|
Post by custerstillstands on Jan 18, 2006 6:17:48 GMT -6
Terry/Gibbon had 700 men, Custer had 647.
|
|
|
Post by dcb188 on Jan 18, 2006 6:20:37 GMT -6
And how many Indians were there? About that same number or was it more?
|
|
|
Post by dcb188 on Jan 18, 2006 6:22:34 GMT -6
And the reason I am asking is because if it is more, a lot more, than we have a problem. And the problem would be how Benteen and Reno and Custer could have defeated a number of Indians that outnumbered them greatly. But if the numbers of Indians were very very few then it would have been quite an easy matter to dispose of them. And I ask this because of the importance you attach to Reno and Benteen being where they were supposed to be. I am just wondering if it would have turned the tide, so to speak. How many Indians were there?
|
|
|
Post by custerstillstands on Jan 18, 2006 6:25:47 GMT -6
`1'500 warriors.
4'500 civilians.
But in the Indian wars, the army was always in less number than the foe, but almost always won. The reason is unorganization of warriors.
|
|
|
Post by alfuso on Jan 18, 2006 6:25:52 GMT -6
T and G were moving with less than 500 by the time Brisbin's cavalry had moved away, and a number of them were infantry.
Custer estimated about 1500 warriors and that's been proven to be about right.(a couple of Indians even wrote a book to that effect)
So 600 men were facing approximately 3-1 odds. All indians against any one battalion was nearly 10-1 odds. Split up the Indians and lessen the odds or keep them at 3-1.
alfuso
|
|
|
Post by custerstillstands on Jan 18, 2006 6:27:41 GMT -6
"T and G were moving with less than 500 by the time Brisbin's cavalry had moved away, and a number of them were infantry."
Sorry, I am mistaken. Thanks for the correction!
|
|
|
Post by custerstillstands on Jan 18, 2006 6:28:33 GMT -6
And 3 Indians surprised, with low range weapons, against 1 soldier trained with long range weapon.
|
|
|
Post by dcb188 on Jan 18, 2006 6:32:48 GMT -6
But I still wonder how Benteen and Reno could have come up to help. But the important thing is that they apparently could have but did not. I have learned more this morning than all the books I have read until today. And I have you to thank mostly, at least for this morning. I had always thought Reno especially (not so sure about Benteen, although I don't think he was around the next bend from Custer) but Reno especially----I had always thought he could not go from the bluffs to Custer or from the woods. But I guess if he had just gone straight from the woods and turned his back on the Indians to his front, and gone to rescue Custer,and Reno surely must have known at that time that Custer needed rescuing badly-----Reno could have made it to Custer, you are saying. And that dispels this notion I had of him being in dire straits. I am really surprised that the Court of Inquiry, if what you say is true, did not censure him very severely for his blatant failure to ride out of the woods and head straight to Custer. But they didn't, and that is what confuses me because I too thought he could not do it. But you say he not only could have but should have. I think had Reno turned his back on the Indians and gone to Custer instead of the bluffs, that he would have worn the Congressional Medal of Honor. But he went to the bluffs instead.
|
|
|
Post by custerstillstands on Jan 18, 2006 6:38:49 GMT -6
Read the thread about the Reno Court of Inquiry. Even the man who conducted the hearings was ashamed of the results of the Court.
Reno should have hold his position in the timber to let time to Custer to attack the village from different direction. It was his mission. Attracting warriors and letting time for Custer to move (and for Benteen).
After his rout, when he was on Reno Hill, Reno should have joined Custer with Benteen's reinforcements.
|
|
|
Post by dcb188 on Jan 18, 2006 6:41:58 GMT -6
That is what I am saying. According you what you are saying, Reno was not in the jam I thought he was in, and at any time he would have been able to break off from the attacking Indians and head for Custer instead of wasting his time on the bluffs. This is the information I am getting from you, that it is not what I thought it to be. This is why we have to be careful of what books we read
|
|
|
Post by custerstillstands on Jan 18, 2006 6:50:25 GMT -6
A lot of books are lying on the LBH, you are surely note alone to be disinformed about the battle!
|
|
|
Post by dcb188 on Jan 18, 2006 6:52:00 GMT -6
Let me start another thread here right now. You and I are on several different threads at the same time like a news room at ABC news with all the teletypes going at once-----
|
|