|
Post by Diane Merkel on Aug 7, 2006 20:42:20 GMT -6
I'm quite sure we've been down this road before, but I received a question last night that has been bugging me. Here it is: I recently went to the RIA (Arsenal) museum in Rock Is., ILL, that has a history display on this famous battle. Their exhibit claims that a total of 655 soldiers were involved. 255 soldiers under Gen. Custer, 140 under Maj. Reno, 160 under Capt. Benteen and 130 men with the pack train. My ten year old son did the math and the total comes out to be 685 not 655 (30 soldiiers short). Before jumping to conclusions I thought I would write for your imput on the breakdown of the # of men. I was able to answer his other questions, but I am not pleased with the answer I gave him for this one. I said that it is generally accepted that there were 750 officers and enlisted men in the regiment plus civilians and scouts (from the latest edition of Men with Custer) but that I would need to do a company-by-company analysis to verify the numbers the RIA used. I invited him to write back if he would like me to research this further. Since then, I have tried to get to 685 but always went over. Can someone solve this puzzle for me so that I can write back to the gentleman and take this off my guilty conscience?
|
|
|
Post by historynut1876 on Aug 7, 2006 21:37:48 GMT -6
I don't know if this helps, but...
Custer 213 Reno 140 Benteen 115 McDougall 132
These are my working numbers (total 600), give and take a few here and there. I don't think it is possible to pin it down exactly, and I don't think anybody has. The above numbers don't include Indian scouts (about 35) and some packers.
|
|
|
Post by Diane Merkel on Aug 7, 2006 21:53:34 GMT -6
That does help, thanks. You are with the RIA on Reno and within 2 for the pack train. Their two other figures remain a mystery.
|
|
|
Post by analyst on Aug 9, 2006 8:35:47 GMT -6
Hmmmm! I could swear I put up a post her yesterday! Maybe I hit the wrong key or ?
|
|
|
Post by markland on Aug 9, 2006 9:15:23 GMT -6
Hmmmm! I could swear I put up a post her yesterday! Maybe I hit the wrong key or ? Perhaps you should look under the thread, "Welcome to Battle Basics." Billy
|
|
|
Post by woggiedoug on Aug 11, 2006 10:09:58 GMT -6
First post after years of stalking the site.
I know where Custer ended up and Benteen and Reno, but on the day of the battle where was the mule train? Seems to me that would have been rich pickings.
|
|
|
Post by harpskiddie on Aug 12, 2006 10:09:53 GMT -6
The strengths of the various battalions depends upon which point in time one measures them. For example, the elements of the Reno Battalion, including Indian Scouts, had a total nominal strength of 256 [51 Indian Scouts]. 29 officers, enlisted men and scouts were detached prior to the campaign, leaving what I call a Campaign Strength of 236. Detachments in the field stripped away another 34, leaving 202 who marched to the Little Horn.
There were detachments to the pack train, and 13 Indian Scouts who did not charge down the valley, leaving a Battle Strength of 163 [23 Indian Scouts]. Maybe that's where the 140 comes from; but the 140 does include civilians.
For the Benteen Battalion, the numbers are: Nominal Strength 194, Campaign Strength 174, Marched to Little Horn 136, Battle Strength [including a returned messenger] 113.
For the Pack Train and Escort, the numbers are: Nominal Strength 85, Campaign Strength 79, Marched to Little Horn 58, Battle Strength [including TDA from combat companies, stragglers, messengers etc.] 176.
For the Custer Battalions: Nominal Strength 372, Campaign Strength 326, Marched to Little Horn 279, Battle Strength 210.
For the Regiment: Nominal Strength 907, Campaign Strength 815, Marched to Little Horn 675, Battle Strength 662 [does not include 13 Indian Scouts who did not cross river with Reno].
All of these numbers represent real people with real names [some had more than one]. How anyone can dismiss the Indian Scouts is beyond me, since they were all enlisted men, albeit usually only for 6 months at a time.
To woggiedoug: The location of the packtrain on the day of the battle would depend on the time of day [everything about this battle "depends"]. At noon, or thereabouts, it was closed up with the rest of the regiment. A couple of hours later it was close on Benteen's heels at a watering place [although the estimable Benteen would later claim that it was 7 miles behind him, but not to worry, nobody could get at it by going around him]. A couple of hours later, it joined Reno and Benteen on the bluffs. I left the times vague since I didn't want to have to dig through my notes for what I consider to be the accurate times. The Roster numbers shown above I already had out.
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on Aug 12, 2006 10:24:39 GMT -6
Two brand new ID's, one replies to the other's initial posting at the same time of 10:09. Amazing.
The Scouts were all enlisted men? Odd they were dismissed from battle obligation, then.....
|
|
|
Post by elisabeth on Aug 12, 2006 11:33:00 GMT -6
Though 24 hours apart, it's an odd coincidence, I agree. But not all coincidences have to be sinister!
If anyone's read harpskiddie's stuff on Delphi, you'll know he's a serious player. It's good to have him aboard.
|
|
|
Post by harpskiddie on Aug 12, 2006 12:14:21 GMT -6
dark cloud; As a senior member, I would guess you already knew that the scouts were enlisted for six monthe periods. That makes them enlisted men. They were issued government arms and uniforms, but usually furnished their own horses. Part of their enlistment articles supposedly stated that they would not be required to fight. I have never seen these articles, although I have seen the 'not required' statement repeated as fact in several books. I accept it with a grain of salt.
At the Little Horn, as you no doubt already know, Custer gave specific orders to various of the scouts that required them to attempt to run off the Hostiles' pony herd [Rees] or to find him a way to reach the village from the flank or rear [Crows].
As far as I am aware, they all obeyed these orders [more or less]. The Crows were specifically told that after bringing Custer to the approaches to MTC, they need go no farther and could go back to the packs - ostensibly by Mitch Bouyer. They never did so, but went back along the bluffs, and eventually left the scene, except for the two who had mistakenly gone with Reno. They stayed the course.
Some of the Rees went with Reno on his charge down the valley; some stayed on the bluff side and went after horses there. Almost all of them fought against the Hostiles at one point or another. Some eventually split for the Powder River Depot - several stayed the course. A few are probably still there.
My comment about the Scouts was simply meant to question why they should not be counted as part of the strength of the regiment that day. The part about the packtrain was meant for the gentleman who seemed to be new to discussions about the battle.
To Elisabeth: Thank you for the kind words. I don't remember seeing your name on the Delphi forum, but as a former sleuth[of sorts], I'm gonna guess you are Keogh's admirer, Brit 142. How close did I come?
PS How does one become a Grand Expert or a Senior Member??? Is there a test, or is it sort of a brevet rank??
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on Aug 12, 2006 13:44:40 GMT -6
No, E, that was simply stupid on my part and not reading well. I thought they'd both posted today. It's my prejudice and chemical animosity against multiple ID's for single individuals manifesting itself to my detriment. Apologies for the moment.
Let's be real. The term "Senior Member"as all 'rank' on message boards here reflects quantity of postings, not quality, as we know. It's as meaningless as the location field and gender. You can fill in what you want. And you can believe what you want of others' profiles.
But here is another example of the real need for a Glossary of Terminology for discussion here and adhering to it. I've kicked the "testimony" term apart when it applies to officers under oath - and also to the thoughts of cousins of nieces of children of participants who spoke to someone through an unknown interpreter, and this tale is found written in unknown hand.
I understood that Congress approved the term Enlisted Indian Scouts as distinctly separate from 'enlisted man' in the ranks, the same cheerful bigotry that sometimes precludes scouts and interpreters from the 'men' in casualty lists. Short period, reduced discipline, same pay. And I don't think they were considered 'enlisted men' but strictly 'Enlisted Indian Scouts.' Whenever officers talk about the enlisted men, like Benteen to Goldin, they aren't referring to or including these scouts. I'm also under the impression the scouts were to be released upon the 7th's attack and they were to steal as many horses as possible, but at that point they were serving a different master. I don't actually know if at that point American soldiers could be enticed to enlist or be paid in plunder legally. I suspect not.
|
|
|
Post by harpskiddie on Aug 12, 2006 16:23:43 GMT -6
You are correct that the Scouts were not considered enlisted men. My point is that they were in fact part of the regimental strength, whatever one may choose to call them. A rose by any other name. Your 'cheerful bigotry' phrase is about right.
I think Benteen corresponded with Goldin, because he likely needed a forum for his rants, and he doesn't seem to have had many [forums, that is]. Had he realized the hooey that Goldin was peddling him, I dare say he would have immediately terminated the connection.
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on Aug 12, 2006 17:13:52 GMT -6
If they aren't required to fight, why would they be counted as part of the regiment's strength? They could all have, as I understand it, stolen a horse and vanished and be in violation of nothing.
|
|
|
Post by markland on Aug 12, 2006 17:30:41 GMT -6
Re: Enlisted scouts.
First, I have never seen any indication looking at regimental returns were scouts were counted on a regiment's strength. Officers, if of the regiment and on detached duty (think of Fred. Beecher) are shown on the returns as serving on "detached service."
Secondly, my observations of the Regular Army Enlistment Register microfilm series indicates that the Army recognized the enlisted scouts as part of the regular Army-they are part of the "project from Hell" I am working upon-so far, up to 4,100 officers and EMs identified as dying on the Western frontier. I have some information on Indian scouts who died while in service as enlisted scouts.
Be good,
Billy
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on Aug 12, 2006 17:45:08 GMT -6
Well, wait. See, this is where words matter.
In discussing Enlisted Indian Scouts , you avoid the term and say scouts were counted as part of the army on the registers. Were these the short term Indian Scouts as well? I see a difference between the North's Pawnee Scouts and Cody and the ad hoc volunteer scouts from the Arikaree and Shoshone for a campaign.
Further, although empowered to give them uniforms and weapons and horses and food and pay equal to a soldier, was that the high end of a negotiation allowed or what had to be paid? I wonder how that went over with soldiers: to watch the scouts get the same money, more freedom, and no obligation to fight but did get to plunder, something they themselves weren't allowed. Technically.
If they count them on the register, why aren't they part of the strength of the units to which they were assigned?
|
|