Now were all 2,225 warriors in on the fight(s)? . . . how many took care of Reno and how many were ready for Custer? How many of the warriors that dealt with Reno arrived in time to reinforce the warriors who stopped Custer? And now the big question: what was the total of warriors that finished off Custer?
Thanks, Horse... nice to see you here again.
My total warrior number was 2,072 in the actual fighting, with more on hand. I find it impossible-- at this time-- to estimate males classified as warriors, simply because there are various definitions. Probably 14 years to 35 or 40, but one could claim any male over 14... so who knows. There is a fudge element in there as well, for I had to estimate wickiups, then how many of those contained warriors and how many contained more than one. I also used a slightly elevated number per lodge-- rounding up, rather than rounding down-- because of the additional single males. The formulas are good, as is the technique. It is the input of a couple variables that could skew the numbers. I have used very conservative figures, however, except for the total Sioux population for percentages. I used the highest of the range, simply because the lowest was way too low.
I regard your numbers as too high, based on several years of discussions.
Well, you are wrong.
I may not agree with you, but due to details and analysis way beyond the average readers understanding. No one said this was easy. So do not waste time talking to me. Publish that puppy.
It's about to be.
Actually, I used Gray's methodology, something that ties in quite well and is accepted by both Bray and Dickson. "Fuchs" and I have discussed it and he accepts it as well... though he is unaware of my latest efforts. If you look in Strategy, he is footnoted using his real name.
There are two or three primary numbers I have used to compute the various tribes and I have backed off what I felt were overages in each case, especially with the Cheyenne. I used the high end of Bray's population estimates to compute percentages and to skew the numbers even lower I did not use Dickson's Sitting Bull Ledger because I feel too many Indians joined his band after the battle: these late-joiners were not there. Plus, his ledger would have given me too many duplicates I could not identify properly. The only haphazard entry that I could only guess at was the wickiup population of single males. I also backed away from the occupants-per-tepee figures as too high, using a lower number derived from several sources and the only fudge there was I rounded up a 0.5 number to the next whole-- rather than round down-- a legitimate technique. Right, Dave?
Just in case, everyone knows there is nothing personal between Fred and myself? We can disagree without emotional entanglements. I hope.
And if not, bugger Georgetown.
What's with the, "I hope" business? You should know better by now. We are friends and nothing will ever change that. We can disagree and still come up friends. Friends like you who question some of the things I do, are the best kind of friends, aren't they? The last thing I need or want is a sycophantic relationship with anyone. That kind of thing nauseates me. Hell, Lisa and I don't agree on everything, either. I want, like, and admire strong women and strong friends.
That's when you know you have a true friend.
Very best wishes, Fred.
PS-- ... and you are 100% wrong if you disagree with me. < G > FCW
If you want to use Gray's numbers, why do you not use his timeline?
Very simple: Dickson feels Gray's numbers and methodology in determining Indian population are valid. They are based on solid evidence: ledgers rolls, census data, etc. Gray's timeline isn't: it is contrived.
I will buy almost anything Ephriam Dickson peddles (bridges excluded). He is the best in the biz and I accept his work even above Bray's. I have found enormous gaps in Gray's overall work, i. e., his timeline; I have found questionable data in Bray's; I have found no such thing with Dickson.
If you want to rate them, here is how I would do it:
and on the following pages, for those that might nevertheless be interested.
The Very Short Version:
Based mostly on the same sources Fred cited in this thread, and the same method he claimed to have used (based on Gray's analysis in Centennial Campaign) my conclusions were that it is next to impossible that the number of Indians at the LBH were either significantly less than 5000, or more than 7500. At present I would think 6000 or slightly less the most plausible, but I think it unlikely that it will ever be conclusively fixed between those numbers (5000-7500).
The case is similar for the number of warriors. Fred sensibly mentioned the caveat of how exactly "warrior" would be defined. I always found it useful of using at least two distinct definitions here: -the "demographic" warrior, everyone considered a man by the Indians themselves, i.e. every male older than about 15 years. -the "active" or core warrior, the age bracket of about 15 to 35. Those were the guys Indian society was expecting to carry the fight to the enemy, the vast majority of the Indians actually fighting at the LBH would be from this group.
Of the wider warrior definition, the numbers at the LBH would have been between about 1200 and about 2000. Core warriors, those doing most of the fighting, between about 750 and 1300, adding some fairly generous helping of boys and older men the number of warriors actually fighting could be stretched to maybe 900-1500.
I do not think Fred is correct either, obviously. But unless he discloses his specific assumptions and methods that led him to those different numbers, I do not see much point in further discussion.
I have extensive experience with statistical analysis. I never intended this, kind of an accident. I went to same school and same degree as Donald Trump, in economics. Later this background led the Army to place me in jobs requiring those skills, in both friendly and enemy estimation roles.
It is a mantra in military operations that as soon as you have a setback, you inflate the number of enemy combatants.
There is a great historical fiction movie and book called Lone Survivor. It is about a four man scout patrol that was detected and defeated by a Taliban squad. The enemy fought in two four man teams, The US element retreated down a draw. Taliban placed one team n the two ridges overlooking the draw. How do we know this? Because the Taliban has a video camera with each team. They filmed it. And US drones showed up to also record what was happening. So 6 shooters with a terrain advantage beat 4 guys. The book, movie, and even military officials who knew the truth later decided to inflate enemy numbers to a degree of absolute lunacy. 8 men became hundreds in these false accounts.
Same with Robert's Ridge.
Because Custer lost there is a tendency to inflate Indian numbers and Indian casualties.
I find Fuchs analysis probable and reasonable. There were certainly enough Indians to win within his framework.
LTC Custer knew what he faced at LBH. He had been tracking the village for days. His own estimated number of warriors was 1500. He knew the Indians were in one massive village, as opposed to scattered elements as at Washita. He knew the Indians had gathered in mass to oppose the USG, and would fight, as they always fought. There were no surprises at LBH. Enemy did exactly what they were expected to do.
Given what was known as facts, 7th Cavalry decision making at LBH is hard to understand. Custer lost a battle any other officer in the US Army would have won. The largest concentration of combat power made by LTC Custer was 3 companies, 130-ish men to defeat 1500 warriors. This battle was lost by Custer, far more than it was won by the Indians.
Glad to see you post again, Fuchs. I respect your analysis.