|
Post by elisabeth on Jul 25, 2006 6:28:03 GMT -6
armand,
Useful. Thanks. No surprises re whodunnit, obviously; I think we could all guess at that conclusion! But his figures for Indian casualties are interesting. In the account of the 130th anniversary celebrations on the Friends of the Little Big Horn website, there's a section on the placing of warrior markers -- with the rather startling news that the assumption now is that something like 200 Indians were killed. As I understand it, that's those thought to have been killed on the field, not including those dying later of their wounds. If this can be substantiated, it's a very different story ...
|
|
|
Post by Tricia on Jul 25, 2006 8:00:00 GMT -6
What's funny to me regarding the NA casualities is that they are coming from the Cheyenne oral tradition (at least that is what was talked about at the official battlefield events this year), and from many perspectives is almost "revisionist" in nature and yet, David relies upon this number; it makes--especially in GAC's sector--the Seventh look like it fought more successfully than is normally surmised. So, could this be a case where revisionism is helpful when it makes Custer look better ...?
I'm not necessarily calling David on that, however; just making a point. The "low" number of Indian dead has always bothered many students of the battle. He and the Cheyenne elders--and the tales of the suicide boys--may be on to something! The battlefield will be an entirely different place with another 180 or so pink granite markers.
|
|
|
Post by elisabeth on Jul 25, 2006 8:09:16 GMT -6
Yes indeed. It'll be fascinating to see if there are significantly more in one area than another ...
|
|
|
Post by weir on Jul 25, 2006 8:40:23 GMT -6
I'm pleased to see the FLBH came to the same conclusion than David.
This estimation doesn't come from cheyenne oral tradition, but from witnesses, including NA chiefs (Red Horse, Crow King), 7th cavalry veterans (Herendeen testified the NA should have had as many casualties as Custer himself), NA warriors, comments from reservation agents in the past years... Michno in Lakota Noon wrote he was surprised of the so many stories of NA killed during Reno's flight - and it was a flight. And if the FBLH think 200 warriors were killed on the field ... Well it was catastrophic. A reservation agent said an Indian told him 160 Hunkpapas lost their lives !
Imagine 76 killed were identified ! The estimation should be logically higher, twice or more.
David was careful, thinking he was the only one to write the NA casualties were high. His conclusions included 180 warriors and about 10 NA civilians killed. He certainly thought of more, many more, but didn't write it. We both thought - and still think - the LBH was a Pyrrhus victory for the Native Americans.
Not surprisingly, when we wrote that on the LBHA board, we found a lot of experts telling us we were fools. Well, LBH is really a fake mystery. If you dare say openly what you found, the clouds go away quickly...
It makes me happy to realize that if the NA casualties begin to be study seriously the betrayal story will be accepted soon. A screenwriter from Minnesota I wrote to is working on it, and he found producers in Chicago to bring the "Sklenar's version" to the screen. The project in on the way.
|
|
|
Post by Tricia on Jul 25, 2006 8:47:57 GMT -6
West:
The battle was a pyrrhic victory for the NA because in winning, they secured their ultimate defeat. 200 warriors out of 2000 is not necessarily bad, especially considering Custer's battalion had 100% fatalities.
And have you told Sklenar you've found someone to pen the screenplay for his book?
|
|
|
Post by elisabeth on Jul 25, 2006 9:17:06 GMT -6
West, don't take my word for it on the FLBH piece -- I only skimmed through it very quickly for the first time this morning, and may have misremembered the precise figures. Best to take a look for yourself. But it's well worth reading, so that'll be no hardship, I'm sure!
|
|
|
Post by weir on Jul 25, 2006 9:21:36 GMT -6
West: The battle was a pyrrhic victory for the NA because in winning, they secured their ultimate defeat. 200 warriors out of 2000 is not necessarily bad, especially considering Custer's battalion had 100% fatalities. And have you told Sklenar you've found someone to pen the screenplay for his book? Custer's losses were 1/2 of this troops out of combat. NA losses, if we consider FLBH estimation is around 1/3 of their troops, if you include the wounded. Consider now that NA had an odd of 2.3 to 1 and that Custer fought 2 hours with an odd of 1 to 5. It is not surprising to me, and should not be surprising to you. In any colonial wars, the more advanced army had less losses, even when it lost. NA are no exception. It doesn't change the fact they won. And they won against one of the most famous soldier of the US history.
|
|
|
Post by weir on Jul 25, 2006 9:24:13 GMT -6
West, don't take my word for it on the FLBH piece -- I only skimmed through it very quickly for the first time this morning, and may have misremembered the precise figures. Best to take a look for yourself. But it's well worth reading, so that'll be no hardship, I'm sure! You were right you were right : From this vantage point we had a panoramic view of the western half of the battlefield, a wide expanse of the Little Bighorn River valley, and the foothills of the Bighorns with their snowcapped peaks beyond. It’s a magnificent view that I’ve been fortunate to look upon for the last 25 summers, as well as other seasons. Cook also pointed to red pin flags in the ground. He said I’d be able to spot them throughout the area; they represent recent research for locations of fallen warriors. He warned me to be prepared for high numbers. I’ve always believed that number to be near 100. He said there were approximately 200 pin flags. If this turns out to be true (still more research is required by Chief Historian John Doerner), then it is evidence that the 7th Cavalry fought hard (just as the Indian accounts have always stated). www.friendslittlebighorn.com/Members.htm
|
|
|
Post by weir on Jul 25, 2006 9:40:40 GMT -6
And have you told Sklenar you've found someone to pen the screenplay for his book? I meant "the betrayal story" of LBH. The screenwriter I discussed with had already been working on the subject, and was convinced of the betrayal. He has finished his work. I discovered him when the project was already on the way. It is his project. I have nothing to do with it. I have only discussed the subject with the guy.
|
|
|
Post by armand on Jul 25, 2006 11:33:06 GMT -6
Actually, the higher figures for NA losses are directly linked in David's book to the greater range of the long-maligned Springfields, and it does make sense: as long as the troopers kept volleying, the NA were unable to avail themselves of their repeaters. Explaining his belief in the accuracy of NA accounts, David writes that people who will admit that they were frightened, were in some cases reluctant to get in harm's way and, occasionally, were prone to mistakes such as shooting and scalping an ally (something no white soldier would confess to) should be believed. As far as numbers are concerned, former evaluations in the thousands also take the luster out of the NA victory: if such a huge force just swarmed out and overwhelmed panicky soldiers in a jiffy, with just a handful of losses, then that's not much of a feat. Compared to some of the members here, I confess I'm not knowledgeable enough for some of the finer points, namely the hypothesis of a much longer Custer battle, enabling Reno to join the fray if he had been so inclined...
|
|
|
Post by crzhrs on Jul 25, 2006 12:06:44 GMT -6
There is considerable testimony that the majority of warriors did not expose themselves during the Custer fight, but fought hidden behind hills, ravaines & in thick grass. They lobed hundreds if not thousands of arrows to fall on horses and soldiers. They did not charge en mass until most of the soldiers were down and/or dead.
There was volley fire early in the Custer battle but that petered out to indiscriminate firing which indicates the soldiers had rapidly been killed or not firing for what ever reason.
There is also some evidence and/or testimony that the warrior numbers were not as great as many said or even that the village was as large as stated by surviving soldiers.
Another issue regarding the chief historians' belief that far more warriors were killed than thought is how did they know where to place the "red flags"? Who told them that and when? Years later by Indian descendants? Battle studies more than 130 years after the fight can be misleading, especially after so many artifacts had been picked over throughout the years.
Or is the current historian going by "oral history" which many on this forum dismiss as not being reliable?
|
|
|
Post by crzhrs on Jul 25, 2006 12:41:31 GMT -6
While another new book on Custer is always anticipated, David's book (which I have not read, but according to your synopsis) is like many other Pro-Custer's . . . blame everyone but Custer. Reno has never been "proven" drunk and there is contradictory testimony, some of it by biased or unreliable sources regarding it.
While the RCOI is subject to "truth telling" a conspiracy has never been proven.
If the Custer battle was still in full progress as the Weir Advance watched it, why did all the warriors quickly turn on them?
How many "friendly fire" Indian kills were there? There is only one that is substantiated: Lame White Man.
The Springfields did have a long range, but most of the warriors stayed hidden and fought from concealment which negated the effectiveness of their range. As we know from the Reno fight the troopers there, using the same weapons, fired rapidly and overshot their targets . . . can we assume the same for Custer's? And Custer's men were firing from much higher positions which would cause the trajectory of the bullets to go higher than aimed (We know the shooting ability of many soldiers was not good due to lack of practice)
The numbers of warriors is still in question with as little as 1,000 to as many as 5,000 . . . and many of the warriors were not all fighting at the same time and in the same place.
And there is just as much testimony from Indians that the Custer fight was a buffalo chase and/or rout as there is for it being a hard fight.
Once again too many what-ifs & contradictions to state equivocally what happened and how.
|
|
|
Post by crzhrs on Jul 25, 2006 13:51:03 GMT -6
Another point about authors and Custer. Many have agendas . . . trying to prove or disprove theories based on their opinions of Custer, Reno, Benteen, Indians, etc.
The best authors are the ones who are objective, do not take sides, or try to show that "their" side was right and the other wrong.
Some will grasp at straws or only believe testimony that proves their point then ignore others that contradict it.
Indian testimony should be taken with a grain of salt . . . much of it had to be translated and who knows how much was lost in translation. Many Indians once on reservations thought it was best to tell the white man what he wanted to hear rather than the truth, and many were afraid of repercussion if they said something that angered whites.
Even today, many elderly descendants are reluctant to discuss the LBH with "outsiders" in fear of retaliation of what their ancestors accomplished.
And white survivors' testimony is just as contradictory as the Indians . . . and for far different reasons than the Indians--which makes it hard to believe anyone . . .
|
|
|
Post by weir on Jul 26, 2006 6:11:30 GMT -6
I cut the quote of the FLBHA too early. The following is important as well "He said there were approximately 200 pin flags. If this turns out to be true (still more research is required by Chief Historian John Doerner), then it is evidence that the 7th Cavalry fought hard (just as the Indian accounts have always stated). ...Most importantly, it contradicts recent theories that this battle was one of massive soldier disintegration and command structure breakdown. There may be as many dead warriors upon this field as there were soldiers, a result that is relatively impossible if soldiers are running and throwing their weapons away at the same time." www.friendslittlebighorn.com/Members.htmcrzhrs... bla bla bla... as usual. Fox's theory (which is dismissed by the way), scorning the NA statements, calling every guy who disagrees a "Custer buff" and repeating the Welch's theory of the kind NA interviewed by the white devil... I didn't read the great number of Indians or the fact Custer disobeyed orders but I guess we just have to wait for the subject to come... You are like a machine of fair, always ready for a new tour. Are you never nauseated ?
|
|
|
Post by weir on Jul 26, 2006 6:31:06 GMT -6
Actually, the higher figures for NA losses are directly linked in David's book to the greater range of the long-maligned Springfields, and it does make sense: as long as the troopers kept volleying, the NA were unable to avail themselves of their repeaters. Explaining his belief in the accuracy of NA accounts, David writes that people who will admit that they were frightened, were in some cases reluctant to get in harm's way and, occasionally, were prone to mistakes such as shooting and scalping an ally (something no white soldier would confess to) should be believed. As far as numbers are concerned, former evaluations in the thousands also take the luster out of the NA victory: if such a huge force just swarmed out and overwhelmed panicky soldiers in a jiffy, with just a handful of losses, then that's not much of a feat. Compared to some of the members here, I confess I'm not knowledgeable enough for some of the finer points, namely the hypothesis of a much longer Custer battle, enabling Reno to join the fray if he had been so inclined... Remember... In 1876, Curley testified Custer divided his regiment. Everybody said he was a fool. One century later, historians proved Curley was right. In 1876 and after, Indians told Camp, Marquis and Reservation agents that the fight was hard. Everybody said they were fools and not reliable. In 1997, Michno agreed. In 1876, many witnesses, including chief Red Horse, scout Herendeen, agent MacLaughin and Captain Burke wrote the NA losses had been high at LBH. Everybody said it was ridiculous. 130 years later, they begin to agree. In 1876, Captain Whittaker wrote Benteen and Reno abandonned Custer. In 2000, Sklenar proved Whittaker was right. Utley and Michno agreed. Since 1876 the story of the Little Bighorn battle has been known and told. The mystery is a matter of will.
|
|