Camp size, warriors..compared to General Sully

[ftpeckpabaksa]

I dont know if it were brought up yet...but does anyone have a figure on the number of lodges at LBH..I always hear it was, "the biggest camp" but, you hardly ever hear of a figure, like, 1,500 lodges. I was curious...because...1864 General Aflred Sully says he faced about 6,000 warriors from a camp that was that, according to his report, was as large if not larger than LBH. Not my story, its his, but I wanted to know what figures were out there during LBH..during the campaigns against the Sioux in 1863 and 1864 you see reports of one lodge having at least two (2) men, plus the rest of the family of about 9 people. And, making Killdeer Mountain in 1864, like I said, according to Sully, one of the largest, if not largest Sioux camp..numbering about 1,600 to 1,800 lodges...6,000 warriors. Let me know what you all think...

[Melani]

In Lakota Noon, Greg Michno goes through a lot of calculations and graphs, and seems to estimate the village size as between 1,000 and 2,000 lodges, tending toward the low side. He says it was enormous only in the imagination of the survivors--after all, there had to be some reason why they were defeated--must have been numbers. Nowadays there seems to be general agreement on about 1,500 warriors, which was not necessarily more that Custer could have reasonably expected the Seventh to handle.

[Reddirt]

I agree. Benteen himself increased the number of warriors from an original plausible number to over 9,000 at a later date.

[Dark Cloud]

Getting better. Only 8 months here.

But trying to obtain regard by joining the chronic attempts to lynch Benteen isn't even excused by pretending, here, to be a girl. Being the last to join a cowardly mob even disgusts the mob, and annoys it by calling attention to their moral compass.

[Reddirt]

Melani, I believe that Benteen originally stated that he saw 1,800 warriors. Later, that amount expanded to 9,000. Perhaps in his last count he confused the women, men, and children with the warrior count? Who really knows.

[AZ Ranger]

As usual Wiggs gets it wrong and tries to defame a dead soldier by presenting false information.

Benteen stated he saw 900 warriors in the valley when Reno was retrograding. The large figure in testimony was an estimate of the warriors surrounding Reno-Benteen. Neither is an estimate of total numbers. Let's see if Wiggs gets it right regarding 1800 warriors or was it 1800 tepees.
Benteen's official report:

"I concluded at once that those had been repulsed, and was of the opinion that if I crossed the ford with my battalion, that I should have had it treated in like manner; for from long experience with cavalry, I judge there were 900 veteran Indians right there at that time, against which the large element of recruits in my battalion would stand no earthly chance as mounted men. "

For Wiggs who has trouble with accounts and testimonies.

CAPTAIN F. W. BENTEEN, A WITNESS CALLED BY THE RECORDER after first being duly sworn to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the-truth, testified as follows:

"That was my first sight of the village, after I arrived at that high point, That was the only point from which it could be seen, and I saw as I supposed, about 1800 tepees; there was no sign of any troops or of any fighting going on; nothing of the kind could be seen."

Later Benteen is asked to give his estimate of the Indians surrounding Reno-Benteen.

Q. Give your estimate of the number of Indians that pursued or engaged that command on its return within engaging distance?

A. I thought at that time there were about 2500 warriors surroundings I think now there were between 8 and 9 thousand.

Since the question is an estimate it is what it is. He first estimated 2500 then 8-9 thousand. As anyone knows testifying as an expert allows estimates and opinions. The court or jury puts what weight they want to estimates or opinions. Whether it was 2500 or 8-9 thousand does not change the fact that there was a lot of Indians surrounding Reno-Benteen in Benteen's opinion.

AZ Ranger

[Reddirt]

Immediately after the battle, General Terry interrogated various officers as to the amount of the Indians encountered. According to Capt. E. W. Smith, Terry's Adjutant, their estimates centered around the figure 1,800.

On a letter written by Benteen to his wife on July 4, he wrote that the amount of warriors faced were about 3,000. At the inquiry, that numbered increased to approximately 9,000.
If I am not mistaken, and I may be, a healthy percentage of soldiers increased the amount (as did Benteen) as "Time Goes By."

It is true that Benteen stated that the amount of Indians he observed thrashing a line of soldiers was about 900 or so. I was not referring to that incident. I should have been clearer.

Incidental, I have always been puzzled as to how Benteen was able to come up with his body count of Indians Vs. Reno's abandoned men. You see, Benteen made this observation from two miles away, looking through a tree line, into a valley were dust was kicked up to such an extent that the visibility factor must have been very diminished. Yet, Benteen was able to distinguish between the 900 Indians "charging and re-charging" a line of approximately 11 or so soldiers.

You are right when you say the amount of numbers do not "change the fact" but, it does matter when discussing the veracity of these same men who gave sworn testimony at the Inquiry.

[Dark Cloud]

Wiggs, here today a professed woman but previously here and elsewhere a male under various User IDs, has a habit of utilizing other's words for his own without credit and today come up with a surprisingly different writing style, which only means he's copying it or has had another write it for him. Either way, he ought to give citation for his quotes about Smith and Terry's questioning of "various officers" to see if, indeed, their estimates centered around 1800 warriors.

Or does the phrase "amount of Indians" just mean warriors? How does he know? If amount of Indians is only 1800, the witness is very wrong. Or the recorder. Where is the citation again?

But, like class, ignorance tells, and since he has somehow subscribed to the world of unnecessary and pointless quotation marks - a clue to the origin, foreign to his previous style - and doesn't include a single triple redundancy in mounting hysteria - which denotes his actual style - readers ought to compare his damnation of Benteen's sight here with his damnation of Benteen for letting men die when he could have saved them from Reno Hill based on what men saw from comparable distance.

Also, consult a map and match it to Benteen's position when he said he saw Indians attacking a line of soldiers.

Then, do Indians fight in a line? No. Is it drunken abandon that would lead Benteen to assume that those attacking a line were not soldiers? Is there a line of trees blocking his sight? Is it impossible to believe that Benteen or any soldier of his combat experience would have difficulty estimating numbers? Did Benteen have reason to believe that Indians and soldiers would be in the general area then in his view?

[AZ Ranger]

Immediately after the battle, General Terry interrogated various officers as to the amount of the Indians encountered. According to Capt. E. W. Smith, Terry's Adjutant, their estimates centered around the figure 1,800.

Please provide the source for statement. Here is Benteen again using that 1800 figure for Teepees.

CAPTAIN F. W. BENTEEN, A WITNESS CALLED BY THE RECORDER after first being duly sworn to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the-truth, testified as follows:

"That was my first sight of the village, after I arrived at that high point, That was the only point from which it could be seen, and I saw as I supposed, about 1800 tepees; there was no sign of any troops or of any fighting going on; nothing of the kind could be seen."

On a letter written by Benteen to his wife on July 4, he wrote that the amount of warriors faced were about 3,000. At the inquiry, that numbered increased to approximately 9,000.

If I am not mistaken, and I may be, a healthy percentage of soldiers increased the amount (as did Benteen) as "Time Goes By."

There is nothing being hidden by Benteen. He clearly states in testimony that his opinion changed. He alone can testify to his opinion.

Q. Give your estimate of the number of Indians that pursued or engaged that command on its return within engaging distance?

A. I thought at that time there were about 2500 warriors surroundings I think now there were between 8 and 9 thousand.


It is true that Benteen stated that the amount of Indians he observed thrashing a line of soldiers was about 900 or so. I was not referring to that incident. I should have been clearer.

Incidental, I have always been puzzled as to how Benteen was able to come up with his body count of Indians Vs. Reno's abandoned men. You see, Benteen made this observation from two miles away, looking through a tree line, into a valley were dust was kicked up to such an extent that the visibility factor must have been very diminished. Yet, Benteen was able to distinguish between the 900 Indians "charging and re-charging" a line of approximately 11 or so soldiers.

What’s confusing is that you know where Benteen was located when he made this observation. Could you give us the location on a map or better yet the GPS coordinates. If not it goes to your veracity.

You are right when you say the amount of numbers do not "change the fact" but, it does matter when discussing the veracity of these same men who gave sworn testimony at the Inquiry.

Benteen clearly states his opinion (believe) changed and supplies the numbers. It is your veracity in your presenting this that comes in question to me.

As a former self-proclaimed police officer Wiggs, I am surprised that you do not understand the offering of an expert opinion in testimony.

A. I thought at that time there were about 2500 warriors surroundings I think now there were between 8 and 9 thousand.

Wiggs that answer to the above question is opinion offered by Benteen and not testimony that he counted each individual Indian. On what legal basis would you challenge his opinion?

AZ Ranger

[Reddirt]

Wow, I certainly got a rise out of these two didn't I?

[AZ Ranger]

Just the facts. Isn't that what you after? Or do you have a Custerphile agenda? Noticed you didn't provide any answers but hid behind you female persona.

[ftpeckpabaksa]

This is interesting. To know exactly the real number of men fighting against the soldiers. There being no roll call, units etc. Those are very very good points on, whether or not Benteen had really reported what he had seen. However, just contradicting himself, in his letters home to his wife, his offical report and later reports do throw up red flags. I read the arugment but there has never been asked, WHY? why did he keep changing it? However, I did want to see what people have thought about the camp size at the Little Bighorn.

I mean, eye witness accounts of the "Sioux" are always to have said that it was the largest camp they had ever seen. But, when compared to Killdeer Mountain in 1864....which General Alfred Sully states, 1,600 to 1,800 Lodges and about 6,000 soldiers. This was also the official story and was printed on the old marker that sat at the site for years. One difference was the cannon's were used against the "Sioux" at Killdeer Mountain and the fighting tatic of utilizing a phalax. I still poise the question, although not a Custer buff or anything, I do know the basic's and that, the size of both camps were large, was in fact, the camp at the LBH the second largest gathering of "Sioux" people to be attacked by the United States Army? I don't want to take anything away from the people who were at each site. But, according to the records with the North Dakota State Historical Society and what is written of Killdeer Mountain, is it indeed the largest gathering or was the Little Big Horn? Just a question.

[AZ Ranger]

How many were in the valley after Reno?

How many total warriors were there?

How many warriors is your estimate on what it would take to wipe out Custer?

Sometimes it is just simply what was being told as in the answers to the above questions. The first is visual, the second is based upon a combination of observations, and the last is a tribute to Custer by probably overestimating in opinion format how many it would take to wipe him out.

Since he states some are opinion it is the opinion of an expert witness and not that of someone stating he counted them. The questioner should have asked how he derived his opinion.

In lots of court cases there are expert witnesses that testify opposite opinions. Do you think the losing side experts are all tried for giving false statements?

Benteen would qualify as an expert witness and be allowed to give opinion along with eye witness testimony. They are not the same.

To answer how many warriors it took to kill Custer the answer is one or two depending on whether the bullets came from the same gun.

AZ Ranger

["Hunk" Papa]

Sept 14, 2010 14:33:00 GMT -6 ftpeckpabaksa said:

I did want to see what people have thought about the camp size at the Little Bighorn.

I mean, eye witness accounts of the "Sioux" are always to have said that it was the largest camp they had ever seen. But, when compared to Killdeer Mountain in 1864....which General Alfred Sully states, 1,600 to 1,800 Lodges and about 6,000 warriors.

I do know the basic's and that, the size of both camps were large, was in fact, the camp at the LBH the second largest gathering of "Sioux" people to be attacked by the United States Army? I don't want to take anything away from the people who were at each site. But, according to the records with the North Dakota State Historical Society and what is written of Killdeer Mountain, is it indeed the largest gathering or was the Little Big Horn? Just a question.

Rod Thomas gave a talk at the 18th Annual Symposium of the CBHMA on June 25th 2004, under the title "Maps, Myths and Monesetah." One of the points he addressed was the question of of Indian numbers at the LBH and in particular the Northern Cheyenne. He stated that in November 1874 a census of them was taken at the Red Cloud Agency and there were then 1,202 of these people in 171 lodges which compared closely with the 168 lodges counted at the Dakota Territory Sod Agency in May 1873 by the first reservation commissioners.

After giving the calculations of Northern Cheyenne lodges at the LBH given by such luminaries as George B. Grinnell, Thomas B. Marquis, George E. Hyde and Charles Eastman showing a big discrepancy between the first two named and the latter two, he shows that in April to May 1877 a total of 1,160 N Cheyenne surrendered so that in 1876 the N Cheyenne numbered about 175 lodges and 1,200 people. Of these, 600 were still at the Red Cloud Agency in the first week of July 1876, so there were between 500 and 600 of this tribe, with 90-100 warriors, housed in 70 lodges at the LBH. This is a far cry from the hugely inflated numbers cited by some historians such as Marquis, who after contact with the tribe over a period of time in the early 1900's, calculated 1,600 people in 200 lodges at the battle. It is therefore prudent to be very cautious about individual estimates of Sioux numbers, especially by those who came out of the battle with the belief that there must have been thousands of warriors to beat Custer and corrall them.

Prior to the Battle of Killdeer mountain Sully went to the Sioux camp to parley with the Indians and reported that there were 5,000-6,000 warriors there but that was his estimate and never verified.

Later in that year of 1864 two army columns under Colonels Cole and Walker blundered about the Powder looking for Indians and somehow passed between two large camps of them. One of 1,500 to 2,000 lodges was on the Powder River and the other, even larger, was a Hunkpapa camp under Sitting Bull and Black Moon on the Little Missouri. One wonders if the Little Big Horn disaster might have been averted if Cole or Walker had blundered into either of these huge villages and been annihilated making the U.S. Army acutely aware that large Indian camps would stand and fight.

[Yan Taylor]

I think we are being hard on old Benteen, lets face it he wasnt in a position to count them all, and if he did give a qoute at one point, later when he thought about it a little longer and took stock, he may have thought that there was more then he previously seen, taking into acount that that they must have being rushing every where, maybe the ones he first seen after he joined Reno and the main body he may have seen when they started out to find Custer made him change his mind.
Regards Yan.