|
Post by yarnnelg on Mar 19, 2020 20:23:40 GMT -6
When dismounted to fight. Was the tactic used, to have every fourth man hold the reigns to four horses? If that is the case, doesn't it mean that your command is reduced by 25% without firing a shot? They can't fight with scared horses and fire a weapon.
On the board I've seen references indicating that Crook was not meant to meet Custer. I've read that Terry and Gibbon columns were to unite and that Crook and Custer to unite to surround the village.
Crooks actions are questionable. On June 16 his volume arrives at Rosebud. On June 17 the battle begins and ends. Crook left his wagons behind, each man carries 100 rounds and packs light. He is in a hurry to get somewhere. Battle, light casualties for a force of 1,000 troopers and 200 scouts. 26,000 rounds of ammunition expended. Crook leaves, goes south into Wyoming, then goes hunting. Crook sends no messengers that he left the field.
If Custer is anywhere close to Crook's path on the 23rd or 24th ... he sees evidence of Crook having been in front of him. The scouts would have fanned out in front Custer's column. According to sources, upon learning of the Custer massacre, Crook's troops (who didn't care for him much anyway) blamed Crook for leaving Custer on his own. If that's accurate, the Crook troops knew they were supposed to be at the LBH.
Or or am I reading too much unreliable material?
|
|
|
Post by Colt45 on Mar 19, 2020 20:41:01 GMT -6
Yarnnelg, You are correct that when the horseholders deploy and hold the mounts, the company's firepower is reduced by 25%. The horseholders do not fire when holding mounts. Dismounting and fighting from skirmish line was the standard tactic of the day. The 7th was not well trained and would not have been able to fight effectively while mounted. With only a carbine and pistol, mounted fighting was a no-go.
The original plan was to have a 3-prong attack, with Terry and Gibbon come from the north and west, and Crook come from the south. The three columns ideally would have converged on the Little Bighorn at about the same time. This would have created an encirclement of the hostiles. Crook made his mistake in leaving behind his wagons and placing his infantry on the mules from the wagons. He did this for speed, which really didn't provide the desired speed, and cost him his sustainability in the field. At the Rosebud, he expended way too many rounds of ammo and lost the ability to be an effective fighting force, hence he was forced to return to Goose Creek.
If Custer had continued toward the headwaters as Terry had directed him instead of turning west at the divide and following the Indian trail, he would have discovered the signs of Crook's battle. Moving toward the headwaters would also have taken him at least another day. If at that time, he then turned to go toward the Little Bighorn, he most likely would have arrived on the south of the village at about the same time as Terry reached the north end, which was the 27th. He also would have been able to ascertain that the hostile force was quite large and formidable and when he arrived at LBH he probably would not have been splitting his force into small parts. The outcome of LBH would have been considerably different if Custer arrived when Terry did instead of 2 days earlier.
In 1876 communications were a far different thing than today. If Crook had sent a messenger to Terry upon arriving back at Goose Creek, that messenger probably would not have found Terry for at least 7 days, maybe longer, considering the distance, uncertainty of Terry's exact location, and having to travel with care through hostile territory.
You made some good points and your observations were spot-on.
|
|
|
Post by yarnnelg on Mar 20, 2020 21:59:04 GMT -6
I appreciate the information. Having been to the battlefield three times and had experience hunting in the area, the first time I saw the battlefield, my immediate question was Why Here and for what purpose? The high elevation makes the sun seem that much hotter. I question some of the scavengers comments after the battle. Coyotes and wolves maybe, bears would be curious but not a problem. I never saw a vulture which doesn't mean they weren't there, just never saw one. Mountain lions would greater in number...I would expect most would be interested in horse flesh. Humans tend to be avoided. I question the ammunition count. If each trooper carried 100 rounds, that is near 100,000 rounds. 26,000 rounds expended, that leaves 70,000 rounds. Maybe enough trigger happy troopers with no ammunition left to throw off their count somewhat... There is wealth of information on the site. Enjoyable read each evening at this time.
Again, thank you for the comments.it closes some of the gaps.
|
|
|
Post by noggy on Mar 21, 2020 5:25:12 GMT -6
If Custer had continued toward the headwaters as Terry had directed him instead of turning west at the divide and following the Indian trail, he would have discovered the signs of Crook's battle. Moving toward the headwaters would also have taken him at least another day. If at that time, he then turned to go toward the Little Bighorn, he most likely would have arrived on the south of the village at about the same time as Terry reached the north end, which was the 27th. He also would have been able to ascertain that the hostile force was quite large and formidable and when he arrived at LBH he probably would not have been splitting his force into small parts. The outcome of LBH would have been considerably different if Custer arrived when Terry did instead of 2 days earlier. We have an expression up here in the tundra, which roughly translated means "Luck in misfortune" or something. A little like the saying "blessing in disguise". This scenario" for the US would have been that. Planning to meet on the 26th and both columns missing but turning up on the 27th would have been fitting to the whole "Custer`s Luck" thing many of his men believed in. But I really doubt this would have been feasible (the right word? Yours truly, the Foreigner). On the 24th-25th Custer was already very close to the Indian camp(s). There were scouts and hunters roaming around. The Indians had seemingly designated scouting parties who followed Crook`s movements towards the South, and if Custer went riding around in the area for a day or two, he would have been detected. Then what would happen? Would the Indians make a new attack like they did at the Rosebud? Maybe there would have been a Second Battle of the Rosebud? Would that lead to Terry getting to an almost undefended village? Would the village break up and scatter? And so on. This reminds me that I have a book on counterfactual history I need to read. All the best, Noggy
|
|
|
Post by noggy on Mar 21, 2020 5:29:36 GMT -6
When dismounted to fight. Was the tactic used, to have every fourth man hold the reigns to four horses? If that is the case, doesn't it mean that your command is reduced by 25% without firing a shot? They can't fight with scared horses and fire a weapon. When a force can`t fight mounted, this is the only way to do it unless you are willing to let go of your horses. Indian testimonies from the battle tell of both single soldiers trying to hold their horse with one hand and shooting with the other (which didn`t) work, and horseholders holding 8 or more horses. The latter was obviously an attempt to keep as many men firing as possible, since like you said, 25 percent in a situation like this is substantial lack of firepower. All the best, Noggy
|
|
|
Post by Yan Taylor on Mar 21, 2020 6:18:31 GMT -6
I think the idea behind the cavalry skirmish line is to obviously have horse holders, but as we know this will give them a reduced firing line, but this would be acceptable because cavalry units are not built for pitched battles, so this reduced firing line would in normal terms, only be utilized if the company was holding a position for a short length of time, which is what mounted units do as they are not infantry and don’t fight like infantry.
They are designed to use their main weapon maneuverability, which is of course the horse, so any skirmish line would be use for a short period before they mounted up and moved clear.
The main danger for mounted units is to get fixed and this is what could have happened to Custer’s companies, Benteen saw this danger on Weir peaks and got out quick, Godfrey handled his skirmish line to the book and it worked.
Ian
|
|
|
Post by fred on Mar 21, 2020 8:21:33 GMT -6
On the board I've seen references indicating that Crook was not meant to meet Custer. I've read that Terry and Gibbon columns were to unite and that Crook and Custer to unite to surround the village.... Or or am I reading too much unreliable material? Disabuse yourself of anything to do with Crook and the Little Big Horn. There were no plans whatsoever for any coordination between Crook's Wyoming column and the Terry-Gibbon columns. They were acting independently of one another and the communications in those days would have not allowed anything but a haphazard meeting. It would have taken at least two weeks for news of the Crook fight to have reached Terry in the field. This is discussed thoroughly in the book, The Strategy of Defeat at the Little Big Horn and the intent of Terry's orders to Custer are discussed in even more detail in the forthcoming book, A Skirmish of Shadows.Best wishes, Fred.
|
|
|
Post by yarnnelg on Mar 21, 2020 14:40:02 GMT -6
Along the lines of a messenger finally catching Crook, mid fly casting, more than a week after the Custer massacre. No exceptions taken, trying to catch up. I have never seen anything from this author that stands apart from information already on the table. Bill O'Reilly has a new book coming out on a theory on why Crazy Horse was killed. His theory being the military didn't have answers for their old Civil War Calvary tactics and Crazy Horse had exploited those tactics at Rose Bud and then Little Big Horn. I believe I will read "A Skirmish of Shodows" before chasing rabbits down rabbit holes.
I read about the use of suicide boys. A group of young braves dedicated to die on a battle field. Their choice to charge the lines at the last minute, over whelming the firing line, while the soldiers were busy reloading the main body would crash the line and chaos would ensue. That was described as the finish on last stand hill.
There are as many theories as those surrounding Dallas 1963.
I am depending on your years of study and myth busting along this path. Again, I cannot thank you enough.
|
|
|
Post by fred on Mar 21, 2020 15:16:05 GMT -6
Along the lines of a messenger finally catching Crook, mid fly casting, more than a week after the Custer massacre.... I believe I will read "A Skirmish of Shodows" before chasing rabbits down rabbit holes. Communications between the Terry-Dakota column and the Crook-Wyoming column were virtually impossible. For Crook to communicate with Terry he would have had to send a dispatch from wherever he was located to Fort Fetterman. A telegram would then be sent to department HQ in Omaha. That message would be relayed to division HQ in Chicago and in turn to Terry’s department HQ in St. Paul, MN. From that point the telegram would go to Bismarck, the western terminus for the telegraph in 1876. Then the telegram would have to go aboard one of the steamboats to either Glendive or the Powder River Depot, a little later in the campaign. Then it would be sent by courier to Terry, wherever he was in the field. This entire process would have taken at least two weeks. I believe this is in the Strategy book. The suicide boys are somewhat controversial. There are those who believe they were a myth, a figment of the Indians' imaginations. I am not in that group. I believe they existed, but they were not boys as we picture them: many were actually young men... as we picture them! Only a couple names are actually known, e.g., Little Whirlwind (problematic), Cut Belly (30 years old... see what I mean?), Closed Hand (20), Noisy Walking (15 or 18), Limber Bones (20), and Roman Nose (16). You will find all this in the Participants book. One source claimed there were at least twenty of them. Regardless, you don't overrun a hilltop with five people, so choose your poison. I do, personally, believe these fellows basically ended the battle... many of all with their own lives. My thanks for your confidence in my work. If you wind up with Shadows, it's the second part that deals with the valley; the first part is the usual lead-in stuff, peppered with some spice that should drive some wild. Not a lot of "myth-busting"; certainly not as much as in Strategy, but some new stuff never before fully discussed-- if at all. I always get a kick out of that sort of thing: it is there for the grabbing (reading), yet no one ever seems able to ferret out what some of these comments mean. It becomes extremely interesting when you read each account very carefully. I particularly enjoyed the "Reno retreat" part. Anyway, thanks for your kind comments... and confidence. Best wishes, Fred.
|
|
|
Post by wild on Apr 21, 2020 1:01:02 GMT -6
I never gave any thought to the "suicide boys". They seem out of place in a stone age culture dependent on every single life for it's existance. The Indians did not have a surplus of humanity to specialise in suicide. In fact I think their first responders were ultra cautious against Reno and just acted as a blocking force. And I doubt very much if they had a word for suicide.
The skirmish line did exactly what it said on the tin...it was a non aggressive defensive formation designed to frighten off women and children. Rather than having every 4th man as a horse holder in practice they put every 4 man in the line as a rearguard. Best Richard
|
|
|
Post by shan on Apr 21, 2020 9:07:22 GMT -6
Wild,
the indians were not unfamiliar with suicide, and no doubt had a word for it. Amongst the many, and various winter counts, there are reports of a number of mixed sexed men, sorry, I've forgotten their name for the moment, but they were men who preferred to dress and act as women, something that was generally accepted by other members of the tribe, who had committed suicide by hanging themselves. Likewise, there are also accounts of women doing the same, hanging seemingly the preferred method when it came to suicide.
Having said that, I tend to agree that a stone age culture could afford to have young men deliberately throwing their lives away, I think that's a product of Hollywood, for when one reads back through the accounts of most fights with the whites, the Indians tended to err on the side of caution. My feeling is that the title Suicide Boys is a mis-understanding, and whilst these young men may have vowed to lead the fight, that's very different from deliberately presenting yourself as a target.
Again, I haven't got any of my books to hand to check the figures, but I seem to remember seeing a figure of twenty or so suicide boys, of whom some three or four were killed.
Shan
|
|
dgfred
Junior Member
Posts: 69
|
Post by dgfred on Apr 21, 2020 11:06:22 GMT -6
I don't think they were 'suicide' per say... more like looked suicidal due to their will/energy for attack/fighting.
|
|
|
Post by noggy on Apr 21, 2020 12:01:34 GMT -6
It would surprise me if they didn`t have a word for suicide. Wooden Leg mentioned how "common" it was among the Cheyenne. I believe Crazy Horse`s mother actually took her own life too. It would be strange if they could not call such an act something, but maybe they just called it was it was; killing oneself?
Wild: I do agree with the term "Suicide Boys" probably just being a result of translation rather than what they called it themselves. But it is also known that Native American warriors could in dire situations...my language fails me here..."tie" themselves to a pole during a fight in order to demonstrate they would not run but fight to the death. God, someone help me out with a better formulation here.
All the best, Noggy
|
|
|
Post by wild on Apr 22, 2020 14:34:27 GMT -6
Just for argument sake.....if they were boys then their experience of serious combat action was limited if they had any at all. What notable actions did they participate in to win this accolade of suicide? Further the birth rate was influenced by the ability of the first child being able to walk. So perhaps a 3 year cycle and as 50% new births would be female the thought of losing a semi generation of young males could spell doom...life expectancy was probably no more than 50 and to have a gang of youngfellas acting the mick on the battlefield just seems to be the stuff of tall tales. Cheers
|
|
|
Post by noggy on Apr 23, 2020 1:35:01 GMT -6
Just for argument sake.....if they were boys then their experience of serious combat action was limited if they had any at all. What notable actions did they participate in to win this accolade of suicide? Further the birth rate was influenced by the ability of the first child being able to walk. So perhaps a 3 year cycle and as 50% new births would be female the thought of losing a semi generation of young males could spell doom...life expectancy was probably no more than 50 and to have a gang of youngfellas acting the mick on the battlefield just seems to be the stuff of tall tales. Cheers Again, I believe the term is a translated one which probably is somewhat off the mark. They were not boys, at least one was 30. Fred said the same. Native American warriors often started their "careers" in their teens, so even a kid under 20 could have done some fighting, but I really don`t think the term "Suicide Boys" is what the NAs would have called this bunch at all. If memory serves me correctly, all of these supposed "boys" were unmarried without children. It is known that warriors could tether (?) themselves to the spot and fight to the death when they deemed it necessary. That a group of 20ish young men who had no families volunteered to lead any charge or counterattack against an enemy does not strike me as totally out of the realms of probability. Basically, I think the translation messes things up here. Likewise with the so-called "Dying Dance", I`d bet at years wage that this is not the actual meaning of the Lakota or Cheyenne word for it. All the best, Noggy
|
|