A Whole Bunch of Dead Indians! Wow!

[runaheap]

Yes, and we could say "Custer showed up and they killed him" and let it go at that! Absolutely no fun in that conjecture! I think there was a leadership vacuum in this fight and some of the evidence leads me to believe that Custer went down early. Something catastrophic happened and these guys got wacked rather quickly. Was that it? I don't know, but it makes sense. No octagon barrel sporting rifle shell casings were ever found on LSH or Irish Constabulary pitol rounds either. Did some one pocket those for later? No one has come forward with them. Could the cavalry of that era shoot well? Most men of that era were very well aquainted with firearms and I would say they were better than adequate. How many NA's did they wack? No one will ever be precise on that figure, but they wacked enough that a huge village got out of there rather quickly after the battle. If the village was as large as the testimony leads us to believe they out numbered Terry and what was left of the 7th by 10 fold. The only way we can estimate NA casualties is by comparing the surviving portion with the 5 companies with Custer and I don't think Reno's bunch wacked that many. Custer's bunch would have fared better due to the can't miss proximity but they didn't last that long. I doubt if they killed a 100.

[crzhrs]

<No one will ever be precise on that figure, but they wacked enough that a huge village got out of there rather quickly after the battle>

Actually the village did not leave until the 27th . . . two days AFTER the LBH battle. So the Indians were not in any rush to leave.

In fact, when Terry should up many warriors wanted to take him on but elders said it was best to leave while so many non-coms were still close-by.

There is an account of warriors dressed in captured soldier uniforms trying to lure Terry into a trap by marching around a la military style.

So, I don't believe the Indians were overly concerned about more soldiers or in fact suffered huge casualties if many warriors were still ready to continue fighting.

[conz]

Jul 29, 2009 9:08:36 GMT -6 crzhrs said:

So, I don't believe the Indians were overly concerned about more soldiers or in fact suffered huge casualties if many warriors were still ready to continue fighting.

I don't know...I'm not sure that the "many" young Warrior spoke for their people.

I wonder what the wives and mothers thought about another Rosebud/LBH battle this same month? How many times must they win battles before they themselves are wiped out?

Clair

[runaheap]

Yes, they stuck around for a couple of days and celebrated on the 26th and mourned and packed on the 27th and left. The NA's mindset was that they had done enough and maybe the wasicus would leave them alone. They had little knowledge of the wasicus and never could understand their motives. The defeat of Custer instituted a backlash that began the end of the existance they had known. Wounded Knee would be the final confrontation and the 7th would exact their revenge.

[conz]

Oh, I suspect the Lakota knew the Americans well enough. They had been dealing with them, mostly negatively, ever since some met Lewis and Clark back about 1783, nearly 100 years before LBH. So they knew each other for several generations.

I think it was mostly Lakota pride and arrogance that kept them out there. I know that's where I would want to be, were I a Lakota.

But then, I wouldn't have a family. If I did, I wouldn't want them out there with me...so I'd probably really be with Red Cloud on the rez, trying to take care of my wife and children, instead running around in a futile fight against the unstoppable and better organized American Army. Even when you win, you lose.

But to bring yourself to surrender is a bitter pill for a Lakota man to swallow, even to save his family, I think...but most did, so that was the end of that. But what did it take to make this reality sink in?

A whole bunch of dead Indians...

Clair

[Dark Cloud]

A whole bunch of dead game, rather, primarily bison. They literally couldn't survive off the reservation.

There never were a whole bunch of dead warrior Indians, at least due to the Army's occupational competence. It's false to pretend otherwise. That the Army wasn't very good is exemplified even after all the post LBH 'improvements.' Pancho Villa, the Spanish American War, and the Philippine horrors did not present a military that scared anyone reviewing the record. As Bourke said, we'd have looked less ludicrous not calling out the Guard, shivering in fear every time some demented medicine man announced he could raise the dead. How many thousands of soldiers were devoted to a band of Apaches led by a guy nearly 80, all on foot whose entire entourage was maybe 50 people? The Army of One was most often the Indian. Army Strong.

The Sioux packed up the afternoon and evening of the 26th and were gone while there was enough light so Reno could water, and this after idiots Ryan and French fired the last, stupid shots. They sent a large group north with the newly attired cross-dressers to confront Terry as well. How that group made it away unseen by the 7th is a wonder. But that group's confrontation with Terry was on the 26th.

The two days they shared the camp area with the Army were the 25th and 26th. On the morning of the 27th, the 7th made contact with Terry at the village.

[wolfgang911]

yeah well here you admit it yourself, even when reincarnated in
an indian you would be a round the fort loafer, a peace medal indian! burk! what else could we expect!

i would hang out with SB and his boys hoka hey
I would probably be shot while riding in front of the lines, but hey my father told me to die young was a honor and better then get old and have tooth age

DC I think you forget the whole value system of those warlords of the plains. you can not bring it all back to hasard and bad luck and make it all so common, speaking out of the computerchair we're all sitting in .
You're dealing with another world. I'm not a very good writer for long posts so I have to referr to stanley vestal first chapter of SB champion to portray my feelings with this society.
In short not only NDN but also celts, medieval knighthood, mongolians, the ancient greeks persans and that whole bunch, throughout the ages, men fought or thought they fought for a noble and heroic cause. I might be phantasizing but if we all lead it down to our softy society standards with nerdy occupations untill we die of hearth strokes we will not understand their motivations.
People fighting for their homelands, traditions and families, always giving their lives to enable children and women to escape (that is what coward custer
was counting on), you can not put those on the same level as enrolled soldiers who would be unemployed elsewise.
What was their motivation, to save the US?
To me the lakota warriors were definitely heroic.
Afterwards they were left as you write standing with their pants on. second hand citizens deprived of a magnificent way of life that has no second anywhere nowhere (that is game + horse = plenty + freedom)
That it is a mess today as you observe is primary because they have been living for over a century under colloboration with the enemy on a total depency system which has caused such a cancer they will probably never ever get rid off. Untill then hush!

[wolfgang911]

Jul 29, 2009 15:42:58 GMT -6 wolfgang911 said:

yeah well here you admit it yourself, even when reincarnated in
an indian you would be a round the fort loafer, a peace medal indian! burk! what else could we expect!

i/quote]

hi DC you just kicked in between : this quote was for Conz and his red cloud affinity not for you off course!


Runaheap the main reason they left is that they always leave!
Over 5000 people with X x 10.000 horses, no public toilets and 250 stinking corpses lying around, well what would you expect them to do,
they changed every couple of weeks

Hélas, ever since the 50 ties after a victory they expected defeat and punishment. causing them to split; With a more tied up hierarchy Sitting bull should have kept them all together and negociate with such a force of presence and record of combat. Fear made them fell out in bunches. Should they have held together they could have had another 1868 like treaty with the black hills back, who knows. Was it worth it for the US army to revenge, they did not revenge fetterman. Maybe thye would have settled with calculation of loss and benefit.
With indians fleeding no one has to negociate.

[Dark Cloud]

wolf,

You probably need to back off some before lecturing those of us here on the actual plains in question about their history. We live with it daily. I imagine, locked in a lodge with burning buffalo poop for heat during the joys of an Eastern Colorado winter, that a mental state can be obtained from another world, but otherwise their world really is not that unknowable. Humans are pretty much the same always and everywhere.

I don't, in any case, 'bring it back' to what you call 'hasard' (luck? roll of the dice? what?), but I do claim Indians are not unique in their lifestyle compared to other nomadic cultures except in the superficialities.

Warrior motivation in every culture has a great deal to do with hormones and chemical enhancement and energy and the fallacious belief in immortality, because you feel immortal when young. That's why it'll always be the young wheeled out to slice each other, because only they haven't experienced the reality, at which point their view changes. The US Army concluded that a soldier wasn't aggressive enough after 240 odd days of combat, and mere R and R didn't revive it. Most have no clue what the smell of men dead for weeks is like, nor can imagine the trenches of Flanders or - briefly - the jungles of the South Pacific.

The idiotic sports analogies beloved here in the US don't work, it seems. There is no ref, no rules, no bounds, and watching 'teammates' die apparently can draw on no football experience that consoles. And you don't get to go home at the end of a bad day and shower.

You don't know what a coward is if you think Custer was one. You may not like him, but he cannot be burdened with that. His record is of that of someone with no fear, which is not the same thing as bravery.

People, it seems, do not always give their lives for women and children (the Washita guys booked out and left them, did not fight to either death or lunch: they were gone asap).

The Army was a job, not a calling, to most of the soldiers. And in a recession then, that can't be dissed. The conscript army of WWII and Korea left the 'experts' with the belief that only 15% of them were worth much, mere cannon fodder, and things were accomplished by the same few guys.

The term hero no longer means just protagonist. It means someone who willingly risks for others, and is especially impressive if he/she does not know them. I doubt the Sioux or any tribe had more 'heroes' than anyone else. If they didn't fight, they'd end up someone's wife or worse. I also don't think being surprised and fighting for your own life is that heroic, however impressive the skills shown are.

The 'freedom' you note for the Sioux was all male oriented. I seriously doubt a single Indian woman today longs for the near slave life they had then, exhausting as it was. The best thing that happened to them is the white man gave them the horse. Otherwise, guess who carried it all? They were a violent and often sadistic culture (just like the Vikings, Mongols, everyone) who revered torture, and considered it a favor to their enemies so they could demonstrate courage.

All these allegedly heroic protective inclinations weren't, in fact. They never, ever understood white man war and failed to even try to adapt because it infringed on warrior traditions, which was more important than their children's and tribe's survival. It was the stupid, stupid male narrow mindedness that prevented cooperation and failed to protect the women and children, the tiny culture of their tribe, who desecrated each other's cherished items and people cheerfully. They were inferior cultures not because they were 'different' but because they failed to protect themselves for all the self congratulations they uttered. They FAILED, as warriors and as protectors of the hearth fires, and wouldn't sacrifice male prestige, so called, to change that.

The mess we live in today with the Indians is because we extended our law and culture out of religious guilt. If we'd operated under their cultural norms, we'd have selected the healthiest kids and best looking women for our households to use as needed or desired, and sold the men into slavery or killed them, depending how we were feeling that day. Answered to nobody but a superior warrior.

What Indians now know about themselves is due to the science we brought, the writing skills they'd lost and the Europeans provided. It's a big pain and expensive and its due to our own hypocrisy, mostly fueled by religion. But being among history's losers - and the Native Americans are - does not elevate them to a spiritual superiority or cultural equivilance.

The residents of Babylon, routinely conquered after their brief golden age, survived for centuries condescending to Persians, Assyrians, Romans, and Greeks. But they lost, and they disappeared and what is known about them and their glory is due to others. That's the capital L in loser.

You can only pretend that oral tradition is mostly accurate. All across the world in every culture, what trivialities are born out, most of it is mythic - and boilerplate mythic - nonsense. Just like the Europeans. It's not inferiority of the people, but it is fact.

[bc]

Jul 29, 2009 17:12:28 GMT -6 Dark Cloud said:

wolf,

You probably need to back off some before lecturing those of us here on the actual plains in question about their history. We live with it daily. I imagine, locked in a lodge with burning buffalo poop for heat during the joys of an Eastern Colorado winter, that a mental state can be obtained from another world, but otherwise their world really is not that unknowable. Humans are pretty much the same always and everywhere.

I don't, in any case, 'bring it back' to what you call 'hasard' (luck? roll of the dice? what?), but I do claim Indians are not unique in their lifestyle compared to other nomadic cultures except in the superficialities.

Warrior motivation in every culture has a great deal to do with hormones and chemical enhancement and energy and the fallacious belief in immortality, because you feel immortal when young. That's why it'll always be the young wheeled out to slice each other, because only they haven't experienced the reality, at which point their view changes. The US Army concluded that a soldier wasn't aggressive enough after 240 odd days of combat, and mere R and R didn't revive it. Most have no clue what the smell of men dead for weeks is like, nor can imagine the trenches of Flanders or - briefly - the jungles of the South Pacific.

The idiotic sports analogies beloved here in the US don't work, it seems. There is no ref, no rules, no bounds, and watching 'teammates' die apparently can draw on no football experience that consoles. And you don't get to go home at the end of a bad day and shower.

You don't know what a coward is if you think Custer was one. You may not like him, but he cannot be burdened with that. His record is of that of someone with no fear, which is not the same thing as bravery.

People, it seems, do not always give their lives for women and children (the Washita guys booked out and left them, did not fight to either death or lunch: they were gone asap).

The Army was a job, not a calling, to most of the soldiers. And in a recession then, that can't be dissed. The conscript army of WWII and Korea left the 'experts' with the belief that only 15% of them were worth much, mere cannon fodder, and things were accomplished by the same few guys.

The term hero no longer means just protagonist. It means someone who willingly risks for others, and is especially impressive if he/she does not know them. I doubt the Sioux or any tribe had more 'heroes' than anyone else. If they didn't fight, they'd end up someone's wife or worse. I also don't think being surprised and fighting for your own life is that heroic, however impressive the skills shown are.

The 'freedom' you note for the Sioux was all male oriented. I seriously doubt a single Indian woman today longs for the near slave life they had then, exhausting as it was. The best thing that happened to them is the white man gave them the horse. Otherwise, guess who carried it all? They were a violent and often sadistic culture (just like the Vikings, Mongols, everyone) who revered torture, and considered it a favor to their enemies so they could demonstrate courage.

All these allegedly heroic protective inclinations weren't, in fact. They never, ever understood white man war and failed to even try to adapt because it infringed on warrior traditions, which was more important than their children's and tribe's survival. It was the stupid, stupid male narrow mindedness that prevented cooperation and failed to protect the women and children, the tiny culture of their tribe, who desecrated each other's cherished items and people cheerfully. They were inferior cultures not because they were 'different' but because they failed to protect themselves for all the self congratulations they uttered. They FAILED, as warriors and as protectors of the hearth fires, and wouldn't sacrifice male prestige, so called, to change that.

The mess we live in today with the Indians is because we extended our law and culture out of religious guilt. If we'd operated under their cultural norms, we'd have selected the healthiest kids and best looking women for our households to use as needed or desired, and sold the men into slavery or killed them, depending how we were feeling that day. Answered to nobody but a superior warrior.

What Indians now know about themselves is due to the science we brought, the writing skills they'd lost and the Europeans provided. It's a big pain and expensive and its due to our own hypocrisy, mostly fueled by religion. But being among history's losers - and the Native Americans are - does not elevate them to a spiritual superiority or cultural equivilance.

The residents of Babylon, routinely conquered after their brief golden age, survived for centuries condescending to Persians, Assyrians, Romans, and Greeks. But they lost, and they disappeared and what is known about them and their glory is due to others. That's the capital L in loser.

You can only pretend that oral tradition is mostly accurate. All across the world in every culture, what trivialities are born out, most of it is mythic - and boilerplate mythic - nonsense. Just like the Europeans. It's not inferiority of the people, but it is fact.

Save this post. Delete rest of thread.

bc

[wolfgang911]

yeah let's do that BC and have just one point of view on this board, good idea.

DC I disagree with almost all your points, well written as always but with so many generalisations, disrespect to fightin' cheyennes etc, that I avoid getting into detail again.
I wonder why you're always hammering on conz as in my view ,except for some mystic personal male competition you have your views balance 99%.
He signs yours posts with I agree 100% as you might have noticed. Well I don't.
Your post reads a long boosting of white superiority and modern = progress. In wolfgang's 'model' there is no superiority, only difference. The past is no worse than the present or future but one may preferr one period to another. I definitely don't want the spaceships age but real earth and buffalo poop.
Superiority, by your cold analysis, can t least be defined by survival of species, or worse, of planet. We will see if your superior modern science and skills will outlast the reign of the plains indians. First make it to 2100 and then talk who is better. Some stupid old chiefs, don't sell the eart etc, gave you the predictions 130 years ago.
As you have a great imagination to combine difficult words and paraphrases, imagine for a moment if your mind body and soul is better off arguing in front of a computer screen to unknown other nitwits, or joining in a buffalo hunt on horseback in largescale color vision My choice is made. But i'm just one of those stupid nostalgics of the ol'west which i thought to be numberous on a history board ;D, as I thought you had to be a little nostalgic to be interested in history. You apparently seem to hate certain periods of manhood so why bother.

o by the way
Europe thanks your unworthwhile cannon flodder by the way on omaha beach.

[AZ Ranger]

Locating buffalo must have been harder than the killing. Here is a bull standing on the backstop of our range at Raymond Ranch. I wonder how many coyotes were shot from trains.

[wolfgang911]

awesome AZ

some guys have all the luck , four wheel drive but with optionnal indians and buffalo poop!

[crzhrs]

<Locating buffalo must have been harder than the killing . . .>

That may have been true when buffalo numbers were reduced . . . but when they were numerous the trails/droppings they left behind would have been a road map to the herds. And from accounts of buffalo hunters, buffalos were sitting ducks.

<I wonder how many coyotes were shot from trains>

Just how numerous were coyotes back then?

I believe the Plains Wolf was more abundant and thus the coyote would not be that numerous.

Here in NH the coyote has appeared. This, only after the wolf was extirpated opening the door for a large canine to emerge.

Not saying there was no coyotes but wolfs will kill coyotes to eliminate them as a competitor.

After the wolf was gone coyote numbers must have increased.

[crzhrs]

< But being among history's losers - and the Native Americans are - does not elevate them to a spiritual superiority or cultural equivilance>

Just because someone was a "loser" does that make them less "equal"?

If Albert Einstein was in a fight with Atilla the Hun who would win? Does that mean Einstein was a lesser person?

Blessed be the peacemakers . . .

Peacemakers are not going to survive against violent people. Does that mean violent people are "superior"?