Indian arrows and other fight techniques

[strange]

Hello and good greetings!

I was curious about the particulars of how the Indians used their arrows.

You see, some have commented that the arrow men could have used what I think to be a more European tactic (demonstrated in Brave heart) of aiming up into the sky and making a deadly arch of their arrows that would have made a free fall down to Custer and his boys up on the hill. Something that surely would have been more than effective and would have cleaned them all out.

However, do Indians fight that way? And by this time did they widely still use arrows?

Personally I think this is far more European, I don't think the Indians use their arrows that way. And even if some of them did, it would surely go against their "coup" which these Indians always prefered to carry out by touching enemy before they killed them.

Is this sticking with any of you?

Stranger

[crawdaddo]

I think they fought in a more individual style as you say,to gain honours or coup. Maybe they did fire in concert but that sounds to me like that movie "A man called Horse".

[strange]

Thank you very much crawdaddo!

This has always been a point I wanted to make because other people continue to insist that Custer's position on the hill would have put him in a drastically dangerous position. That would have been true if he was fighting William I, Long Shanks of England, as demonstrated in Brave Heart. But the Indian "archers" do not fire that way, and since Indian "archers" do not fire in an "arch", then I guess that technically we can all say that the Indians, despite having arrows, do not practice "archery" since they prefer to fire straight (as I think) rather than shooting up in the sky to perform a good old euro trick. Plus, by this time, I doubt these Indians would have WIDELY made use of arrows. Weren't most of them using guns by now? How many soldiers died from quote "arrow wounds" as opposed to gunshots?

So if the Indians went in and cleaned Custer out so "quickly" then they would have had to do something other than this organized European archery technique, that would have been more than effective if the Indians had any knowledge of the Europeans. But the Indians don't quite fight that way so we can rule this action out as the utter source of their victories.
These Indians are huge on counting coup, which means that most would have charged in, whether it were intelligent or not (depending on the individual), and many would have thrown themselves into Custer's brick wall before their numbers had taken effect.

We know that they weren't 100% after that battle, surely, some one in the order of Custer, Benteen, or Reno must have inflicted something . It was by no means a "cake hunt", and these Indians were not going full force afterwards. They were not even completely full force when they struck Benteen and Reno as they were trying to flee. If they had been full force, then Benteen and Reno would never have had a chance, some one had to take the stand because, no matter what, one of these 3 divisions were to be wiped out inevitably. I can almost give Reno a break in the sense that he did hold his position for a reasonable duration, I can understand where he should have attempted a REASONABLE retreat, but the thing that ticks me is that Reno should have regrouped with Benteen and the two should have came back with Custer instead of fleeing together, with Benteen's enforcement the two of them could have surely charged back to GAC, and not only would they have salvaged many valuable lives from massacre, but they may have even forced the Indians to retreat, the problem that lies is that no one understands how close they were to beating the Indians, it was more within their reach than they would ever know, just art their finger tips. Benteen and Reno probably suffered more casualties in the retreat than they would have should they had stood and fought, Benteen had the largest numbers of all, right? Think about it, do the math of what could have happened....................

Reno strikes first, first to surprise the Indians, weakens the first of their warriors................

Reno retreats and joins Benteen...........................

Custer strikes second, he can't round up the women and children as planned but he does surprise the Indians a second time and then makes a stand to weaken the oncoming warriors. Custer has about twice the amount of men as Reno (right?). He makes a stand and and holds it more than long enough for the third and final resolution to reinforce....................

Benteen comes, joined with Reno, carrying the largest of numbers of the three combined with remnants of the first attack, these Indians are surprised a THIRD time, they're startled and have no idea how amny are coming, no whites are retreating so they don't have anything to boost their spirits toward the thought that they are winning..........."what if a fourth surprise comes?".............."maybe these soldiers are playing Crazy Horse's trick ON US!?" ............

Really think about that scenario every one, Benteen had the largest numbers with him, if he had struck after Custer and his men and and after Reno's first stand, then we all know the Indians would have been weakening, and we know for a fact that the Indians were feeling quite spirited when they saw soldiers retreating! If Benteen and Reno had stayed and fought then the Indians would have not felt so full of themselves, they would have been thinking things like "how many surprises are left? when and where are the other soldiers coming? How are we gonna get out of this? It smells like a trap! It looks like the whites are using Crazy Horse's trick ON US!".

Once again I bring up Crazy Horse because I think the Indians would have felt very intimidated if they felt that 'Horse's fool proof fighting technique had been used against them, and it almost was. Instead of Crazy Horse leading a group of soldiers to their deaths by surprising them with an even larger amount of warriors (demonstrated with Fetterman), we have Custer and Reno marching right toward their village, intent on taking on large numbers, which was of coarse the idea, CUSTER WAS LOOKING FOR A BIG VILLAGE, he was not led there. And more soldiers would have kept coming, the Indians would have felt like Crazy Horse's whole strategy had been entirely flipped and turned on them, Crazy himself would have been intimidated and would have fled out of there if he felt that he was standing in the middle of his own trick, right?

I hope I'm really getting somewherebecause I've been around and around on this and I really think I'm getting something juicy (albeit, I hope I'm coherent enough for all of you).

Stranger in the whirlwind!

[crzhrs]

What would Reno & Benteen do with the wounded?

The Fetterman Fight was fought by warriors who had very poor firearms at that time. Most of them were obsolete and with little ammunition.

At that time most of the warriors used arrows, clubs, lances, tomahawks, etc., which means they would need to be in-close for hand-to-hand fighting. They did suffer high casualties there but only because of having to charge into the guns of soldiers and the two frontiersmen with rapid-fire rifles.

By the time of the LBH the warriors had gotten more modern weapons, plus reservations Indians had been armed with Winchesters. Even then, according to many Indian accounts most of the Custer fighting was long-distance until soldiers numbers were reduced and Indians were able to infiltrate to get very close to soldiers to get at them.

And there are numerous accounts of Indians arching arrows to fall onto soldiers/horses. The Indians were not stupid . . . they had experienced hunting/fighting and used whatever techniques would work at the time.

[clw]

Yes...... they were still widely using the bow and arrow. Not all warriors had guns. Those that did were unable to repair them and had to ration ammunition. While they probably didn't fire arrows in a volley, they carried 20-30 arrows in a quiver. "He could seize from 5-8 arrows in his left hand, fire the first of them in a high arch, and then discharge the rest so rapidly that the last would be in the air before the first had struck the ground........ each could mortally wound a man at twenty yards." Mails

They wouldn't have sacrificed kills to merely count coup in this fight. They weren't that stupid. Lots of opportunities to count coup in the close in fighting.

[strange]

crzhrs said:

What would Reno & Benteen do with the wounded?

The Fetterman Fight was fought by warriors who had very poor firearms at that time. Most of them were obsolete and with little ammunition.

At that time most of the warriors used arrows, clubs, lances, tomahawks, etc., which means they would need to be in-close for hand-to-hand fighting. They did suffer high casualties there but only because of having to charge into the guns of soldiers and the two frontiersmen with rapid-fire rifles.

By the time of the LBH the warriors had gotten more modern weapons, plus reservations Indians had been armed with Winchesters. Even then, according to many Indian accounts most of the Custer fighting was long-distance until soldiers numbers were reduced and Indians were able to infiltrate to get very close to soldiers to get at them.

And there are numerous accounts of Indians arching arrows to fall onto soldiers/horses. The Indians were not stupid . . . they had experienced hunting/fighting and used whatever techniques would work at the time.

Very interesting.

Now that you've confirmed the modern weaponry of the Indians then we actually have one or two things working against the idea of them using an arching technique with the bows.

Its always seems that just as the Indians take a step up, they're also taking a step down, but then again the whites aren't in the greatest of positions either.

It seems that just when arrows would have served the greatest use, the Indians begin widely using guns at the very moment when arrows would be the most use! And still, even if the Indians had arched their arrows, they would have never organized it in such a way that would have thoroughly cleaned out Custer and company, once again we face the most fascinating game of gun/arrow ratios and ironically we may find another punishment that the Indians have faced in adapting to the white man's culture. Whats the one weapon that the whites don't use? ARROWS! I still wish arrows were more widely used, for some reason the US never liked to implement archers, but nevertheless its very effective. Its fascinating to see how the Indians fight when they're juggling modern and "primitive' weaponry, this adds to their trickyness and I definitely must give them credit therewith.

[crzhrs]

Arrows were very effective in well-trained hands . . . and the Indians it would appear were well-trained from youths to use the bow-and-arrow, not just in fighting but in hunting buffalo.

At the LBH many warriors could arch arrows from concealment and not worry to much about being a target. Many historians say Indians could fire arrows at a more rapid rate than most weapons of the time. While a fire arm would be more preferable in warfare . . . the bow and arrow not only would be effective under certain conditions, but more importantly could be a psychological advantage.

Who the heck wants to get pin cushioned by arrows? Unless it hit a vital area, the arrow would be very painful and difficult to remove and would be a slow & agonizing death.

That doesn't mean a warrior would not prefer a fire arm. During treaty negotiations fire arms and ammunition were always a major sticking point. The Indians realized the importance of modern weapons, not only in fighting, but also hunting.

[gary]

I am sure that there are first hand accounts (although I cannot put my hands on any at the moment) of Indians firing arrows in an arc towards the soldiers from positions of concealment at the LBH.

[conz]

gary said:

I am sure that there are first hand accounts (although I cannot put my hands on any at the moment) of Indians firing arrows in an arc towards the soldiers from positions of concealment at the LBH.

Plenty of that...some say that the arrow fire at Custer's men hit more Soldiers than did the firearms fire.

I don't remember any accounts of Native arrow fire against Reno's position, however. You would think that against Reno's men behind cover they would want to use lots of arching fire to get at them better.

Either they remained too far away from Reno to use arrow fire, or they used up too many arrows against Custer and didn't want to use any more.

Clair

[elisabeth]

There are accounts of Indians throwing arrows into the Reno position. Whether these were serious attempts to wound, or just a contemptuous display of how close they could get, isn't clear, however.

Like Gary, I've been unable to lay hands on those accounts -- but I'm sure I've read at least one Indian saying that they had the advantage because they could arc arrows from concealment, whereas the soldiers always had to show themselves to fire. And that since soldiers and horses were bunched together, the Indians could be fairly sure that the arrows would strike something. (Can't remember who it was who said this; one of the younger warriors, I think.)

[eaglewizard]

There is an article on Indian bows in

www.archerylibrary.com/books/pope/index.html

In short, the Sioux bow had maximum range of 165 yards. Shooting with the wind probably at least 200 yards (my guess). It was deadly at least up to 40 yards and you could hit individual targets at up to 60 yards.

- Eagle

[crzhrs]

The bow-and-arrow is a close-range weapon. If anyone has gone bow-hunting you know you have to take a stand, be camoflaged, and wait for a deer (or whatever) to get very close . . . and it has to be a standing target and you still have to hit the thing with a killing shot or the animal will run off and die a slow death.

At the LBH using a bow-and-arrow would have been suicide. A warrior would have to had a clear shot which meant he would have to be exposed, fairly close for a killing shot, and still hit the target. The bows the Indians used were not the hi-tech ones with pulleys used today that fired an arrow at a more rapid and deadly speed.

The use of bow-and-arrows at the LBH was from concealment and the number of arrows that could be fired by an experienced warrior would have been considerable. Still they would have to be arched and hope that the huge numbers fired hit something.

Never really found out if anyone one examined the bodies for killing shots by arrows, clubs, bullets, etc.

By the time the bodies were found it may have been impossible anyway to determine what caused a fatal wound.

Still a bow-and-arrow in an experienced warriors hands could be deadly and something most soldiers could only cringe about happening to them.

[roger]

I expect that even many of the warriors who had guns would have had bows also in addition to their firearms. And many had only bows and arrows. If one man could fire 7 or 8 arrows from concealment in the time it took a trooper to fire re-load and fire again, thats quite a ratio ,and given the number of warriors at the battle that is a lot of arrows. I would also suspect that many of the arrows would be picked up after the battle for re-use ,there by making the extent of thier use less obvious to the troopers who discovered the bodies and to modern day archeologists. I think it not at all impossible that these warriors rained arrows down on the men on the hill from concealment. What else could they do without needlessly risking their lives? And this is what we are told happened by some of the warrors who were there. In addition, I read an account of a warrior who said there was so much dust and smoke you would not have known your friend were he right next to you, this to would lend me to believe there were many "random" shots fired and not the well aimed marksmanship the indians were capable of with the bow.

["Hunk" Papa]

'Wooden Leg, A Warrior Who Fought Custer' by Thomas B. Marquis has that Cheyenne warrior observing on Page 230 regarding the fight against the Custer battalions 'Bows and arrows were in use much more than guns. From the hiding places of the Indians, the arrows could be shot high in a high and long curve, to fall upon the soldiers or their horses. An Indian using a gun had to jump up and expose himself long enough to shoot. The arrows falling upon the horses stuck in their backs and caused them to go plunging here and there, knocking down the soldiers.'
Wooden Leg's observation is also mentioned in Greg Michno's 'Lakota Noon' on Page 165.

[clw]

Arrowheads made for hunting were different than those used in battle. The hunting arrowhead had narrow shoulders so it could be pulled out of game more easily. The ones made for battle, with broader shoulders, did a lot more damage and were much more difficult to remove -- like the barb on a fish hook.

I'm sure they used both that day, the fighting being as intense as it was they needed all they had of either type. But in terms of collecting arrows, the ones that were left behind may been impossible to remove. Agreed Roger, they would have recoverd all they could have.