conditioned to dig up some papers in such a situation. Fortunately my speculation was not only spot on: www.sciencemag.org/content/320/5880/1217.abstract(you need an university library / IP Adress to access the full text unfortunately) but until some 30 3 5 years ago apparently even the professionals had not figured it out that the mix of linear and logarithmic number perception in modern test subjects is a result of genetically hardcoded logarithmic and learned ("civilized") linear perception ;D www.springerlink.com/content/888628v517l67ww3/That one is freely accessible, figure 7 of that paper is my argument in a nutshell. Especially that science paper goes into great detail as far as the sliding scale between "natural" and "learned" number perception is concerned.
|
|
|
Post by montrose on Apr 14, 2013 15:55:29 GMT -6
I have been following this discussion with great interest. I find fuchs approach very compelling.
My issue isn't just the quantities, but the timing. I just don't buy that the Indian force tripled in the four days prior to the 25th.
Grey's approach I find very suspect. I reread Centennial Campaign this weekend, and their are gaping wholes in his logic. By his methodology, the total Indian force that fought at the Rosebud had to have been less than 500. His work just doesn't pass the smell test. He is trying to force facts into bad theory, as we see ad nauseum on the other board.
|
|
|
Post by fred on Apr 15, 2013 7:54:54 GMT -6
I have been following this discussion with great interest. I find fuchs approach very compelling. I agree, totally. In fact, I find Fuchs' methodology so compelling that based on how I do things, how I approach these events, I am forced to revise my thinking on the total number of Indians of that period. That does not, however, change my thinking regarding the number of Indians at the LBH. And I believe Fuchs may agree here. I find no reason why 55%-60% of the Sioux Nation could not have been at the battle site that day. I agree here, as well. And it did not triple in four days. Remember, the signs were completely misread by the military as they moved up the Rosebud. Indians were joining all the time. A large group, as well, moving down the LBH valley, joined the camp just prior to-- but after the Crook fight-- the LBH battle. More agreement. This has been my problem with Gray since the get-go. Best wishes, Fred. PS-- Fuchs: I would consider it a great favor if you could summarize your findings and your methodology in one succinct post, using the sources you have already showed us, along with your conclusions. I would like to add it to my notes, some of which I showed you in that long post of mine. You may e-mail it to me if you prefer, and if so, just send me a "PM" and I will give you my e-mail address (if it does not show up in my "profile"). I would be much obliged. FCWIII
|
|
|
Post by benteen on Apr 15, 2013 8:43:33 GMT -6
Gentlemen,
I have to say I am in awe of the research and knowledge put forth by especially Capt Fred and Mr. Fuchs in attempting to figure out the number of Indians both in total and at the LBH. Is it posible that it is such a difficult task because the numbers that you have to deal with( and there is so much disparity in these numbers) come from people that really couldnt care less how many Indians there were. Until the Westward expansion, other than the Native Americans themselves and some trappers, everyone lived East of the Mississippi and would only see an Indian in a magazine. The only ones that cared were the reservation Indian agents who always inflated the numbers so they could steal.
It would seem even the Army itself wasnt too concerned. At a time when the Army is on a search and destroy mission under Gibbon, Terry/Custer, and Crook, look at the numbers that Colonel W.A. Graham said the army felt they would fight. 500-800. There were actually four times that number. That is not incompetance, that is just not caring how many there are. Also a little arrogance in that they could slap around any number of what they considered stone age savages
Also you have the problem of getting info from the Indians themselves. I dont know if the Indians had a system where they could count. All I see is "many" or" few" when asked about numbers. Well to one Indian many could be 1000-10000 to another 100-200.
Just a thought
Be Well Dan
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Apr 15, 2013 9:45:20 GMT -6
Dan: Just what westward expansion do you refer to? Seems to me westward expansion started at Plymouth Rock and Jamestown. In fact can you set a date other than these two, where it stopped until about 1890 and the closing of the frontier?
I will not argue the point about organized census, graft, corruption, vested interests, arrogance, and all the other points you make in three paragraphs. They are accurate as far as I know. What I will dispute though is interest in the Indians themselves, by the white American population writ large. Interest in the Lewis Diary and the novels of Cooper seem to suggest that the interest was both great and widespread. In addition the Pike diary was widely read.
|
|
jag
Full Member
Caption: IRAQI PHOTO'S -- (arrow to gun port) LOOK HERE -- SMILE -- WAIT FOR -- FLASH
Posts: 245
|
Post by jag on Apr 15, 2013 10:26:16 GMT -6
Last post for today, I promise ;D I think this point of the discussion might be a good opportunity to put up my ramblings on numbers in general up here (from two years ago), for those that don't like to visit the other board: ------------------------------------------------------- Executive summary: Higher numbers are less likely to be precise, and more likely to systematically err on the high side. The usual disclaimer: This is based on my pretty broad but usually fairly shallow knowledge on a lot of topics; you are encouraged to point out if and where I go out on too thin of a limb. This is not meant to be a denigration of the mental abilities of specific racial or cultural groups, but just a evaluation what we could realistically expect given the cultural backgrounds, and human nature. The following will mostly aim at numbers given by or claimed to have originated from Indian sources. Feel free to draw your own conclusions if and how far that stuff would apply to the soldiers. May I start with two anecdotes: #1 Around 1960 a German zoologist started out and tried to obtain an accurate estimate of the number of big game animals in the Serengeti. This guy was a trained scientist, used to operate with animals in small to moderate numbers. He was unable to get a stable fix on the numbers, until he devised a special method by counting the animals from the air, flying high enough not to disturb them, mentally dividing the surveyed area into grid squares and using one observer to each side of the plane, flying each "grid lane" back and forth, averaging over both legs. This finally resulted in reproducible numbers and they were about 1/3 of the previously accepted "best guess" numbers. #2 While assisting in undergraduate physics courses at one of the better German universities, I was horrified at the inability of the average student to grasp the concepts of relative and absolute precision and to judge if the resulting figures they calculated for their exercises made any sense at all, cross-checked against common sense and their real-live experiences. Sometimes it seemed as if they had been happy to just have gotten through those calculations, wanting to have nothing to do with the number anymore, just taking it "as is". Lets go to human perception. As far as I understand it, it works logarithmically, e.g. for 4 light sources to appear with a constant difference in brightness, they need to have relative luminosities of 10,20,40,80 instead of 10,20,30,40. This is very useful, as the physical range of sensations in our environment is extremely large and gets compressed to a much reduced range by this method, still allowing the same relative precision in perception over that whole range. So it appears sensible to assume that our brain is hard-wired to sort out most or all things that can be quantified this way, i.e. into things like twice/half as much as 100 instead of 50 less/more than 100. Mathematics is a result of "Civilization", and "Civilization" necessarily involves bureaucracy. And for the bureaucrat, absolute precision is necessary. No matter how much taxes you have to pay, they want it all, and exactly down to the last cent. By the way, the majority of the earliest specimens of "writing" are tax-records and stuff like that, not poetry ;D So we have a mismatch between the way our mind treats numbers, and the way most everyday "mathematics" treats number. We are invariably conditioned to give credibility to a "precise" number written down by someone, down to the last digit, no matter if the method in obtaining said number is even remotely capable of such precision. And the mismatch between absolute and relative precision gets the larger, the larger the numbers are. Another potential snag with this, is the problem in calculating averages out of several estimates based on logarithmic perception. If an observer is as likely to overestimate as to underestimate a number by a factor of 2, and you are using the average out of several different observations, your calculated value will most likely be higher than the real one. Example: if a physical number of 1000 will as likely be perceived as 500 as 2000, the average value will be 1250 instead of 1000. The larger the uncertainty of the observation, the higher this will skew the result upwards. In addition, estimating the number of things gets the more difficult the higher that number, with accordingly increasing uncertainty and a tendency to inflate the perception of the real number. So, what might follow from this as to how "Indian mathematics" would work? I would definitively expect it to operate along the lines of logarithmic perception, and accordingly give zero credibility to accounts like: "An Indian returning from the Hostile camp reported 1806 lodges" or "Red Cloud admitted to 1137 dead and wounded". Can we get a lower limit for numbers Indians might operate with comfortably? The Fetterman debacle is pretty useful for this, the very designation of it in Lakota wintercounts usually given as something like wasicun opawinge wica ktepi (One hundred whites were killed), and the actual mnemonics indicating a numbers of 80 or 90. Again, for interpreting this the cultural background is necessary, in considering that a seer obtained a number of "100" prospective victims just before for the battle. And this number would have had a higher significance than the actual bodycount. Regardless of it being 80, 90, or 100, the accuracy in determining the number of enemy casualties compares favorably with what appear to have been the standard for the other side. So it's probably safe to assume that numbers up to 100 could be comfortably handled, and not too much of a stretch to extend that into the low hundreds. Above that, it appears to be increasingly likely that absolute precision would degrade, simply because there was no necessity for it in the daily life. At the latest somewhere in the 10,000s I am running out of ideas as to what might have been useful to get numbered at all in the pre-reservation times, numbers above that were for all practical purposes "infinite" (Philo Clark, after working some years with Indians, came to a similar conclusion. From "The Indian Sign language": "Hundred: Expressed as ten tens by many tribes, but the Arapahoe, Cheyennes, Teton Sioux and some others [have a specific sign for it]" "The majority of Indians have no clear conception of any number beyond a thousand, and many not beyond two or three hundred." I would give a high degree of credibility if numbers given are not absolute, but relative, i.e. there were more lodges in the Oglala circle than in the Cheyenne circle. Congratulations if you persevered up to this point P.S.: If someone should have thought I was talking out of my behind at this point, he was (somewhat) correct. This WAS speculation, and the conscience of a scientist tends to remain unquiet until he can support his speculation with some evidence. And we are conditioned to dig up some papers in such a situation. Fortunately my speculation was not only spot on: www.sciencemag.org/content/320/5880/1217.abstract(you need an university library / IP Adress to access the full text unfortunately) but until some 30 3 5 years ago apparently even the professionals had not figured it out that the mix of linear and logarithmic number perception in modern test subjects is a result of genetically hardcoded logarithmic and learned ("civilized") linear perception ;D www.springerlink.com/content/888628v517l67ww3/That one is freely accessible, figure 7 of that paper is my argument in a nutshell. Especially that science paper goes into great detail as far as the sliding scale between "natural" and "learned" number perception is concerned. That camp was unique, it wasn't like the Washita at all, where they had the camps spread out up and down the river. At the LBH the layout and design suggested a different agenda, almost as if they'd anticipated the wasichu's doing exactly what they did. And one must ask if Sitting Bull's vision had something to do with it, as they put a lot of warriors into one compact space where they couldn't be seen from any direction without getting in close first. To say that no one knew the numbers in that camp, and that their estimates based upon on the ground observation at the time is somehow worse than what Fuch's has presented, in my opinion, I think is nonsense. Those who participated there had first hand observation of its size, and expressed its density well enough for them to have given a fairly accurate range of information concerning it. This to include not just its location at the time, but on the move as well, and had the experience in the past to have compensated for that. And there were a number of men with just such an experience, George Herendeen being one and F. Girard being the other. Neither of these men were favorites of nor catered to the whims of Reno and Benteen, which in this business speaks volumes as to the veracity of their statements concerning warrior numbers, village size and population. Herendeen estimated there were 1800 lodges there, he had to have known of the wikiups and their use, and he suggested about 3600 warriors and Girard estimated the effective fighting force there between 2500 and 3000. And being as the exact number will never be known, anything between 2500 and 3600 is the best anyone can do. Trying to shoe horn anything above or below these figures suggest an agenda apart from those there, those who'd had the experience necessary to have estimated the number's they'd seen. For them to have over-inflated those numbers would have given ammunition to Benteen and Reno's pleas of innocence and less of real cowardice, this neither Girard or Herendeen would not have done. For them to have underestimated those numbers would have made Custer look bad and suggested the notion that Custer didn't know what he was doing and was the cause of his own demise, this they would not have done. They had no agenda but to tell the truth, and, they did, there was no reason for them not to have. Also those today who need to blame Reno and/or Benteen make it easier to do that if the Indian numbers are much lower - a known agenda perhaps, this considering the following. Yet these same people can't reasonably or even easily explain away their continual expression that Custer was always on the offensive that day when no proof of that existed then or now. He kept on dividing his command in the face of thousands, a maneuver only a dumb assed rookie would have made that day, and one of defense in nature, not offensive, not that day anyway, because every grand expert today has them only doing defensive maneuvers from then on. They make him halt here and there, far and yon on his journey down that stream, to what, watch in concern as to Reno's success or failure, to see the Indian camp and assess failure points and quickly strategize a successful attack upon it. Absolutely none of that was done, and yet he was to await Benteen for umpteen minutes while the warriors surround his patient Benteen waiting position and kill every man in his command when it would have been the better part of constructive assessment for him to have rejoined his regiment once he had seen the immense size of the village from his early and lofty perch, the Indians scampering for their hobbled horses on the west benchlands, yet not to far away from them and their village. Then, to top that all off, the place, you know that 3411 place where everything in that valley was to be seen, not just could have been seen but was, Custer still divides his force to hit a BIG village in bits and pieces here and there? Nope, he either wasn't there upon that BIG hill and didn't see it, or his rookie mistakes was made because he didn't see it in time to prevent what happened to him and his men. Just how damned alert was that village? How long does it take to get to a hobbled horse, mount it and ride back to oppose a crossing, and, AND Custer didn't see this from such a lofty perch where everyone loves to put him. And no, dust doesn't explain it then or now, not from 311 feet above that valley floor it doesn't. The people who try to explain Custer's actions in a favorable light and the Indians themselves surprise everyone with their weed smoking selfish reasons and have seen fit to revise history. Because the history, as told, says that the Indians were alert and responsible enough to hit Custer from all sides and blotted it from the face of the earth in less time than it took for Reno to realize what he was up against, that's what that camp did to both of those commands simultaneously. Was it the Cavalry noise and dust that betrayed their approach? Better this than those who love to favor lower numbers of warriors, with many of them out hunting to excuse his failure of competence to provide protection for him and his men. They didn't do a lousy job of protecting their village, Custer and his men's deaths are open testimony to that. And anyone saying there were anywhere near less that 2500 effective fighting force in that village needs to reality check their drawers to see if they still need to wear a diaper because all Custer did was go downstream and from everyone's little ole model, and I do mean everyone's, they have he and his men doing absolutely nothing but defending themselves once they pass beyond that precious little old 311 ft. observation point above the valley floor where he was to know all and see all, and didn't.
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on Apr 15, 2013 11:04:47 GMT -6
I agree with much of what you say except the bit about the Indians doing a good job. The very fact Custer made it to the camp damns their military competence. The 7th, hit in Ash Creek from both sides, would have been a sorry sight, and the Sioux could well have taken much of the train. That they decidedly beat Custer is not argued, that on average they were the better warrior is not denied, but it was due to superior numbers and a divided foe.
None of them had much or any experience with a camp that size, or control of large sorta-units. The least incompetent side won, is all. Suspect that is often the case.
Custer, I suspect, realized when he saw the reality that sending Reno in was an error, and now what might normally seem a series of good moves was limited, because his career would not survive letting Reno be destroyed. A short period of indecision may have been the issue there, not Custer's favored or previously visited mental place. I still think he attempted to hit the village down MTC. It was there, so was he.
An individual running to get his hobbled or staked pony can do well, time wise. Hundreds, perhaps thousands rushing the huge herd and stirring everything up slows everyone down on average. I cannot believe the village smoke and dust weren't visible to Custer cluing him in to what lay beyond.
And again, a sweat lodge indistinguishable from a wiki-up is a screen porch, would not hold heat well. Also, such wikiups as I've seen illustrated, as opposed to the near lodges in the southwest, would not allow a man to sit up. They'd have to drape a hide or two around it, and this assumes that after firewood and other needs were secured, there was a lot of green timber convenient for the build, and dry wood for the fire. Or time. Or interest.
Second, I'm not convinced its attractions existed on really hot days. But, just me. And at that time of year, the need for shelter may not have been felt high by warriors.
|
|
|
Post by fuchs on Apr 15, 2013 11:23:52 GMT -6
I have been following this discussion with great interest. I find fuchs approach very compelling. I agree, totally. In fact, I find Fuchs' methodology so compelling that based on how I do things, how I approach these events, I am forced to revise my thinking on the total number of Indians of that period. Gentlemen, I have to say I am in awe of the research and knowledge put forth by especially Capt Fred and Mr. Fuchs in attempting to figure out the number of Indians both in total and at the LBH. Thanks guys This is likely an overly simplistic image. Gray makes the very sensible remark that even agents that didn't pocket anything for themselves would be highly motivated to report inflated numbers, to ensure the physical well being of their Indian charges, as well as their own. And the agent might not be able to get an accurate number for himself, even with best effort. The Indians were of course also motivated to keep the census numbers higher than reality. Ration delivery to the agencies was routinely late. If they arrived, there might be less than the scheduled amount, or of inferior quality, up to being unfit for human consumption. As a worst case, they might not arrive at all. Embezzlement and fraud was taking place all along the supply line. Unsatisfied Indians might vent their anger at the agents, and truly desperate Indians were a powder cake waiting to explode (see the Santee Uprising) That's why I put so much more weight in Indian accounts that speak of low numbers, (smaller than about 200-300, preferably below 100) and/or relative numbers (more/less/about equal than/as another quantity). Any number in excess of 1000 claimed to have originated directly from an un-acculturated Indian is highly suspect, and needs support by independent sources. What I will dispute though is interest in the Indians themselves, by the white American population writ large. Interest in the Lewis Diary and the novels of Cooper seem to suggest that the interest was both great and widespread. In addition the Pike diary was widely read. There was interest, yes. But for a plethora of reasons this interest would not result in an image of "the Indians" anywhere close to reality for the vast, vast majority.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Apr 15, 2013 11:30:05 GMT -6
Fuchs: Agreed, the interest was more for its armchair adventure value. Did not mean to imply that the interest at the level, and depth of a Thomas Jefferson was universal.
|
|
|
Post by fuchs on Apr 15, 2013 12:52:25 GMT -6
And again, a sweat lodge indistinguishable from a wiki-up is a screen porch, would not hold heat well. Also, such wikiups as I've seen illustrated, as opposed to the near lodges in the southwest, would not allow a man to sit up. They'd have to drape a hide or two around it, and this assumes that after firewood and other needs were secured, there was a lot of green timber convenient for the build, and dry wood for the fire. Or time. Or interest. RCOI p. 157(Varnum): Q: Were any wickiups alongside the lodges A: I did not go over the ground enough to see how they were. At the lower end of the village a great many were left standing Q: Have you ever seen wickiups alongside of lodges, put there for a special purpose? A: Yes sir, for bath houses I suppose you refer to. Q: Are they not for other purposes - for the woman to occupy occasionally? A: I don't know. The only use I know of their making of them is for their sweat baths. "Sweat-Lodge: Make signs for medicine and wickey-up" Clark, The Indian Sign Language Cozzens; Eyewitnesses to the Indian Wars, 1865 - 90, p. 355 (by some newspaper man, August 7th 1876): "A large number of willow wickiups, used only by the warriors when on the war trail or hunting expeditions, were interspersed among the round, bare spots that indicated where the lodges had stood and, no doubt, were the abodes of the Cheyennes whose squaws and papooses are safely lodged and fed in the Cheyenne agency in the Indian Territory" That camp was the (almost) complete Northern Cheyenne tribal division. Any significant number of "willow wickiups" was certainly not used by "single warriors from the agencies" "Sweet Medicine", p.113: "When Lame White man reached his own tipi, he saw that Tall Sioux was erecting a sweat lodge down the river. The chief tied his horse and walked down, joining the other men who entered the lodge. While they were there, sounds of excitement burst from the valley above the village, where Reno had begun attacking the Hunkpapas." Wooden Leg, p.254/55 of the paperback edition, describing the evening of the 25th: "The women went by hundreds to cut willows to make little skeleton dome shelters, in substitution for the regular tipi lodges kept packed. It had not rained here during all of that day, but rain might come at any time. Not all of the Indians, though prepared shelters. Many depended only upon robes for shielding them ..." p. 210, describing the LBH village as it was set up: "A few unmarried young man had little willow dome and robe shelters. Old couples likewise had this kind of temporary housing" -------------------- PS-- Fuchs: I would consider it a great favor if you could summarize your findings and your methodology in one succinct post, using the sources you have already showed us, along with your conclusions. I will likely need a bit more time for this. I'm a slow writer, and it should be evident that I've problems in being "succinct" ;D
|
|