|
|
Post by markland on May 4, 2012 14:03:40 GMT -6
The village was immense in size and the duration of how long a village (any village) could remain in one spot was contingent upon two critical components;water and game. Ah, no. Long before water an game ran out the ponies would be starving. Way to go girl! |
|
|
|
Post by scottbono on Jan 27, 2014 19:40:24 GMT -6
Was just perusing this thread and a few thoughts come to mind - obviously belated to the topic but I wanted to put them down anyway.
How long did this battle last? At least the Custer aspect? I am reminded that the Rosebud battle lasted 6 hours and is noticeable for the relatively low casualty numbers. It would seem that a simply examination of times might be helpful. I am sure not every trooper with GAC fired off every round, more sure not every round fired struck its target. George Crook wrote about the horrible shots in the Army, noting he had witnessed herds of antelope run past a company of soldiers and when the shooting stopped not one animal had been hit. I'm sure it's tough honing shooting skills with the 10-20 rounds per year authorized.
The NA's surely didn't attack in a massed 'Banzai' charge - many accounts (both written and verbal) indicate the NA firing was from concealed positions. And even when the first 'wholesale' attacks took place, the result was certainly not large numbers of Lakota and Cheyenne dead; the troopers apparently panicked and retreated in disorder. If one follows the notion the GAC portion of the fight didn't really last that long, there doesn't seem to be that much time to expend entire lots of ammunition - and most assuredly there were men killed before getting off more than a few rounds. A Lakota or Cheyenne killed in 'friendly fire' certainly must be tallied with total deaths but obviously not a result of Army marksmanship. How many rounds can a good trooper get off in a minute? How many minutes were actually available to fire and under what circumstances? Much ammunition was lost when the cavalry horses were frightened off, still more when a trooper was killed and whatever he may have had with him was turned against the troops themselves.
Given the time limitations of the GAC portion of the battle combined with the type of fighting we're led to believe ocurred, under the conditions at the time, there just doesn't seem to be a foundation for the higher limits of NA dead. In the Reno fight, it appears the heaviest fight occurred at the beginning in terms of total casualties - again, accounts (verbal and written) indicate the NA, again, used concealment.
On the topic of burial scaffolds, lodges and the like, the objective view would necessitate an examination of the body to determine just what killed the victim. Hypothetically, some of the burial scaffolds seen may have held some victims of disease or the like. I am not saying they did but it is assumed every burial site noted was of a victim of the LBH battle. Considering the factors as we are able to know them (the caveat), a low number of NA dead is not unreasonable at all.
|
|
