Question about Crazy Horse following LBH

[WY Man]

Does anybody know where Crazy Horse went immediately following the hilltop battle with Reno/Benteen? Did the Oglalas go back up Reno Creek to bury their dead, where they buried those who died in the Rosebud battle a week earlier? That was where the Lone Tipi stood when the 7th Cavalry marched past on the morning of the 25th.

[bc]

Jul 27, 2012 21:35:00 GMT -6 WY Man said:

Does anybody know where Crazy Horse went immediately following the hilltop battle with Reno/Benteen? Did the Oglalas go back up Reno Creek to bury their dead, where they buried those who died in the Rosebud battle a week earlier? That was where the Lone Tipi stood when the 7th Cavalry marched past on the morning of the 25th.

Hello Wy Man. I don't know but they went south in a large group. Somewhere among the dead that Capt. Ball seen may be some good artifacts from the battle buried somewhere. If anyone went up Reno Creek, they would have been easily seen from Reno Hill and the soldiers would have noted it if they did. So I don't think CH did.

Regarding the rifling of pockets for maps, etc.; those NAs have been around forts and reservations for years picking up their annuities and trading. They pretty much could tell someone of rank by the stripes and shoulder bars. Besides, at the LBH, about all the officers were wearing buckskins which was something they also wore around the forts as well. I'd think any rifling of pockets would be to get souveniors only, and they may have known that the officers would be carrying the better quality souvenirs like binocs and such things like jewelry. So I don't think they had any trouble identifying the officers.

bc

[WY Man]

Good points bc. Something I've observed is that from Reno Hilltop, you cannot see the cliffs that form the divide between the junction of the N. and S. forks of Reno Creek. As far as your comments about the rifling of the soldiers' pockets, I don't doubt the NAs were looking for "souvenirs". (or, is that "Sioux-venirs"?) I was just mentioning an interesting statement that originated from a primary source. It just seems logical to me that they would have been trying to identify which individual was the leading officer.

[plainsman]

Help me understand WHY they would have cared who was the leading officer.

[Dark Cloud]

They may not have cared. Just as we try to implant our military organization on Indians, they might have had misconceptions about our organization as well and assumed that war leaders had powerful medicines that might be of use. Even defeated ones. Recall the glurge about the medals of Keogh, although I suspect that was written after the fact by devoted Catholics.

Some Indians may have known, but the majority probably did not.

[ulan]

If you find a battle group workin together and following a leader, than it is a military organization.

Crazy Horse was leading his battle group to Custers right flanc. Crazy Horse saw Gall´s warriors allready attacking Custer frontal and made they decision to attack from the side. That was military thinking and just the same what Custer wanted to do.
Crazy Horse didn´t follow orders nor had he planned any attack together with Gall....no comunication. But at least it was just the same way Custer did it and he made his decision from moment to moment like Custer.

So the indians had some organization, but not in the same way as the US Army.

[Dark Cloud]

Indians had no battle group, could not give orders, did not have to obey anyone. That's very different from a military. They were a street gang where individuals competed to show bravery. They would want to look good before CH and Gall and established warriors, but they followed their wishes by choice, not order.

It's a mistake to enter anyone's mind and declare what there were thinking. In any case, as AZ keeps pointing out, what is often mistaken for military thinking in Indians is really that of the hunter in a group, a process they knew well and was their food source. Soldiers do not do that.

Further, Indians did not think long term. Warfare had seasons and traditions, which they mostly honored. They couldn't imagine being able to do that even if they wished, because it required organization and surrender of individuality they were not willing to give. Every year was a zero sum game, in effect. That wasn't how the Army looked at things.

[ulan]

It was not like a hunting group because a hunting group needs no leader. The only thing for warriors/hunters on a hunt was to show discipline. That discipline was for hunting and what it takes to hunt, but not the discipline to follow some hunting leader.

Military´s essensence is the discipline of people to follow a leader(or an order) without inividual decisions. Indian warriors show discipline to follow their leaders into tactical moves. The flanc attack of the Crazy Horse battle group was a tactical move.

When Crazy Horse move to the left for his flanc attack idea and shout out a "jauwhoohii" or something, then it was like a order to follow him. In fact a military order.

Soldiers are doing the same damn thing, if a leader shout out"we got them with their pants down" or something, they will follow automaticly. I think that dos not need a deeper military structure.

[benteen]

[quote author=ulan board=Indians thread=4261 post=82117 time=
When Crazy Horse move to the left for his flanc attack idea and shout out a "jauwhoohii" or something, then it was like a order to follow him. In fact a military order.

.[/quote]

Ulan,

I agre that CH probably made some kind of war cry and the warriors followed him, however where I disagree is that it was an order.From what I have read warriors were not obligated to listen to or follow anyone.They did so because they believed in chiefs like CH, Gall, Sitting Bull etc and felt it was in their best interest to listen or follow, but no Indian could give another Indian an order, they were free to do as they pleased and no one would condemn them for it

Be Well
Dan

[Dark Cloud]

Ulan, I contend you're operating under misunderstandings here.

First, Indians did NOT have leaders that corresponded to the Army in any fashion.

Second, hunting groups most certainly DO have leaders. When you hunt herd animals, especially bison, you have to stay downwind and you had to have everyone in place before you rushed them before the horse arrived a century or more previous to LBH. With bison, you had to select the cliff to run them off and this could take days to set up.

With the horse and gun, not so much, but you still had to know who was going to drive and who was going to pick off and turn a small group to be killed (bison are sorta blind and not bright and can be shot in groups while they feed on grass). Signals had to be given and acted upon. Not precision, but nonetheless you couldn't really wing it till horse and rifle.

AZ, who rides and hunts, has pointed out that the Indian tactics of divide and kill are the same as carnivores hunting in groups on herd animals. The army reacted like bison sorta - the Indians said it was like a buffalo hunt - and the Indians were like wolves.

The whole vocabulary we applied to Indians - Chief, squaw, warrior - didn't really correspond to western types, and when we tried to make them work it distorted everything and insulted their women.

People like Sitting Bull were no longer chiefs but Holy Men of sorts, or priests. But people continue to view SB as the war chief, or Gall and Crazy Horse, and it isn't true. They were great warriors, or once were, viewed as having strong medicine and likely to have success so it's who I'm gonna ride with. But it was Lame White Man and others who actually were more important to the the battle. CH was Oglala, and while he and SB respected each other, not likely Hunkpapa followed CH.

White men love the name Crazy Horse, and this has led to his elevation beyond reason. The name meant nothing, it was his father's who changed his name to Worm when he gave it to his son. God knows what that implies, if anything at all.

[Gatewood]

Ulan,

I don't mean this as a jab at you personally, but just an observation in general terms. The whole concept of American Indian organization, chiefs, and so forth is very strange and confusing. Even here in America most people are probably under the impression that the typical American Indian chief or leader had far more power and influence than he really did, so I can well understand why someone such as yourself would have difficulty in fully understanding it.

The reality was, as several people have mentioned, that there was little formal or obligatory structure at all, every Indian was free to do as he pleased, and any leader/follower relationship was based entirely on force of personalities. It would be as if I was with a group of friends that were trying to decide which bar to go to tonight, and I said lets go to this particular one and everyone agreed to go along. They might be doing so because they liked me and enjoyed being around me, they thought that I was good at picking up girls and they could get some just by being around me, or whatever, but the point is that they would follow my lead entirely because they elected to and not because I in any way ordered them to go to a particular bar. Now they might feel pressured to accompany me because they believed that, if they did not, they might make me mad and I wouldn't want to hang around with them any more, but, again, it would still be a "choice" on their part as to exactly what to do.

It was the same sort of relationship with the Indians. To the extent that any others followed Crazy Horse, for example, they did so out of respect or because they thought that he would bring much glory upon himself and any others that happened to be associated with him would gain their share of glory as well, etc., but it was entirely out of free choice.

Quincannon likened it to a street gang, and I think that may be an apt description. I suspect that various war parties and other similar groupings in battle, hunting, etc. were as much social in nature as anything and were largely composed of Indians that were friends with each other and just generally enjoyed being around and hanging out with each other, and, as in most such groupings, there were natural "leaders" that the rest just sort of followed due to force of personality.

That is a greatly generalized and simplified explanation of it but is the general nature of the way things worked.

[plainsman]

And if you pick the wrong[/] bar, Gatewood, there goes your cred. AND your followers.

They followed Crazy Horse because he was brave and he won and wanted nothing for himself. And maybe also because he gave no orders but lead strictly by example.