|
Post by fred on Jan 7, 2006 8:22:31 GMT -6
Shatonska--
Now we're getting somewhere! And Benteen estimated there were 900 Indians in the valley when he first arrived. I realize there was mayhem, smoke, dust, & all the rest, but one has to start somewhere.
Best wishes, Fred.
|
|
|
Post by El Crab on Jan 7, 2006 22:42:45 GMT -6
Its pretty much a gimme that Custer faced more warriors. Several soldier/scout accounts spoke of the mass exodus to the north, and how there were very few (if any) warriors around when they heard firing from Custer's direction. Some warriors didn't even get into the Reno fight, like many Cheyennes. But they figured prominently in the Custer battle.
|
|
|
Post by fred on Jan 8, 2006 9:15:51 GMT -6
Crab--
I believe you are correct. Here's 1 example of what I mean when I state my case for more than the 1,500 warriors generally accepted as being at the battle. Bruce Liddic tends to understate the numbers. If I'm not paraphrasing him incorrectly (I'd have to check my notes), Liddic agrees w/ the 1,500 number. He discusses the Cheyenne village in detail, claiming Wooden Leg's numbers are incorrect & so are those of several other people & he claims 122 lodges is the correct figure.
Well, I have the names of 227 male warriors belonging to the various Cheyenne contingents. That would make 1.86 males per lodge. OK... no problem; but that assumes I have the name of almost every single Cheyenne at the battle! I DON'T THINK SO!
If you read Willert's work, you pick up all these documented instances of groups of Indians leaving the agencies, crossing the troopers' paths, etc., etc., etc. What? these guys are all crazy? Now, if you want to make a case for only 1,500 warriors tackling either Reno or Custer all at once, I won't argue the case, providing you were to agree that many others, (a) never got into the battle; (b) were out hunting; (c) were trying to round up the ponies; & (d) were busy helping the families get away. The battle w/ Crook was different. The action was initiated by the Indians; at the LBH, the opposite was true, so the Sioux & Cheyenne never did bring their full forces to bear.
Amen. Sunday sermon complete.
Best wishes, Fred.
|
|
|
Post by crzhrs on Jan 8, 2006 11:47:58 GMT -6
Fred:
Good points about the possibility that not all the warriors were engaged at all times . . . which leads to an even bigger rout than previous thought. Still, the biggest factor was Custer dividing his command and increasing the warrior-ratio-to-soldier even higher, regardless of whether all warriors were in action at once.
|
|
|
Post by El Crab on Jan 8, 2006 14:15:13 GMT -6
The biggest factor was not the division, but the actions of Reno and 7/12s of the regiment doing nothing while Custer was fighting.
Obviously, Custer deserves blame, but Reno lost over a company in his retreat and Reno/Benteen did nothing despite hearing Custer engaged.
|
|
|
Post by olehoss on Jan 8, 2006 16:23:58 GMT -6
Recond Reno and his soldiers were drunk? Seems like there was a great deal of liquer fllowing on that trip.
|
|
|
Post by Melani on Jan 12, 2006 14:29:10 GMT -6
I might guess that Custer saved Reno by diverting enough Indians for long enough for Reno to retreat and entrench. What do you guys think would have happened if Reno and the seven companies had tried to support Custer? Were there enough Indians there to wipe out the whole regiment, or would there have been more survivors? Or less?
|
|
|
Post by fred on Jan 12, 2006 16:14:22 GMT -6
Melani--
First of all, thank you for re-vitalizing a very good thread. Some of the stuff popping up here of late is rather hackneyed.
Second, I don't believe Custer intentionally diverted anything. Remember, Custer didn't have a lot more men than Reno, so what makes anyone think Custer would believe the mission would be better off if the Indians-- after routing Reno-- would then take him on? I'm not totally convinced-- only because I haven't done the homework that so many others on this site have done-- that Custer was fully aware of Reno's plight. I know he was told by Boyer, but still.... Because of the timing issues involved, I'm not yet conversant enough w/ that particular phase of the battle to pontificate as yet.
As to your last point about 7 more companies into the fray.... Personally, I believe that if the whole 7th was committed together, we'd still be looking for the regimental colors. Crook estimated that he was attacked by 3,000 warriors; more joined between the 17th of June and the 25th. Now whether or not they all got into the battle... well that's a whole 'nother issue.
Best wishes, Fred.
|
|
|
Post by Melani on Jan 12, 2006 16:59:24 GMT -6
Oh, I didn't mean he did it intentionally. Just that being suddenly menaced by Custer distracted a large bunch of Indians and prevented them from annihilating Reno. I rather agree that there were probably a lot more Indians than even the entire 7th could have handled.
|
|
|
Post by crzhrs on Jan 12, 2006 17:00:47 GMT -6
All we have to do is to consider the Weir Advance. They stopped momentarily and looked toward the battlefield only to find they were being advanced on by mounted warriors. And the warriors didn't seem to care about how many Bluecoats there were. It didn't take long for the soldiers to turn tail and run back to their hill. Godfrey was the only one with any sense to form skirmish lines and hold off the Indians long enough for the troopers to get back to safety.
The warriors were in full battle mode and they would have attacked any command if they had the opportunity, especially soldiers in an exposed position.
It was only the entrenchment on a defendable hill by the survivors and the realization by the warriors that the village was safe and it would not be worth risking casualties to attack a fortified position.
And the number of warriors who turned on the Weir Advance may not included all available warriors.
|
|
|
Post by fred on Jan 12, 2006 17:59:56 GMT -6
Crzhrs & Melani--
The "Weir Advance" business is an extremely good example & one I had never thought of in that context. A little while ago, I started another thread about the Jim Willert book, Little Big Horn Diary. I had never read much about the Rosebud battle on 17Jun76-- it's generally only touched on in the usual Custer books-- but Willert does a great job of discussing Crook's advance & ultimately the battle. A little later on in the book, he brings up an extremely good point about why Custer divided his command & Custer's grasp about how Indians fought.
“If the hostiles’ village was… alerted to the presence of the regiment, it would not be long before the warriors would swarm out to attack, to give their non-combatants opportunity to slip away…. Custer could not afford the risk.” (LBH Diary, p. 259)
This is exactly what happened to Crook & was about to happen on the Weir advance. The Indians' tide could be stemmed-- Crook eventually did that-- just like Crzhrs says, but eventually their numbers would simply overwhelm you. Custer's mistake was in the objective he set for his command: “... size was not what worried Custer; his overriding concern was that the Sioux would break up & scatter.” (Gray, Custer’s Last Campaign, p. 243) Yeah, well, he should have worried a little more about the size!
And Melani, as for the Reno business, like I said, I don't know enough about it right now, so crzhrs is a much better person than me to discuss that aspect of the battle.
Best wishes, Fred.
|
|
|
Post by shatonska on Jan 13, 2006 7:06:41 GMT -6
remember that warriors moved against Weir advance with 440 more rifles and revolvers plenty of ammunitions and with full confidence after having taken out the entire Custer's companies and repulsed Reno , surely Custer move saved Reno , willing or not , while Reno and Benteen behaviour condemed Cuter in the end
|
|
|
Post by crzhrs on Jan 13, 2006 7:40:37 GMT -6
As Benteen approached the Reno fight he estimated the number of warriors at around 900. Apparently they were still interested in Reno and had not moved on to Custer. The reason may have been that there were still enough warriors in the northern part of the village, which included Crazy Horse's Oglalas and the Northern Cheyenne, both groups were hard-core fighters. I doubt Benteen's approach frightened the Reno warriors, they had routed Reno and forced his retreat and now were not a threat. However once word came that more soldiers were advancing further north they left and joined CH & the Cheyenne. Technically Custer's advanced may have saved Reno.
|
|
|
Post by crzhrs on Jan 13, 2006 7:46:05 GMT -6
Fred:
RE: Battle of the Rosebud:
The battle went back & forth for most of the day. The warriors finally broke it off after feeling they had done enough to stop the Army. However there is evidence that they were laying a trap for the soldiers who did not fall for it.
Crook, licking his wounds and feeling his command was not strong enough to deal with the warriors, fell back. We can say the battle was a draw, but in reality it was a victory for the Indians who forced Crook out of action for the rest of the summer and may have been as much of a reason for Custer's defeat as anything. Crook failed to notify his superiors about what took place, the number of warriors, and their aggressive action. It was rare that large number of warriors would attack a command the size of Crook's in an open battle.
If he had passed on that info, remember it was 1 week prior to the LBH, it may have altered Terry's plans or at least alert the military to the fighting mood of the Indians. Custer then may have not been so quick to divide his command before he knew what he was fully getting into.
|
|
|
Post by fred on Jan 13, 2006 8:40:28 GMT -6
Shatonska--
I agree w/ you that Custer's moves saved Reno, however inadvertent the intention was; but I don't agree that Reno's & Benteen's actions doomed Custer. Cooke's note put Benteen in a terrible quandry: do you come quick or do you bring the packs? The two were mutually exclusive; it had to be one or the other. The comments by PVT Martini (Kanipe, too?, but I can't remember offhand), either the "skedaddling" or the "we caught them napping," had to have given Benteen-- & others-- the impression that Custer was just having a gay old time of it down the valley. So, as a responsible officer, what do you do? Everytime I think of Benteen-- & I'm a Benteen supporter, to a point-- I think of that TV movie made after the book, Son of the Morning Star, & the guy who portrayed Benteen. He was the wrong guy or the scriptwriter gave him the wrong role. He gives the wrong impression of the man, that everything he did, he did because he hated Custer & it became Benteen's fault for Custer's failures. Again, every writer says the command was exhausted. There had been virtually no sleep since Friday night, the horses were so recalcitrant, they were barely under control, Benteen had just gone 10 miles in a four-mile span, up & down tough hills & ravines; Mathey & McDougall had the pack train spread out almost interminably & the mules, as they approached the morass, fell completely out of control. It had to have been a minor fiasco. Even John Gray says Benteen didn't dog it in reaching Reno.
So again, I ask everyone... put yourself in Benteen's position. OK, he's not Mr. Warmth, Mr. Nice Guy, but he's a hell of an officer; one comment I read one time, years ago, said that no man who ever served in the U.S. Army was ever braver. That's quite a testimony! You're leading a dead-tired command, you have a written note that is the epitome of contradiction, you have the impression that the self-confident boss is having the time of his life scalp-hunting down river, & you've got a beaten, routed, panicked group of soldiers staring you in the face, blood smeared, a number of wounded, & the packs still somewhat behind you.
When the column moved up the Rosebud, Benteen w/ 3 companies trailed the reg't, herding the packs. Custer had just issued an order to keep the command together, but Benteen was falling further & further behind. Finally, he figured out a novel way of keeping the packs together a bit better & close the distance between himself & the other 9 companies. He mentioned this idea to Cooke & he asked Cooke to pass it on to Custer. Cooke refused & told Benteen to do it himself. Well, Benteen waited until the following morning because of the fear of Custer telling him to go stick it (my phraseology!). Custer knew everything better & was not very keen on his officers telling him how to do things better. So, w/ that in mind, imagine how Benteen would have felt were he to by-pass Reno, leave the packs behind, & report to Custer. What would Custer have said?
And crzhrs, I think what befell Crook, befell Reno, in microcosm. When the Indians felt they had eliminated the threat, they moved away, leaving scouts or a small force to watch. I don't think they were interested in a ledger sheet tallying up victories & losses. Crook's command fully expected to be attacked the next day, & moved away each subsequent day, knowing they were being tracked. I think those 900 Indians backed off Reno when they felt he was no longer a threat, thus joining others who were already flocking to deal w/ Custer. So, I think you're absolutely correct there. I thought, however, Crook did write a report right away & send it on. It was simply a matter of communications (another thing that would affect the Custer battle) being slow. Am I wrong?
Best wishes-- sorry to keep going on & on... Fred.
|
|