|
|
Post by crzhrs on Dec 1, 2006 12:41:17 GMT -6
Undoubtedly more men died from diseases. If we look at the CW we find many died from diseases or from infections during operations from poor sanitary situations, and not directly from battle wounds.
If we look at todays fighting army we have far better body armorment, quick evactuation from battle fields, and superior medical/technology which saves many from death, albeit suffering horrendous wounds/trauma.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on Dec 1, 2006 15:49:28 GMT -6
Markland, this what gave William Allen White gas and shows what happens when Rear Reverend Dingbat runs the schools and What's the Matter With Kansas in general.
"But, that is still almost a one in nine shot of being killed in combat." No, it isn't. "So, lots of good firing into the dust and running away in opposite directions." You're being sarcastic, but the actual math says that's probably correct.
The math you provide does not even deal with the conclusion you offer. You provide a percentage of dead soldiers on the frontier between utterly arbitrary dates. I'm not being picky, but the unwashed might think the frontier was terribly dangerous for soldiers if 9 or 10 percent died from Indians alone, which is what you say here. Note.
It's way, way below that. This is what Michno does, only he utilizes comparisons to airliners and is way the hell out there.
|
|
|
|
Post by markland on Dec 2, 2006 5:10:28 GMT -6
Markland, this what gave William Allen White gas and shows what happens when Rear Reverend Dingbat runs the schools and What's the Matter With Kansas in general. "But, that is still almost a one in nine shot of being killed in combat." No, it isn't. "So, lots of good firing into the dust and running away in opposite directions." You're being sarcastic, but the actual math says that's probably correct. The math you provide does not even deal with the conclusion you offer. You provide a percentage of dead soldiers on the frontier between utterly arbitrary dates. I'm not being picky, but the unwashed might think the frontier was terribly dangerous for soldiers if 9 or 10 percent died from Indians alone, which is what you say here. Note. It's way, way below that. This is what Michno does, only he utilizes comparisons to airliners and is way the hell out there. *double sigh* Please read, slowly and thoroughly, my response in message # 14. It went something like this: "DC, another clarification. I was not making a probability ratio, which as you said requires knowing the numbers of men partaking in the combat, only a ratio between known dead and type of death." Perhaps, when really, really, really bored and I don't have anything to do, I will take the time to itemize the numbers of troops on the frontier and come up with probability ratios for you. I will say that if a soldier served in Texas, he may have had a slightly higher probability of dying than in other states/territories. Of the 5112 I have so far, 1444 died in Texas from all causes. That percentage, 28%, will be diluted by the fact that Texas had more troops stationed in it than any other state or territory. I will have to determine the number of troops stationed in the various states from all regiments to be able to come to any authoritative conclusion. Also, resorting the database I discovered that I had input more pre-Civil war than I had thought (I had forgotten about adding the Mounted Rifles, later 3rd Cavalry, deaths.) Those aggregate to 227 names between 9/26/1849 and 10/14/1861. Fifteen were killed by Indians with many unknown causes of death. Likely those "unknowns" died from disease as most had their death itemized under the heading, "Ordinary." For instance, between 10/01/1852 and 10/19/1852, 8 men of the 4th Infantry died at Benicia Barracks, CA. All were totaled as "Ordinary Deaths" but since one had a cause of death, typhoid dysentery, given, I think we can with a resonable degree of certainty speculate that most, if not all, of the remaining seven died from disease. Now what was the topic of this thread again??? Billy |
|
|
|
Post by PhillyBlair on Dec 2, 2006 8:41:14 GMT -6
Mike,
In reply to your initial question, it is generally accepted that the Indians knew there were soldiers coming, but that Custer and Co. arrived earlier than they expected. There are multiple references to this in Indian testimony. Two Moons related to Camp that Custer arrived two days earlier than the Indian scouts expected, and Camp even offers a name of a scout (Hollow Horn Bear), who, along with others had scouted Custer's column for several days. (See Cheyenne Memories, Hardorff, p. 124)
I don't think it possible that the Indians could have had a battle with Crook -- knew the army was campaigning against them -- and had no suspicion that more troops would be coming. I am probably the most anti-politically correct person I know, but I do think that some of our views of the plains Indians reflect our notion that we were/are somehow smarter than they are/were. This is a shame. The notion that the "naive Indians" were partying all night and surprised by Custer is not logical. The more likely answer is that the "politically savvy" Indians never trusted the government or white interviewers enough to give up all the information regarding their lifestyle and history.
My personal guess is that if Custer had rested on the 25th and planned to attack on the 26th, he either would have encountered a very prepared camp, or he would have been attacked himself before he did any attacking of his own. Just my opinion.
|
|
|
|
Post by AZ Ranger on Dec 2, 2006 9:06:37 GMT -6
PhillyBlair- This goes to the veracity of Indian statements which is often a matter of discussion. It certainly may have some to truth to it.
The difference between a small village and a large one may be that the smaller villages had more alert lookouts as compared to if they come we will fight. Washita would indicate that they weren't very alert there also. I haven't read anywhere that part of the village fled while others fought. I don't if this was discussed among the Indians but you would think if they had not then some would have fled if that was the "tradition."
AZ Ranger
|
|
|
|
Post by crzhrs on Dec 2, 2006 9:18:42 GMT -6
It's possible the Indians felt that by mid-afternoon no soldiers would be attacking. Usually the military attacked at dawn so the Indians may have felt safe from attack and slightly let their guard down.
That does not mean they were unaware of soldiers in the area. It's hard to believe that 660+/- men on horses would be as quiet as a door mouse. Let alone all the dust kicked up by horses.
Maybe the Indians felt the lower end of the village would not be the target but the far end. Some Indian statements were to the effect they knew soldiers were coming from that area but the Reno attack was the real surprise.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on Dec 2, 2006 10:45:06 GMT -6
"...slightly let their guard down." What guard was ever up? Anything approaching military competence would have demanded the 7th be nailed big time in the confines of Reno Creek (current, not MTC then).
Let go of the Great Warrior Society image. The Native Americans were incapable - having small experience with it - of running large camps and assigning organizational responsibility which, in any case, nobody had authority to do and nobody had compulsion to obey. This is the equivalent of Custerphiles basing everything upon Custer always being brave, on the offensive, and competent as the baseline for consideration of his obvious actions and resultant fiasco. Anything that offends that delusional surety is discarded.
|
|
|
|
Post by wild on Dec 2, 2006 11:09:34 GMT -6
Anything approaching military competence would have demanded the 7th be nailed big time in the confines of Reno Creek (current, not MTC then).
Yup DC that military competence provided Crook with a 4 minute warning that hundreds of Balubas were on his case.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on Dec 2, 2006 13:41:14 GMT -6
Yes, having scouts out DID provide Crook with warning. The Sioux at LBH? Not so much, given they lost women and children because a huge camp was generally surprised. The cavalry was not in stealth mode, having none, and that it survived is due to Sioux incompetence.
|
|
|
|
Post by PhillyBlair on Dec 2, 2006 13:59:58 GMT -6
DC -- your point about the lack of overall organization is well taken, and this has always been baffling to me. We know (at least I think we do) that Indians had very little overall organization to their united camps. It was just too rare an event for them. We also suspect that their fighting was largely individualistic (although there were certainly exceptions to that), but I have never understood how word of an impending attack could not be shared from tribe to tribe, tepee to tepee, etc. Yet that's just what some Indian accounts would have us believe. AZ raises the question about the veracity of those accounts, and that's certainly a piece of it. Has anyone read a good cultural analysis that would explain how this lack of communication would have been normal? It really is puzzling for me. In the case of LBH, how would NOT spreading the word from tribe to tribe help anyone? Could it have been a case of "alert levels" like we experience today? Could the chiefs have been united enough to agree when and when not to share such information with the villages as a whole? Could they have been afraid of the village breaking up in fear if the word was spread?
|
|
|
|
Post by wild on Dec 2, 2006 15:56:36 GMT -6
and that it survived is due to Sioux incompetence.
It seems only the complete annihilation of a mixed arms force of professional soldiers will save the Sioux from being described as incompetent.Simple winning the battle is not enough.
Philly
Could they have been afraid of the village breaking up in fear if the word was spread?
The fact of the matter is that although spotted by at least 2 parties of hostiles word did not reach the village because one group was returning to the agency while the other took the scenic route back to the village and arrived after all the fuss was over.
However there is no reason to believe that the Indians if in possession of knowledge of Custer's approach would have responded any differently from how they reacted to Crook's approach.
|
|
|
|
Post by AZ Ranger on Dec 2, 2006 16:20:44 GMT -6
How far from their village were the Indians when they hit Crook?
If Custer had been capable of taking the village they certainly let him get close enough for a try. Either they knew his strength and were not afraid or they screwed up but not as bad as the 7th.
AZ Ranger
|
|
|
|
Post by wild on Dec 2, 2006 16:32:41 GMT -6
How far from their village were the Indians when they hit Crook?
25 miles approx
Either they knew his strength and were not afraid or they screwed up but not as bad as the 7th.
No central command thus they are reactive not proactive.Screwed up is when there is a system a better term would be systemically challenged.
|
|
|
|
Post by AZ Ranger on Dec 2, 2006 17:10:50 GMT -6
Wild you answered both and the system they used with Crook should have been deployed on Custer or else they screwed up.
AZ Ranger
|
|
|
|
Post by wild on Dec 3, 2006 2:19:17 GMT -6
AZ
Wild you answered both and the system they used with Crook should have been deployed on Custer or else they screwed up.
Nope.The system used against Crook was reactive.They lacked a system which responded strategically.Having reacted to Crook no one took responsibility or saw to it that precautions were taken to defend against another column or counter attack from Crook.
|
|
