|
|
Post by Diane Merkel on May 4, 2009 16:58:48 GMT -6
From a website visitor: One of my students has a question about the actual casualties suffered by the Indian participants. Apparently Sitting Bull indicated about 60 and Red Horse indicated about 160. What are the estimates and what are the sources for the infomation. In another thread, Gordie referenced a thread Trish started as being rather comprehensive in its discussion of Indian casualties, but I can't locate it. Anyone care to rekindle the discussion? |
|
|
|
Post by biggordie on May 5, 2009 12:59:45 GMT -6
Diane:
I think that thread was actually on the Associates forum, but I will try to sum it up without too much effort [I'm not into expending much these days].
There are no comprehensive casualty figures from military sources of the day, and if one wants to sort of add up as one reads through the accounts or testimony, then divide by two and add three [while facing East], one might guess at a total of about five or six dozen, with the preponderance as wounded [and recovered]. Most of these casualties would supposedly have come at long range.
The NDN estimates are much more problematical, running from about a dozen and a half killed [White Bull] to more than 300 killed [extrapolation from Mnicoujou histories]. The problems are not simply with the numbers or the sources, but with the cultural restraints placed upon the naming of the dead [after the initial announcement]. Red Horse was reporting mostly what he had been told by others [same with his drawings], which might make his number more or less convincing, depending upon where it came from. Same with Kill Eagle, who reported high numbers killed and wounded, about 150 of each, as I recall.
I tend to at least partially accept the Mnicoujou numbers I have seen, since their accounts of the actions and the placement of the casualties they mention correlates well with the Cheyenne histories as I understand them, and with other Lakota accounts [not all - there is no unanimity].
I understand that John Doerner was doing some preliminary work on markers for other warriors [about 250] to be placed on the fields. Does anyone know how this work is coming along? It might answer some questions for your visitor.
Gordie
|
|
|
|
Post by bc on May 5, 2009 14:16:18 GMT -6
There was some discussion on the other board recently. But I've read a more extensive discussion here quite a while back. Probably doesn't have its own thread though. More likely an off topic tangent from the "does custer like milk with his cookies?" thread. I'm not sure the search engine goes that deep to find things here. Who knows, maybe it's back around page 500 of the cavalry training thread.
Those 60 and 160 numbers are about the best we have. Then add the who died later and wounded who survived. Seems like Michno did a count.
Sixty some to maybe another hundred or more and then count the wounded that died later.
How many did Reno kill in the valley fight? Seems like I've read about 4 to 6 or so and they may have been killed by the Rees. Maybe another 2 to 4 crossing the river and going up hill?
How many did Reno and Benteen kill from their hilltop stand? One maybe from a lucky shot.
bc
|
|
|
|
Post by wolfgang911 on May 5, 2009 18:27:32 GMT -6
Can we state that when you're outnumbered you lose because when of equal fighting ability your chance of surviving is nill when same number is killed on both sides.
if only 100 lakota and cheyenne were killed this means an NDN warrior equals at least 2 cavalry men in fighting ability, which seems OK with my beliefs.
OK just picking on those who state you can run with a handful of soldiers on any NDN camp
: yes only when they are sleeping and when men are out hunting!
|
|
|
|
Post by conz on May 6, 2009 7:50:53 GMT -6
Can we state that when you're outnumbered you lose because when of equal fighting ability your chance of surviving is nill when same number is killed on both sides. if only 100 lakota and cheyenne were killed this means an NDN warrior equals at least 2 cavalry men in fighting ability, which seems OK with my beliefs. OK just picking on those who state you can run with a handful of soldiers on any NDN camp : yes only when they are sleeping and when men are out hunting! Are you saying that the Natives ever successfully defended one of their camps that was attacked by the Army? Under ANY circumstances? Clair |
|
|
|
Post by Diane Merkel on May 12, 2009 18:36:08 GMT -6
Gordie,
The thread you mentioned was Trish's "A Whole Lot of Dead Indians -- WOW!!!" and that's the one I can't find. The Google search at the bottom of the boards doesn't seem to work terribly well these days. I know that thread -- and other search terms I've tried -- exists but Google doesn't find them.
Diane
|
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on May 12, 2009 18:48:41 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by Diane Merkel on May 12, 2009 19:25:34 GMT -6
You are good! Thank you.
|
|
ten
New Member
Posts: 6
|
Post by ten on May 29, 2009 19:34:20 GMT -6
I'd just like to add some obvious details which appear to be missing here:
1 It was a rout. The 7th was decimated in under 20 minutes or there-abouts.
2 Many carbines failed to fire due to locked cartridges in the breach. Dirty cartridges wouldn't eject and effectively made the rifles useless. Pistols at any range over thirty feet were pretty useless too [even today].
... Custard was over-ran, rapidly, with devastating affect. I doubt even 60 dead Natives is an accurate figure... 200+ is wildly [and laughably] optimistic.
I recon the guys in camp were well fired up, what with Custard's earlier atrocity and the recent massacre of the Cheyenne under poor ol' Black Kettle. They knew Custard would try and separate the woman and children, and they weren't about to let him do it again. Of all the Great Warriors who stood out on that day, Crazy was the man who totally outclassed the jumped-up General boy... he rode right over him in a superbly orchestrated flanking move.
In the 20 minutes it took to wipe out the entire company, I can see sheer panic & confusion in the retreating Americans.
It was a total white-wash, nothing less.
I think talk of trumping up Native casualties only attempts to side the true magnitude of the victory won that day. You're fooling yourselves if you believe it was anything but one sided.
|
|
|
|
Post by conz on May 30, 2009 9:15:12 GMT -6
I'd just like to add some obvious details which appear to be missing here: 1 It was a rout. The 7th was decimated in under 20 minutes or there-abouts. Kinda depends upon what you call a "rout," and there is a discussion about this around here, under a "panic" thread. My position is that there is no evidence of what the military considers to be a "rout," ...that is, mass panic where the Soldiers run off the field of battle and can't be reformed into a fighting unit again. I do see evidence of a couple confused retreats, such as Reno's obvious one up the bluffs, and C Co's running around the Custer field. Other than that, not much evidence of Soldiers running in fear. Some carbines certainly would have jammed, but most would have been quickly cleared using a knife. Very few, I believe, jammed so that could not be used anymore. So I don't think this had much of an affect on the battle. As you say, pistols are only used once you can no longer use your carbine...either because it is permanently jammed (rare), or because the enemy is too close for you to use a single-shot weapon (common...the Soldiers would throw down their weapons and draw pistols...or use it as a club). Some believe so...and you are in good company with your belief. It is rather the traditional model, and the simplest to understand. For myself, I think it was much more complicated than this. I think the fight for Custer lasted about an hour and a half, from first to last Soldier shots, and that nearly 200 Warriors were killed at LBH that died that very day, and another 100-200 died of their wounds, or were severely injured and could never fight again, in the four to six weeks after the battle...there are indications of the "trail of bodies" that the Army daily found as they chased the Sioux/Cheyenne hostile tribes after LBH. I can agree with you on this, although there is much more to the story, of course. Crazy Horse only led a portion of the Warriors, after all, and it took them ALL to destroy Custer's battalion. So we need to give credit to Two Moon, Gall, Lame White Man, et al, for their part in the outcome, as well. Crazy Horse could not have done it alone. That is ONE model of what MAY have happened. Can't tell you with certainty that it is wrong. <g> Hmmmm...I don't think ANY victory is "one-sided." Even if not one person is killed on the winning side, the impact of having to kill so many enemy is going to take a psychological and moral toll on the "victors." Army folk don't consider outcomes as "victories" to be celebrated, as much as they see "missions accomplished." The cost of accomplishing a mission successfully can be high, and saddening. And a "victory" in one battle can still mean a "mission failure" for you side, as well demonstrated by Crazy Horse and his hostile band...they won this fight, but lost the campaign, and surrendered forever the very next spring, right? So I don't think he accomplished his mission, and that is all the military cares about. Clair |
|
|
|
Post by AZ Ranger on May 30, 2009 9:37:10 GMT -6
The 45 Colt is capable of hits at 50 yards and beyond it depends on how much you train. Even the 10 yards suggested is more than enough accuracy for CQB. It is not the SAA 45 Colt's lack of precision to make repeatable hits. The weapon is precise enough to do it. The accruacy is from the operator. Under stress accuracy drops off quicker for the untrained but the weapon still shoots where it is pointed.
At our last rifle school I fired one time at 100 yards with a SIG SAUER model 239 40 Cal. Held at center mass heart level and hit around 5 inches lower in the liver and centered. Some stress since the recruits were watching but not the same as getting shot at. The SAA with a 7.5 inch barrel and relative hot load of black powder could do the same.
AZ Ranger
|
|
|
|
Post by conz on May 30, 2009 9:51:29 GMT -6
That's a pretty good shot at 100 yds with a pistol...we don't even train to shoot our pistols that far in the Army...I think 40 yds is the max range for training and qualification...and most of our record shots are at half-man sized targets at 10 yards. <g>
Clair
|
|
|
|
Post by wolfgang911 on Jun 3, 2009 15:18:26 GMT -6
It is startling how few indians were killed during encounters according to their own accounts, especially at the platte bridge and powder river fights. Army reports from the concerned officers right after combat often mention indians present were a couple of menacing thousand of whom they killed up to several dozens... That is when they killed 'warriors' in open field. when they struck on camps the total number killed would be reported lower and the discrepancy between killed men and women would favour the men while we have all learned the opposite. I can understand that an ambitious officer wanted to escape blame or sook for medals, boosting the number of killed warriors. Yep how could they know that later on there would be historians interviewing the savages... then again the indian accounts of various tribes also have discrepancies : at fetterman's : grinnel reports almost 60 sioux killed and just a few cheyenne as related by white elk. sandoz has 10 sioux killed at that fight (according to he dog?). well... whatever  |
|
|
|
Post by conz on Jun 3, 2009 18:06:22 GMT -6
Does anyone think the Sioux (Lakota) ever lost more Warriors in any battle, against Euro-Americans, other Native tribes, or even fighting among themselves, in its entire history as a people, as they did at Little Big Horn?
Clair
|
|
|
|
Post by "Hunk" Papa on Jun 4, 2009 10:49:45 GMT -6
at fetterman's : grinnel reports almost 60 sioux killed and just a few cheyenne as related by white elk. sandoz has 10 sioux killed at that fight (according to he dog?). well... whatever
It was always difficult to estimate the number of Indian dead after any battle, fight or skirmish as they made every effort to take the bodies of their dead back to their families. There is no agreed figure for Indian dead at the LBH and many have tried to calculate that total. In 1864 at Killdeer Mountain, Sully reckoned that as many as 150 Sioux warriors had been killed but that was never proven. Hunk |
|
