|
Post by ephriam on Oct 4, 2007 6:52:03 GMT -6
George Belden included a long description of how arrows are manufactured in his book Belden, The White Chief, pages 101-105. This is available online at: quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=moa;idno=ABJ1451.0001.001Belden mentions that war arrows, as opposed to hunting arrows, were also distinguished by how they were attached to the shaft: "To make war arrows, the Indians manufacture the shafts the same as for game arrows. The head is then fastened loosely in the wood, and when it is fired into the body it can not be got out. If you pull at the shaft the barbs catch and the shaft pulls off, leaving the arrow-head in the wound. Some war arrows have but one barb, and when this arrow is fired into the body, if the shaft be pulled, the barb catches in the flesh and the steel turns cross-wise in the wound, rendering it impossible to extract it." (p. 104). ephriam
|
|
|
Post by conz on Oct 4, 2007 11:10:06 GMT -6
So any judgments as to why Reno's command wasn't inundated with arching arrow fire?
Clair
|
|
|
Post by mwkeogh on Oct 4, 2007 13:51:47 GMT -6
So any judgments as to why Reno's command wasn't inundated with arching arrow fire? Clair I think they may have used them all up against Custer.....
|
|
|
Post by "Hunk" Papa on Oct 4, 2007 17:57:12 GMT -6
Its more likely that they didn't need to. They had the firearms taken from the Custer battalions.
|
|
|
Post by harpskiddie on Oct 4, 2007 18:18:47 GMT -6
clair:
The skirmish line was beyond arrow range. The position in the timber was more-or-less sheltered from arcing arrows. They may have fired lots without effect, but more than likely thought it a waste of a limited resource, just as they tended to preserve ammunition. There IS anecdotal evidence that bows were used during the retreat, both as striking weapons/coup counters, and to shoot arrows into the fleeing/charging columns/disorganized masses of troopers and officers.
Gordie, is the willow tree still weeping there? Does the lassie with the smiling eye..................
|
|
|
Post by crzhrs on Oct 8, 2007 7:59:37 GMT -6
Once Reno's command was in the timber, it would very difficult to use bow and arrows.
There are some Indian statements that say elders told warriors with Winchesters to infiltrate the woods and attack the soldiers. These may have been the ones who fired point-blank in the group including Reno & Bloody Knife.
|
|
|
Post by conz on Oct 8, 2007 8:24:03 GMT -6
My impression is that the Natives did not want to get close enough, in mass, to Reno's position to use arrow fire. Massed indirect fire would have decimated Reno's command, but obviously cavalry marksmanship was good enough to keep the Natives at a respectable distance.
Interesting that the Natives could get close enough to Custer's position(s) to use massed arrow fire against them...a key element in his demise.
Clair
|
|
|
Post by crzhrs on Oct 8, 2007 9:23:42 GMT -6
Reno did have sufficient cover in the timber. Some Indian accounts say they tried to burn them out of the brush so they could get at them easier. Reno may have held out if there was some type of organized defense, but the cover may have made it hard for communications and orders to be given. Regardless, once warriors with Winchesters fired into Reno's group it was all over. Massive firepower was more devastating in that case rather than bow-and-arrows.
Custer however was in open terrain on a hillside with no cover. The Indians used ravines and thick vegetation to infiltrate and fire from concealment.
|
|
|
Post by "Hunk" Papa on Oct 8, 2007 15:33:36 GMT -6
Are we not at cross-purposes here guys? There is the Reno skirmish line - arcing arrows not an option, the Reno in the timber scenario - arcing arrows a total waste of time as they would be stopped by the trees etc., from having any penetration, and finally Reno/Benteen on the hill after Custer's defeat, the only time that arcing arrows might have been effective. By that time however, the Indians had all the guns from Custer's men and I expect they were eager to try them out. After all, they already knew how bows and arrows worked.
|
|
|
Post by strange on Oct 8, 2007 16:01:38 GMT -6
Are we not at cross-purposes here guys? There is the Reno skirmish line - arcing arrows not an option, the Reno in the timber scenario - arcing arrows a total waste of time as they would be stopped by the trees etc., from having any penetration, and finally Reno/Benteen on the hill after Custer's defeat, the only time that arcing arrows might have been effective. By that time however, the Indians had all the guns from Custer's men and I expect they were eager to try them out. After all, they already knew how bows and arrows worked. And once again, Reno feeds the Indians more ammo and dooms Custer EVEN FURTHER! Reno keeps causing the collapse of EVERYTHING! And to think..........I opened up a thread where I was curious if he did any good!
|
|
|
Post by crzhrs on Oct 9, 2007 7:02:29 GMT -6
Reno did as he was ordered . . . brought the Indians to battle. Custer, meanwhile was suppose to support him. However, no time line was devised. Custer goes further downriver than originally planned, thus creating more doubt as to his intentions to Reno.
Reno apparently held the Indians long enough for Custer to get to the northern end of the village, which from accounts, was undefended. Kanipe & Martini both gave the impression Custer was about to ride through the village and win a big victory.
Custer apparently had the time provided by Reno yet does not hit when the iron is hot.
If Custer was not incapcitated then he failed to attack an undefended village, ride through it and kill warriors and capture non-coms.
|
|
|
Post by wolfgang911 on Mar 26, 2009 17:25:03 GMT -6
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 sorry to dug this one of the dust in the cellar but this 1 stuck with me : I did some archery myself in tradionnal archery and used indian english and modern type of longbows. Here I quote a famous archer book "regardless of how well the indians bows rated for efficiency they did not compare with the performance of the english longbow. indians bows were crude and varied from sloppy and comparitively inefficient to durable" The archery as handled by brittish armies in the middle age period from 1000-1500 was the work of higly skilled professionals. The big difference between their bows with the NDN bow was many, first the strength, the longbows of the british were so strong and long you could not use em on horseback and you would need 2 types of bows then, for instance, on LBH, 1 from the iroquois and 1 sioux. But indeed a brittish archers regiment army would have wiped out all the 7th if posted. it so happened to be british brought firearms to the west and not their longbows (they should!). Also differed the type of shooting, purely instinctive for the NDN which was most effective in battle at short range (!) with ever changing distances or for hunting (still is!), whilst the european troopers where exerciced for any trained distance but could not change rapidly to moving targets. By the way the apache arrows shot on james stewart in the beautiful opening of " broken arrow" brrrrrrr sticking in a tree grouped shot from long distance is just impossible in my opinion, howard hill shot those I bet on 10 yards. Anyway an NDN just could not hit crap on 100 yards at least not on a regular pace, whilst the english shooter could circle all his arrows in the butt of a horse so to say. And they would even rain through the timber of reno. If he could do so as suggested while hidden and not seeing the aim I'm not sure but his captain could order for a particular distance and than just they'll execute his order : 80 yards 40 degrees go! But on horses english longbows would have been a waste, that is where the indians were good, shooting buffalo and cavalrymen while riding, the cool dudes! By the way the best bows you would have needed were persians and turcs for that with their goathornbows, they shot way over a kilometer, you could wipe out all 3 regiments from almost the same spot ;D! I red the rest of this interesting old post and would like to guess on the other point : the fact that little arrows were found (does anybody know how many? quite some though in some collections in my recall, anyway you don't carry like 100 arrows and shoot em all, hard work making a nice arrow!..) : But even I'm not sure if the NDN or their women picked up all their arrows after the fight as everybody had his own arrows (made for them by older men) and you would not like to use arows with a different length or color markings except in emergency and out of arrows! Well that's all i could add to this subject . hey sorry if i digged up an oldie as I red several times warning on newbees not to start new threads for already discussed subjects! so I obey. bye wolfgang
|
|
|
Post by biggordie on Mar 26, 2009 21:42:54 GMT -6
It's okay to revive an old thread when you have something newish to add to the mix. Keep it up.
Gordie
|
|
|
Post by Melani on Mar 28, 2009 11:49:35 GMT -6
Reno did as he was ordered . . . brought the Indians to battle. Custer, meanwhile was suppose to support him. However, no time line was devised. Custer goes further downriver than originally planned, thus creating more doubt as to his intentions to Reno. Reno apparently held the Indians long enough for Custer to get to the northern end of the village, which from accounts, was undefended. Kanipe & Martini both gave the impression Custer was about to ride through the village and win a big victory. Custer apparently had the time provided by Reno yet does not hit when the iron is hot. If Custer was not incapcitated then he failed to attack an undefended village, ride through it and kill warriors and capture non-coms. So--if Reno had held out in the timber for long enough for Benteen to join him, then Custer hit the other end and distracted a bunch of warriors, and then Reno and Benteen charged again at the other end--any chance of avoiding total annihilation? Or would it have just been a bigger mess? I think maybe a lot of arrows may have been shot into the bodies of Custer's men afterwards. I seem to recall reading about one guy who was propped up and had his backside used as a target.
|
|
|
Post by biggordie on Mar 28, 2009 18:18:28 GMT -6
Melani:
Another of the great "what-ifs." I hate what-ifs, but:
If Custer had been able to force a crossing at the northern fords, he still would have been fighting it out solo, and IMO, unless he fled down the river, would have been eradicated in a different spot, and probably just as quickly, if not more so - the warriors would not have had to climb up to get at him.
This would all have transpired before Benteen would have had a chance to cross and join Reno, assuming that Reno had held fast in the timber, and that Benteen could have forced a crossing and a consolidation with Reno. Had Benteen waited for the packs, the junction would have been much too little, too late, and the whole crew would have either been toast, or would have had to get out of there somehow.
Remember that Benteen said that his battalion would have no earthly chance against the body of warriors he saw in the valley, and he would not lead it across there. Those warriors were a mere handful compared with the total available manpower. Hare said that Benteen later told him that he would have joined Reno, and Hare opined that they all would have been killed. Benteen supposedly repeated that he would have done it anyway. I don't think so.
There was a sufficient number of warriors to prevent any junction of the forces, once separated, and perhaps enough to have inflicted a costly defeat on the troops, however they were handled.
Once Custer decided to attack, the outcome was pretty much written, except for the details, and once he had gone beyond, say, Calhoun Hill, he was not getting out of anything but by running for his collective life, and leaving the balance to fend for itself. Of course, running might not have saved his command anyway, since the warriors were better mounted and culd have chased down the troops easily enough.
We just wouldn't have those nice neat groupings of markers - the bodies would have been strewn for miles down the river and up the intervening ravines, probably almost half way to Hardin, or as far as the troop horses would carry the guys. What a picture for the centuries!!
As to the arrows, you are spot on in your observation about peri- and post-mortem target practice. The younger lads, those under fourteen or so, were encouraged to do so, and to touch the bodies of the enemy, as a sort of conditioning exercise. Most needed no real prodding to do either.
Gordie
PS I forgot to mention that the arrows used by the youngsters would not have been of the same quality as war arrows or even hunting arrows. The boys would have been using mostly self-made missiles, much like most of us made when we were kids, although probably of a higher order of manufacture. One reason why they were not gathered up afterward.
|
|