A Whole Bunch of Dead Indians! Wow!

[Tricia]

As you know, I really try to stay away from posting anything about the battle because A) I am not a military buff, and B) I would prefer listening and reading those with amazing expertise or those who would curmudgeon said wonders to death. But I saw an interesting note at a board more famous for its Custer Hater Watch than real history. From Harper's Weekly, August 1, 1876, written by an anonymous officer supposedly with Terry's men:

The Indian loss was very heavy, and it is said that after the battle was over, when Gibbon's and Reno's commands were burying the killed, they were found piled up like cordwood, so effective was the fire of the soldiers. Many more of the Indians were tied to their ponies and thus their bodies were carried off, and others were carried away by their friends.[/b]

The purveyor of said Custerhatersite has had an agenda that tends to discredit the heroic efforts of the Sioux, Cheyenne, and Arapaho (okay, all three of them) at the Little Big Horn battle, dismantle their superior skills (on that particular day) along the Greasy Grass, and finally, to give all credit for what would have been a successful day to the brilliance of the Boy General, that planner supreme who was just--gosh darn it--betrayed by the Cowards Reno and Benteen.

One way to bring attention to the wonderous battle tactics and superior whiteness of GAC is to pay particular notice of the number of Indian dead, which until recently was been somewhere in the less than 100 area. Just recently "new discoveries" in Cheyenne oral history has brought to light that hundreds of their warriors perished--I believe the number initially accepted by the NPS was about 220, a number that until just recently has been repondered downwards, but not firmly reestablished.

So, after all of that history, I ask a question. Given Harper's Weekly's fascination with and admiration of George Armstrong Custer, are we looking at a carefully presented--err--snow job? Amongst the higher ups of the Army, there did seem to be an effort to blame Custer first, and this anonymous post within the hallowed (I'm not being facetious) magazine appears to be an attempt to call that official tendency into question.

The clue that alerted me was the reference, so effective was the fire of the soldiers. Indian accounts of the action on or around the Custer sector of the battlefield seem to indicate something quite quite different ....

Or am I wrong? Your answers and interpretation would be kindly appreciated!

"Unbalanced" "Troll" Supreme

Chairchick, NACCers

[Scout]

Well, probably the other website would disagree in the number of red devils slain...it was probably in the 1000 to 2000 range. But seriously, I think 220 is a highly inflated number. Without pulling out numerous books and doing some real digging I believe the more realistic number was around 75 if I remember correctly. Perhaps Elizabeth, Fred, Billy, Ranger or several others have a more accurate range but the 200 number is an over estimate. Sorry David.

I think the high brass did blame Custer and not Reno and Benteen. They knew Custer quite well and were more than aware of his temperament and nature. But the public and Miss Libbie agreed it must have been someone other than the boy general. I think the Army kept quiet on the matter and pretty much left Reno and Benteen out to dry.

[elisabeth]

No-one else mentions Indian dead "piled up like cordwood" on the battlefield, so your suspicions may well be correct. However, that may not mean there weren't a reasonably substantial number killed. Red Horse's pictographs show some 60-odd distinct individuals, if I remember correctly, and those would presumably have to be just the ones he knew personally. Reno's July 5th report says that he himself counted 18, and that "Captain Ball, Second Cavalry, who made a scout of thirteen miles over their trail, says that their graves were many along their line of march". (There are other sources for Ball's observation as well, but I can't currently remember what they are.) Crazy Horse, I believe, said that as well as those killed outright, many died later of their wounds. Whether this brought it into the "hundreds" is another matter, of course ... Has anybody, then or now, done any analysis of the agency records before and after? As Reno himself suggests, that might offer some sort of clue. Not definitive, perhaps, but if there were suddenly a striking imbalance between men of warrior age versus women and children it could suggest a ballpark figure for at least the agency Indians killed.

Scout: agree, the army knew Custer's temperament, and furthermore was beginning to get a bit fed up with him even before the battle. Sheridan's tart wording even in his recommendation that Custer be allowed to go on the expedition rather shows that. They weren't about to flock to his defence. "Least said, soonest mended" seems to have been their attitude.

Out of interest: was Harper's frantically pro-Custer? He'd given them plenty of great copy in the past, but I wasn't aware they had any personal or political bias in the matter. Though of course he was their creation, to some extent. Did they express any editorial opinion? Or did, for instance, Theodore R. Davis go into print on the subject of the battle?

[fred]

√ 30 to 100 warriors died.
• Kate Bighead claimed 6 Cheyenne and 24 Sioux were killed fighting Custer.
• According to Evan Connell, David Humphreys Miller said there were the following Indian casualties:
◊ 12 dead Cheyenne:
♠ Black Cloud ♠ *(Little) Whirlwind
♠ Owns-Red-Horse ♠ Flying By ♠ Mustache
♠ *Noisy Walking ♠ Hump Nose ♠ Swift Cloud
♠ *Limber Bones ♠ Left Hand ♠ Black Bear
♠ Lame White Man (aka White Man Cripple; a chief)
(♠ *Cut Belly ? ♠ *Closed Hand ? [Pennington adds these 2 suicide boys as well, which would bring the total to 34.])
◊ 6 Unkpapas:
♠ White Buffalo ♠ Rectum ♠ Hawk Man
♠ Swift Bear ♠ Red Face ♠ Long Road
◊ 5 Oglalas:
♠ Bad-Light-Hair ♠ Many Lice ♠ White Buffalo
♠ Black White Man ♠ Young Skunk
◊ 6 Sans Arcs:
♠ Standing Elk ♠ Two Bears ♠ Long Robe
♠ Cloud Man ♠ Elk Bear ♠ Long Dog
◊ 2 Minneconjoux:
♠ High Horse ♠ Long Elk
◊ 1 Two Kettles:
♠ Chased-by-Owls
◊ * refers to the suicide boys. These were a group of young men who had taken a vow to fight to the death in the next battle.
♠ Liddic claims there were 5 Cheyenne suicide boys, all less than 20 years of age. [Vanishing Victory, p. 158]
♠ The names I have—not from Liddic—are:
@ Little Whirlwind @ Cut Belly
@closed Hand
@ Noisy Walking @ Limber Bones
@ Roman Nose [Michno]
◊ Total: 32.

• Cesare Marino estimates there were 20 or more suicide boys [“Lingering Clouds at the Greasy Grass,” Research Review, Vol. 19, No. 2, p. 5]
• Fox claims between 30 and 100 warriors died.
• A Minneconjou Lakota head chief named Red Horse, who participated in the battle, claimed 136 Indians were killed and 160 wounded [Michno, The Mystery of E Troop, p.71, and Willert, LBH Diary, p. 355].
• In one of the most definitive studies of Indian casualties, Richard G. Hardorff estimates between 30 and 50 Indians died [Scott]:
◊ at least 31 warriors;
◊ 14 females;
◊ 6 children (would some of these be the suicide boys?).
• In Lakota Noon, p. 279, Michno quotes Hardorff, in a 1993 compilation, listing 16 Indian deaths:
1. Bear With Horns [tribe uncertain], killed along Custer Ridge.
2. Black White Man (Black Wasichu) [Oglala], killed on the west slope of Custer Hill.
3. Black Bear (Closed Hand or Fist) [Cheyenne], killed on the north slope of Custer Hill.
4. Limber Bones (Limber Hand) [Cheyenne], killed on the north slope of Custer Hill.
5. Open (Cut) Belly [Cheyenne], killed near the present cemetery grounds.
6. Noisy Walking [Cheyenne], killed near Deep Ravine.
7. Lame White Man [Cheyenne], killed a few hundred yards down Custer Ridge from Last Stand Hill.
8. Guts [tribe uncertain], location unknown.
9. Red Face [Hunkpapa], location unknown.
10. Cloud Man [Sans Arc], location unknown.
11. Lone [possibly Long] Dog [Sans Arc], location unknown.
12. Elk Bear [Sans Arc], location unknown.
13. Kills Him [tribe uncertain], location unknown.
14. Bad Light Hair [tribe uncertain], location unknown.
15. Many Lice [Oglala], location unknown.
16. Young Skunk [Oglala], location unknown.
• John Stands In Timber (d.17Jun1967), as quoted by Pennington, says 7 Cheyenne and 66 Sioux were killed. The Cheyenne were:
♠ Lame White Man ♠ Roman Nose (Hump Nose, above) ♠ Limber Bones ♠ *Closed Hand ♠ *Cut Belly ♠ *Whirlwind ♠ *Noisy Walking
• A Minneconjou named Flying By claimed 4 Minneconjoux were killed [Pennington].
• Henry Oscar One Bull, a Hunkpapa and nephew of Sitting Bull, claims a Sioux named Black Moon was killed in the Reno fight [Pennington].
• Michno says the bodies of at least 6 Sioux squaws were found in a little ravine. He also quoted Herendeen as saying Ree scouts did kill some women.
• Michno writes in The Mystery of E Troop, p. 260, “Of the seven Cheyennes that Wooden Leg said died as a result of the battle, five of them fell in the fighting from Deep Ravine to the Custer Hill area, the very ‘angle forward’ that Company E assumed.” [Fits with John Stands In Timber’s account, though I can account for 14 dead.] The “angle” reference is from COL J. W. Pope, who visited the battle area as a young LT in 1877.
♠ Lame White Man ♠ *Noisy Walking ♠ *Open (Cut) Belly
♠ Limber Bones ♠ *Black Bear (aka, Closed Hand)
• Crazy Horse claimed 58 warriors were killed and 60 wounded. Low Dog estimated 38 were killed, but many more died of their wounds after the battle. [Utley, Custer and the Great Controversy, pp. 91-92 and 103]

√ Michno brings up a very interesting point regarding the lack of Indian casualties:
• The muzzle velocity of the Springfield carbine was only 1,150 feet per second (compared to today’s M-16 at 3,250 feet per second. That gives the M-16 a relatively flat trajectory, but with the 1873 carbine, the sights would have to be re-adjusted to gain any accuracy at distances.
• If, for example, Reno’s men were firing into the Indian village at 500 yards, that distance required a fairly steep trajectory with the carbine. Many of the rounds were hitting the tops of the tepees. At 300 yards and closing, without sight adjustment, the bullets would be more than 12 feet over the Indians’ heads.
• During the Civil War, a number of generals on both sides, ordered their men to aim for the knees, realizing that if the sights were set too far, bullets would simply fly over their enemy’s head.
• “The low number of Indian casualties may have been chiefly the result of untrained, undisciplined fire.” [Michno, Lakota Noon, p.50]

It's all revisionist garbage. They found 5 tepees still standing. How many dead were in those 5 tepees: 50? 60? If there were 220 or 300 or 300+, what happened to all the GD bodies? What, did they turn them into pemmican? Why would they bring some dead with them and leave others behind? The "neo"-idiots don't want to answer those questions though, do they?

Best wishes,
Fred.

[Melani]

I eagerly await the final results of John Doerner's studies before venturing an opinion--but I am the self-appointed president of the John Doerner Fan Club, after he held us all spellbound for two hours in 2006. I believe he has been very instrumental in getting the red markers put up as well as the white ones, and I am totally in favor of that effort.

[crzhrs]

< “The low number of Indian casualties may have been chiefly the result of untrained, undisciplined fire.” [Michno, Lakota Noon, p.50]>

BINGO!

And because the Indians weren't going to risk their lives unnecessarily as evidence by the lack of enthusiasm for attacking the defenders on Reno Hill when the village was secure.

They did go after Custer because he was a threat to the village, but they did not expose themselves needlessly until the command was virtually done in.

[clw]

Agreed Melanie. And I don't think John and the Lakota he's working with can fairly be termed neo idiots and their views dismissed as revisionist garbage. CSS turns everything he touches into **** and unfortunately their work fits his agenda so it gets colored with the same brush.

That said, Horse makes some excellent points. A NDN historian told me this winter they had respect for Reno and that he was no coward. He had sense enough to save his command because that's what they would have done in his place -- when you can't win you chose to live to fight another day. It may even have had something to do with why they didn't annihilate him. One culture's coward is another's hero it seems and I found it a very interesting view. Although it doesn't change my opinion of Reno, it's certainly food for thought.

[crzhrs]

The number of casualties does not always reflect the conduct of the side inflicting the casualties.

Look at the horrendous numbers killed during CW battles. Thousands dead due to the ludicrous "Western" style of fighting. Charge into the guns and hope for the best.

Indians knew better--of course if it was the Indians holed up on Reno Hill the US Army would have attacked them regardless of the casualties they suffered.

The Indians didn't fight with the "Total War" philosophy of the Whites. I guess one could say they were more civilized when it came to war.

[conz]

I, for one, believe that the Native dead resulting from the LBH fight numbered closer to 220 than to 30-60.

I think the lower numbers 1) reflect only what various speakers knew (no Natives took a head count for all the combined tribes and agency Indians, to my knowledge), and 2) reflect only those that died immediately.

Native medicine was not good. We should AT LEAST number the dead as double those who died that day, and probably three to four times that number.

Add to that four times the number dead as those seriously wounded, most of whom could never fight again. Are there stories of many Natives without arms, legs, or eyes after the battle, or did all those men die from their wounds due to poor medical treatment?

If you tell me you are sure 50 men died that day, then I'm sure 200+ died, or were very seriously maimed, as a result of that battle. I don't know how you can avoid such logic, to tell the truth.

Does anyone here not think that at least as many men died after the battle from wounds as are documented died that day, on the spot?

Does anyone not think that at least double that number were so badly wounded that they could never fight, or hunt well, after the battle?

None of this has anything whatsoever to do with how well you think the Soldiers can shoot, or how deadly their weapons are...both those factors have little to do with this equation, actually.

Clair

[clw]

Clair, I find that logic hard to argue with.

[crzhrs]

Logic doesn't always work.

Was it logical that Custer and his entire command would be wiped out?

Logic goes out the window in warfare and Indians were not going to risk lives unless absolutely necessary. That to me sounds more logical than Indians running en mass into the guns a la Civil War battles.

[bc]

Conz, I have to consur with your logic just from reviewing my knowledge of casualty rates in the Civil War.

[stevewilk]

Civil War battles and "ludicrous Western style fighting" induced horrendous casualties mainly because of artillery. That and improper medical care, which lagged behind. Amputations were the remedy for nearly all limb wounds. Often gangrene would set in and a soldier would die. Tactics usually lagged behind weaponry development. The massed charges died out later in the war in favor of trench and siege warfare. Look at World War I; starting out with French troops in their highly visible red pantaloons being mowed down by machine gun fire; ending with tanks, bombers and trench warfare.

Western style warfare is about taking ground. A foreign concept to Indians. As far as them being more "civilized" in war, I hardly call bashing an enemy's skull in with a club who'd surrendered his weapon (ala Rosebud) or hacking up the wounded (LBH) "civilized". In "ludicrous Western style fighting", surrendered and wounded are,ideally at least, given medical attention and not further harmed.

Makes me wonder, how did the armies in the EAST (China, Japan) fight during this time period?

[gocav76]

ConZ, Your 220 Indian dead is just not possible for the following reasons. From Time magazine "US forces have fired so many bullets in Iraq and Afghanistan - an estimated 250,000 for every insurgent killed - that American ammunition-makers cannot keep up with demand. As a result the US is having to import supplies from Israel." During the Korean War it took on average 5000 rounds to kill or mortally wound the enemy. These are well trained soldiers with lots of rifle range training. Other battles and wars the ratio of shots fired to casualties were also quite terrible. If I was to believe your figure of 220 Indian dead (lets say Reno-Benteen accounted for 30 dead) then Custer's 210 men killed or mortally wounded around 190 Indians. Since every man was not on the firing line and some used little ammunition, how then was it possible for Custer's men to score a least 1 out of 50 shots? The math just won't work for your theory.

[elisabeth]

I don't know the answer to that [stevewilk's reply no. 12 above], but there should be one available -- since at the very time this battle was being fought, Emory Upton was on an information-gathering tour to those very countries, then India, then Russia, then the major European states. On his return he published a book: from memory, it's The Armies of Asia and Europe -- some such title, anyway. His concern was principally with their organisational methods and tactics, but he must surely have dealt with these matters too.

No idea if it's still in print anywhere.