|
Post by Colt45 on Sept 4, 2014 12:17:05 GMT -6
Looking at the physical space of the Custer field, I would guess that Custer's 5 companies probably faced around 1000 warriors, give or take a 100 or so. Custer's boys were pretty spread out so one wouldn't need a whole lot of warriors to have a 6 or 7 to 1 advantage. Total warriors at all locations who actually fought is probably in the 2000 range, I would guess. I get this number from looking at all the estimates Fred very nicely posted earlier. It seems to me the average of all those estimates is going to be in the 2000-3000 range (warriors). Total population is probably going to be in the 6000-7000 range. Just my guestimate.
|
|
|
Post by fred on Sept 4, 2014 13:23:41 GMT -6
Look at # 35, Edgar Stewart's estimate. To me, that makes the most sense. The best, most up-to-date work on the total population of Sioux in this period was probably done by John Gray, then Kingsley Bray... and I believe Ephriam Dickson has also chimed in here. The consensus seems to be a total Lakota population of between 14,500 and 16,500. Our German friend, "Fuchs," uses these same figures and he has the scientific/statistical background to be able to contribute. If there is any difference between "Fuchs" and me, it is merely in the numbers that may have left the agencies.
My numbers of 8,000-10,000 should, 3,000 warriors, should be within accepted bounds. Even the 1,800 tepees count is within reason. If you use the 1,800 tepees as a constant with 8,000 souls, that's 4.4 people per tent. With 10,000 souls, it is 5.6 people per tepee, both within reason. The 3,000 warriors is out of overall proportion, but then we have the various accounts claiming there was a disproportionate number of singles leaving their families at the agencies to join the soiree and we have the accounts of "hundreds" of wickiups in the Rosebud valley, as well as in the LBH village.
As for specific numbers beyond this... you will have to buy the book.
Best wishes, Fred.
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on Sept 4, 2014 14:25:06 GMT -6
It's good to see the sea calming on these numbers. Only Michno seems to be waging the re-revisionist war with NA enthusiasts that the numbers were way smaller than originally suggested and now revived. Custerphiles and Indians find love in those reduced numbers because it meant Custer had a chance to win if only B and R hadn't been drunken cowards and treason monkeys, and the Indians could be forgiven for their crappy protection of their own camp, passing up the opportunity to hit Custer coming down Ash Creek and allowing civvies to be killed and all to be scared. They simply didn't have enough to fight, hunt, and guard...... Something.
It's also good to see reason return to the frequently quoted 1800 circles and the extreme variants plus wikiups. To me, over 2k but under 4k warriors suggests about 3k, plus or minus, and not all were in camp and not all in camp wanted to fight.
Primarily to exercise my primary goal of annoyance, would like to bring up again how any Indians used these large numbers and suggest they did not, the numerals reflecting the large numbers were provided by well meaning translators. They didn't read or write and had no need for specific large numbers like 4300, or whatever. Like the soldiers did watching the tribes move out on the evening of the 26th, they compared the size of what they saw to the size of other large groups they had seen, some of which were of known quantities to soldiers and could be so rounded off to a large number. The Indians didn't have that much opportunity for large number use and the plains Indians didn't trade gargantuan amounts of pelts or anything. "Enough", more than last week's, a few are likely the phrases used when scouts were asked how many bison or soldiers they'd seen.
And, because it resonates with another point I'm still championing, it doesn't make a hell of a lot of difference, does it? Wide agreement now it does not. Yet the exact movements of entirely insufficient units of men are argued about to the minute and thoughts of the officers entertained and valued. Because........?
It was a horrendoplasty: a bad decision made on bad info judged in the field by a product of institutional ignorance and stupidity. Once they crossed MTC, they were not in charge whatsoever. The land up to LSH looks scary from Weir Pt., and no officer would take cavalry there under those circumstances willingly. And, they didn't.
|
|
|
Post by fred on Sept 4, 2014 14:36:05 GMT -6
It's also good to see reason return to the frequently quoted 1800 circles and the extreme variants plus wikiups. To me, over 2k but under 4k warriors suggests about 3k, plus or minus, and not all were in camp and not all in camp wanted to fight. Bingo!Best wishes, Fred.
|
|
|
Post by Mulligan on Sept 4, 2014 15:29:10 GMT -6
Stop the presses!! (Just kidding, Fred.) Michno advances much thoughtful discussion about overreliance on secondary evidence, noting that incorrect premises can be sustained and perpetuated to the forfeiture of accuracy. I'm seeing that many of the larger estimates of NA combatants were arrived at by military men within a few years of the battle. A word about context. Can't say I'm overly familiar with War Department decisions regarding budgetary outlay in the aftermath of LBH but I'll guess there were many on the receiving end of such proposed government expenditures who lobbied hard for upgrading relevant armament and manpower procurement programs. Sic Temper. "History is written by the victors who have hung the heroes" is axiomatic, and is a quote usually attributed to Churchill. Montrose may lean towards Sir William Wallace as the source. ~~~ Now, what about that curious lodge placement on Lt. Maguire's map? Mulligan
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Sept 4, 2014 15:48:10 GMT -6
Officers and the soldiers they lead often go a lot of places unwillingly. Have for several thousand years I would expect. That said I could buy into this unwillingness if three things could be explained satisfactorily.
1) In the DC scenario Keogh operating to Custer's rear sees what is happening and tries to catch up with him. He reaches Calhoun Hill in advance of any that pursue Custer. That is a known, because they had at least some time to deploy, before being overcome. A close pursuit of Custer from MTC Ford or near there would be a given in the unwilling scenario.
2) There are only two routes from the general area of MTC Ford to the general area where Custer was found, the generally accepted route up Deep Coulee to Calhoun and from there across the spine of Battle Ridge, or the route along the river indicated on the Benteen map. The later along the river is not conducive to the breaking of contact that you would assume Custer would wish to do. Only the former gives you such an opportunity.
3) Custer leaving MTC or MTC Ford wherever one's crystal ball chooses to place him, has the inside track on the Indians. That matters if someone can then explain how those Indians got to the Last Stand Hill area in advance of Custer's arrival, and additionaly had time to deploy in such a manner that they would not be detected by him as he moved forward. You would also have to explain how these Indians would be aware of where to go, needing some advanced notice of Custer's intention (i.e. If Custer had decided to go due east and break contact those Indians would be holding an empty bag. That is the one thing that mitigates against Custer being stopped cold on LSH -- The requirement for advanced knowledge of his selected route and have horses that can cover at least twice and perhaps as much as three times the distance in a much shorter time frame, starting with no advanced warning.
That bucket has several holes in it, and I am not arguing inhospitable terrain for one second. It is, not a question in the world about it. On the other hand I am not into conjuring solutions that have a low probability of being accurate either.
|
|
|
Post by fred on Sept 4, 2014 16:07:37 GMT -6
Michno advances much thoughtful discussion about overreliance on secondary evidence, noting that incorrect premises can be sustained and perpetuated to the forfeiture of accuracy. On this point, Michno is quite correct and it is something I have been screaming about for years. Keep in mind, however, primary sources can be equally bad and equally distorted. While I would consider Michno more of an empirical researcher than a dreamer, he laid some egg with his book, The Mystery of E Troop. After that, I doubt anyone took him seriously until Lakota Noon redeemed him and turned him into an "expert." E Troop was some of the most rationalized claptrap I have ever read and while I read it through I discarded his conclusions long before "The End." Apparently-- and I have not read it-- his book on the Sand Creek massacre is equally blurry. So while I consider Michno a "pro," I have reservations on much of his work. Once bitten, twice shy. Best wishes, Fred.
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on Sept 4, 2014 16:34:24 GMT -6
First, QC's summation of 'my' scenario is false.
Second, what the hell is Sic Temper?
History written by the winners claptrap is Orwell. I've never heard it merged with a hanging of heroes, and never heard that phrase I don't think. If it's "axiomatic" to Mulligan, perhaps he can locate a source where that medley ever appeared? One such appearance, please.
In any case, it is false. History is written by those that write, first, and in the early years that meant societies advanced enough to do so would obviously mostly win. The South wrote and writes its own history as do Germany, Japan, everyone. Native America had no authors but it had champions among the winners from the start, who wrote and wrote a lot, much of it damning to the Conquerors. This stated with the Jesuits and the appalled priests. Protestant America was hardly less damning of the treatment of the Indians. There was never a chance for genocide against possible lost tribes of Israel, or Welch, or Prester John's folk, or inhabitants of Eden, all of which were seriously trotted out to explain the Indians. Plus, Europeans went native a LOT, and this scared early colonists.
Because it is a subtle way to praise yourself, losing generals are tongue bathed beyond recognition. Napoleon, Lee, Rommell, Yamamoto were all given this treatment. Because they were beaten, the winner must be better, you see. Grant didn't play along with that and didn't paint Lee as brilliant as others did.
Mulligan, the high numbers often came from scouts and soldiers who were there and saw with their own eyes the camp and the pony herd and the move south. There is little conflict, but some and that's normal.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Sept 4, 2014 17:04:11 GMT -6
How is it false. Be specific.
If it is incorrect, lay it out correctly.
QC was operating on your often told tale of Custer and company being jumped in MTC perhaps as much as a mile back from the ford. You really first off ought to see where that would put you. You base everything on Custer or a Custer being wounded and preservation of that personage taking priority over tactical decision making, or in the alternative him being wounded and not relinquishing command. In either instance bad decisions are made, leading Custer to Battle Ridge. Keogh presumably trailing is not up to speed on what is happening, and within a short time follows. You go on to say that Custer is stopped cold on LSH and that is proven by Custer, in your world always being at the head of the column, and the fact that a great deal of the leadership was found clustered together atop the hill, indicating sudden ambuscade (I suppose). How am I doing so far.
So if I have erred and this is not your scenario, please tell me not only where I have erred, but repeat this for all concerned so they too may evaluate.
False is not a word I care for. If I am mistaken, a word that is completely acceptable, how am I mistaken? Specifics in detail if you please.
|
|
|
Post by Mulligan on Sept 4, 2014 19:19:23 GMT -6
RE: "History is written by the victors who have hung the heroes."
Yes, DC, the Orwellian version -- "History is written by the winner" -- can be traced to his London Tribune column, As I Please, in 1944.
In Command of History, by David Reynolds (Random House, 2005), has Churchill saying something very similar (in the early 1930's) when he argued in the House of Commons that history would prove Prime Minister Stanley Baldwin wrong on many accounts because, as Churchill predicted, "I shall write that history."
A passing familiarity with popular culture may be required to recognize the particular variation I've used as appearing in the opening narration of Randall Wallace's screenplay for the film "Braveheart", for which he received an Academy Award nomination in 1995. "Braveheart" won the Oscar for Best Picture.
So there's your example, and it can be accurately attributed to "Wallace." LOL!
And you may cough and harrumph, but I daresay R. Wallace's rendition of the line is perhaps the more significant exemplar, because it has been heard by a darn sight more folks than have ever read Orwell -- or Churchill, for that matter.
~~~
Obviously, even healthy debate on this board can churn up as much toxic dust and smoke as any cavalry charge on the Plains, obscuring important objectives.
For the most part, the little plums I may occasionally drop into the conversation here aren't to be taken too seriously, especially not as weighty literary references to be fact-checked by academic auditors. Get used to that. In my mind, if they are relevant to the thread, or illuminate some aspect of the discussion, or add a bit of background color, or possess some measure of wit, then that's enough.
If they deflate anything pompous, it would be a bonus.
Now, where were we? Oh, right, we were discussing NA Force Estimates, which were compiled following the 1876 battle.
No matter how carefully records are kept and filed and computerized, they grow fuzzy with time. Stories grow by accretion. Tales accumulate -- like dust. The longer the time lapse, the dustier the history -- until it degenerates into fables.
-- Isaac Asimov, Foundation's Edge
Heck, I can do this all day long.
Mulligan
|
|
|
Post by Mulligan on Sept 4, 2014 19:51:53 GMT -6
DC, don't take me wrong. When we all finally climb aboard our armored time machine and head back to LBH to determine exactly WTF actually happened, I want QC in the driver's seat and you on the gun. Roger that? Mulligan
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Sept 4, 2014 20:47:53 GMT -6
They actually did that once on Twilight Zone for those old enough to remember, As I recall the tank was an M-3 Stuart light and seemingly the armor was so thin that an arrow could penetrate.
DC's scenario is a direct lift from a Terry C. Johnson novel of about twenty odd years ago, and Johnson lifted it from versions of the battle then in vogue and says so in the afterward. Good novel. Lousy theory. It actually holds up well as a story, if you do not factor in what the Indians would have had to do to pull it off. Johnson didn't and DC doesn't . The novel is Seize the Sky, one of three in the Custer Trilogy.
|
|
|
Post by tubman13 on Sept 4, 2014 21:17:47 GMT -6
Chuck, I'm old enough to remember and their names appeared on stone. They were NG as I recall.
|
|
|
Post by Beth on Sept 4, 2014 21:27:46 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Sept 4, 2014 21:29:04 GMT -6
They were indeed Tom, Montana Army National Guard, and about the only thing correct in the show was at that time practically the entire Montana ARNG was the 163rd Armored Cavalry Regiment (First Montana). The M-3 was a bit of a stretch though as it had left service in 1944. What the hell, a tank is a tank is a tank.
Beth, you're not old enough to remember, Hush.
|
|