|
Post by Jim on May 11, 2006 8:25:07 GMT -6
It is common knowledge that the members of the 7th Cavalry Band remained at the Powder River Depot during the latter stages of the campaign at the LBH. It is also reported that their horses were used in the campaign, to replace those horses that became unuseable from the march from Ft. Lincoln.
Since their horses were reported to be White, does anyone know which companies they were assigned to. I don't believe that all 17 were assigned to Company E, or maybe they were.
If they were distributed throughout the other companies, would that not confuse some Indian testimonies as seeing "WHITE" horses across the battlefield in different areas?
Jim
|
|
|
Post by crzhrs on May 11, 2006 13:33:37 GMT -6
I do believe it was E company who got the horses . . . and it was the white or gray horses that the Indians noticed so vividly in some of their testimony. If it wasn't for their unusual color we may not have had some of the info regarding what E company was doing during the battle.
But I also believe there were a number of other horses with the same color. Didn't Cooke have a white/gray horse?
|
|
|
Post by El Crab on May 11, 2006 19:38:49 GMT -6
I don't believe it was E Company. I believe the musician's horses were spread around to whomever was allowed to go along and needed one.
Cooke rode a true White horse, as did the trumpeters.
One thing I've always found curious was that just about no books on the battle ever really talk about E's "Gray" horses being white. Grays start out darker, but as they age, they become white over time. The differences between a Gray and a White are skin color and mane/tail color. A Gray has dark skin under its white hair, and a dark mane and tail. A white has pink skin under its white hair, and a light mane and tail. I always assumed Grays were gray. After all, the rest of the horses were shades of brown, really. So gray would stand out. But I forget which book actually clued me in that they were, in fact, mostly white in color. I had to look up info on Grays to wrap my head around that. I guess all of the authors out there just assumed we know our horses.
|
|
|
Post by elisabeth on May 12, 2006 2:59:53 GMT -6
That's an interesting distinction, Crab. (Here in the UK, horse people tend to use "grey" -- sorry, "gray" -- for all shades from iron-grey to pure white.) I wonder if the army wouldn't have tended to avoid pure white horses, though, as the lack of pigmentation would make them vulnerable to things like sunburn? The photo of the horse we assume to be Nap -- the one where he's posed with Comanche -- shows a horse with light mane and tail, but darker colouring on the forelegs and a dark muzzle; hard to be sure from the rather fuzzy reproductions in books, but it looks as if he could also have some dappling on the shoulders. So he's definitely a Gray. Annoyingly, we don't (I think) know whether he was a Co. E horse, a trumpeter's horse, or a bandsman's horse! But he looks quite small -- same height as Comanche -- and fairly ordinary, so my guess is he's a troop horse.
But Jim's original question is a very, very interesting one. There may not be records of who got which horse, but there might be something on paper somewhere that would tell us, at least, which companies had unserviceable horses by the time they reached the Powder River Depot? It's Co. C that has the most stragglers at LBH, so possibly took the least good care of its horses; on the other hand, that could equally suggest they didn't get the remounts. The units that did the most work were those on Reno's scout, B, C, E, F, I and L: all but one of these, obviously, in Custer's command at LBH. So, reasonable to assume that the bulk, at least, of the band horses were in the companies with Custer.
Most probably it would be as Crab says: that they'd be distributed on grounds of need. But ... horses are creatures of habit, and if they're used to working with a particular group of other horses, they could become a bit unmanageable when separated. Especially when they're being asked to do unfamiliar things with an unfamilar rider. So it's not impossible that they might have been assigned in fours, say, rather than dotted around singly? In which case you could visualise a squad, or a platoon, of non-Co. E guys mounted on band horses. Quite eye-catching enough to catch the attention of the Indians -- and quite enough to mislead us as to who is where, when!
It's a very attractive idea, and opens up all sorts of possibilities ...
|
|
|
Post by d o harris on May 12, 2006 3:51:50 GMT -6
This brings up the question of remounts. Has anyone ever done a study on this question? How many troops were left at the Powder River because remounts would be needed? In any group of 600+ horses, regardless of how well conditioned and prepared, going out for 12-15 days @ 30 miles per day, carrying 250 lbs or more, and on short grain rations, there are going to be horses that breakdown. As Elisabeth mentioned, half the horses of the reg't were just returned from a scout, seven or eight days on reduced grain rations, and badly in need of reshoeing. Was any provision made for this? The horses of the troops assigned to the packs could have been used as remounts, but can we be sure these men even had horses? Has anyone ever come across mention of a small horse herd with the packs? If troopers with the packs had horses there must have been a herd of 70-80 animals, unless each trooper was also responsible for his own horse, as well as driving a couple of mules.
|
|
|
Post by fred on May 12, 2006 6:05:04 GMT -6
Here are some notes, taken from a variety of sources (some of which I do not list because of the duplication) regarding the Terry/ Custer column as it left FAL on 17May76. As you can see, there is not a lot about horses.
* LT Maguire, Terry’s engineer officer listed the column as such: [Connell] • 45 scouts, guides, & interpreters; • 50 officers; • 968 enlisted personnel; • 190 civilian employees; • 1,694 animals. * MAJ George Gillespie, Chief Engineer of the Military Division of the Missouri, stated in his 1876 annual report: [Connell] • 30 Indian scouts; • 45 officers; • 906 enlisted men. • Gillespie did not accompany the mission & these numbers are almost certainly wrong by a lot. * Mark Kellogg, the correspondent for the Bismarck Tribune, claimed 1,207 men left FAL [Connell]. * Accompanied by a herd of cattle to supply fresh meat. * Approximately 151 wagons (Michno says 160, with 1,694 horses & mules; "rhymes" w/ the first "bullet," above): • 114 six-mule teams: * Government-owned; * hauled primarily forage for the animals; * would obviously become lighter as the animals ate the forage. * 3,000 to 5,000 pounds cargo. • 37 two-mule teams: * Smaller; civilian-owned & under contract to the gov’t. * Contained mainly camp equipment, ammo, & sundry supplies. * 1,500 to 2,000 pounds cargo. • 35 pack mules. • 179 men. • According to Gray, QM trains were mule-drawn & could only make about 20 miles a day. • Shortage of horses: 78 7th Cav recruits had to walk because their horses had not yet arrived from St. Paul, MN.
I would suspect, if this last "bullet" is correct-- & I have no reason to doubt it-- any horse herd accompanying the column, would have been small indeed. After a while, the numbers become dizzying, no one agreeing w/ anyone else, but others simply copying what has already been done. The horse business is very interesting & I believe it was discussed in some detail on another thread.
I am not sure I understand-- agree with?-- harris' statement of 250 pounds on a horse, especially since I was always under the impression that the average cavalryman was around 140 pounds; another 110 pounds in equipment? My quandary there, however, comes more from a lack of knowledge than from disagreement.
Another interesting point to ponder. We generally accept John Gray's comments that a horse at a gallop runs 8 mph. Today's 4-minute mile runners run at 15 mph. A thoroughbred runs at what, 30 mph? Are we saying that a twentieth-century man can run approximately twice as fast as a nineteenth-century horse, even if that animal has-- for argument's sake-- 200 to 250 pounds on him? It seems odd to me, but I am a fish out of water here.
Best wishes, Fred.
|
|
|
Post by elisabeth on May 12, 2006 6:32:23 GMT -6
Re the gallop: Lord Cardigan estimated the gallop in the Charge of the Light Brigade as 17 mph. If he was right (and he was there, so should know!) Gray's figure is very modest -- even allowing for tired horses, rough country, and more equipment than the Light Brigade would have carried into battle. Seems odd to me, too.
I think there was a breakdown of the weight question in another thread, quite recently; the 250 lbs rings a distinct bell. Can't remember where, though!
We do know that some spare horses travelled with the train: there was Custer's Vic, and Keogh's Comanche, so it's a safe bet that most if not all other officers had a charger kept fresh for battle too. But pretty clearly no substantial horse herd, or the 78 recruits wouldn't have had to be left behind. Probably not a "herd" at all, as officers' spare horses would most likely be in the care of each officer's striker. But the horses of the troopers assigned to company packs? Perhaps ... Do we actually know, for sure, whether those troopers were on foot, or leading the mules from horseback? I don't recall seeing any source that spells that out. Even the Hardorff "Packs, Packers and Pack Details" says nothing about it.
There's a suggestion somewhere that Boston had gone back to the train to get a fresh horse; and I believe Martini, in one of his many versions, mentions doing the same to replace his wounded one? Whether this was from a pool of remounts, or by grabbing the horse of some poor foot-slogging mule-tender, is far from clear. This is definitely unknown territory!
|
|
|
Post by fred on May 12, 2006 7:18:16 GMT -6
Elisabeth--
I would find it extremely hard to believe that not every single soldier was well-mounted when Custer began his move up the Rosebud. Remember the rations business; this was going to be a forced march if necessary. And there were a number of stragglers, one horse-- I believe from C Company-- even breaking down in the Rosebud Valley & a couple more along Reno Creek. Custer's command was even galloping along stretches of Reno Creek.
I still have a tough time imagining Reno charging down the LBH valley at 8 mph. I can walk 4 mph!
Another thing... even though we read about all this movement, quotes flying all over the place from Benteen, Godfrey, Edgerly, et al, we never hear anything about un-mounted soldiers. Broken-down horses, yes; tired horses, yes; but nothing about "no-horsed" soldiers.
Best wishes, Fred.
|
|
|
Post by crzhrs on May 12, 2006 7:27:16 GMT -6
Godfrey stated that while Benteen's command was on their scout to the left many horses were lagging behind and struggling due to the rough terrain.
Martini on his ride to Benteen stated he tried to urge his horse on faster but the animal could not do it.
Not much has been said about how the horses were taken care of during the 7th's march. One would think the horses would have been rubbed down, brushed, and given a chance to cool down from the days' march. If not it may explain why some of the horses were faltering, especially during the 25th when speed was of the utmost importance.
Did Custer push the command to hard to get to the Indians first which may have caused the horses to fail when they were needed the most?
|
|
|
Post by fred on May 12, 2006 8:50:55 GMT -6
I think Elisabeth & her comment about Lord Cardigan & horses galloping at 17 mph is more realistic. You can deduct from that the added weight an American soldier might carry & I guess there was a difference in horses, as well, so... .
Best wishes, Fred.
|
|
|
Post by crzhrs on May 12, 2006 9:50:42 GMT -6
RE: Lord Cardigan:
Weren't the British better trained as horsemen? And were they carrying as much weight as troopers of the 7th who were on a much longer march than the Light Brigade? Plus, I believe the valley they were charging on was far more open and even than the terrain Reno was on.
It could be two different scenarios . . .
|
|
|
Post by elisabeth on May 12, 2006 11:05:59 GMT -6
Oh yes, of course, a very different scenario. Their logistical base was close at hand, so they didn't need to carry marching rations; the horses were rested; and the terrain was perfect. And I hate to boast but yes, the British cavalrymen were better trained -- thanks in part to the very same Capt. Lewis Nolan who carried the fateful "charge" message. He'd studied French cavalry methods (cutting-edge at the time) and had published a seminal training manual in, I think, 1852. But ... different enough to account for a more than doubling of speed? I do share Fred's doubts on that. The 8 mph is probably OK as a rough rule-of-thumb average, but as gospel? Hardly. Worth remembering, perhaps, that some of both Custer's and Reno's horses got excited enough to bolt; adrenaline works for horses as well as people -- if not more so. (Anyone who's ever been run away with by a horse will testify to that! Even a fat old riding-school plodder can give you some very nasty moments if it chooses to embarrass you ...) Re the care of the horses: true, we don't hear much about that. Gray did a bit of a study: www.kancoll.org/khq/1977/77_3_gray.htmbut we certainly don't get any anecdotal stuff about "I washed my horse down" or "I was careful to unsaddle my horse at the morning halt on the 25th"; if anything, we hear that troopers were so exhausted themselves that they just lay down and fell asleep. Chances are that some of those horses weren't unsaddled since around 11 pm on the 24th. Fred touches on something that may be a bit of a clue. We don't hear anything from the survivors who were with the packtrain to the effect of "Oh my God, I had to walk" -- which may perhaps suggest that they did remain mounted while driving the mules?
|
|
|
Post by crzhrs on May 12, 2006 11:20:50 GMT -6
If the troopers were exhausted we can only assume the same for the horses, since they received far less grain than was required and the drinking water was alkaline, making it unfit for watering the animals. (see Gray's article)
As for runaway horses, it may be more of the rider's experience in handling the animals than anything else (I'm not a horse rider so I'm guessing)
Plus the testimony of many Indians who stated they were trying to frighten the horses by waving blankets and yelling . . . which seemed to work, especially against Custer's command. I can't see 1 horse holder trying to control 4 frightened horses . . . more than likely the trooper let them go and then sought cover, thus loosing horses that may have been used to fight and/or escape.
The horse "issue" has been discussed many times and while not a deciding factor, it was just another addition to the list that caused the 7th's defeat.
|
|
|
Post by fred on May 12, 2006 12:00:45 GMT -6
Anyone who's ever been run away with by a horse will testify to that! Even a fat old ... plodder can give you some very nasty moments if it chooses to embarrass you. I found that out in my divorce! I would venture a guess that every man was mounted, & I think I would be very accurate w/ that statement. The condition of the horses, however, had to have been problematic & my thoughts about those breaking down are that if several did so, the rest could just as easily have followed. I also find it very interesting that every single soldier who I can account for whose horse broke down, was on the scout w/ Reno. And please notice that I wrote "soldier," not horse. I would tend to doubt, however, that those men had the luxury of an extra steed. Best wishes, Fred.
|
|
|
Post by d o harris on May 12, 2006 17:21:37 GMT -6
I can't speak from experience. The last successful experience I had aboard a horse wasn't a horse but a pony and I was about 3 1/2 yrs old. A travelling photographer came through our neighborhood, and for the price of a dollar took my picture aboard the steed. He also accoutred me in a Smokey the Bear type hat, neckerchief, and sheepskin chaps. In the picture I smile. The pony looks bored. I can only date the picture because my brother, born in March, also had his picture taken. He couldn't have been more than 3 or 4 months old, still in swaddling clothes. In 1957 a rancher I knew, and who purported to be my friend, convinced me it was possible to hunt jackrabbits on horseback. He assured me the horses were well trained and knew what to do. So, the rancher, I, and one of his hands went out to decimate the local population of jackrabbits. Well, the horses were well trained, to a point. They were trained to respond to the quick ins and outs of a running jack rabbit. They had not been taught to allow a rider to keep the saddle. The horse went after the rabbit and I went in the direction of home base. I ended severely bruised in places I'd not display, and sore and swollen in places I'd not even talk about. At the end of the hunt the rancher galloped back to where I nursed my pains. He asked: "What happened?" "The horse threw me. You told me an old woman could ride that horse." "Well, she can." "I guess I'm not an old woman." "Hell, son, you proved that by the way you ride!" I've not been on a horse since.
|
|