How Many Sioux and Cheyenne?

[Diane Merkel]

The following question is from a website visitor.

How many Lakota and Cheyenne warriors did Custer and his men face at the Battle of the Little Big Horn?

[Tricia]

Diane--

As goes everything about the study of Little Bighorn, even these numbers are controversial. Personally, I think Greg Michno does a wonderful job in "Lakota Noon" of tracing the historiography of the population of the village and with it, the number of warriors. He takes his approach to the camp with almost a scientific vigor.

There have been estimates of anything from maybe 600 braves to over 8,000! As I recall some extrapolation, with rather great accuracy, can be made from Agency rolls--basically, going back and seeing who was missing after that January 31st deadline for the so-called "hostiles." So how many were there?

I think the latest estimate is around 1200 to 1500 warriors, who, even beyond this number, acted as indivduals in the battle--which might have confused the Seventh further into their oblivion. As them--Custer, I think--who knew better once decried: "give us an enemy who plays by the rules" of command and control. It was perhaps this lack of generalship that allowed the Native Americans to adapt quickly to the evolving situation.

One of the lingering questions regarding the village is when Sheridan and Terry received evidence as to its size and warrior count. There is a tendency among conspiracy nuts to believe that Sheridan didn't make his intelligence known until after the battle. There is also the interesting phenomena of how participants in the battle wildly overestimated the number of warriors as if they could not accept that a relatively small number of braves killed a regiment of the United States' military. As Custer said, "hell, we can get through them all in a day," or something along that trail of thought ...

Which brings us back to the essence of the battle. How could a more sophisticated opponent unit lose so much to what was commonly regarded as an inferior enemy, including the death of Custer's entire battalion. What caused the fall?

Let the debate begin!

Leyton McLean

[El Crab]

About 1500 or so, if I had to guess.

[bigpond]

I would agree with the guys,about 1,500.
In answer to Leytons last part,I would say a great deal of there success was due to there armament.The Rosebud and the LBH showed that given a parity of weapons with the army they were a force to be reckoned with.
Unlike say the fetterman fight where they lost more warriors due to fighting with Bow and Arrows, spears and hatchets..
At the LBH the warriors used the terrain with there rifles to good effect as well as the arrows from out of view against targets that where standing in the open.Also IMO Reno was attacked by less than half the warriors,by the time the rest got ready Custer appeared.

[d o harris]

"There were enough to do the job."

Frederick Benteen's last words on the subject.

[crzhrs]

Big Pond and Leyton pretty well sum it up.

One old time frontiersman said, "stir up an ant hill and try counting the ants" . . . that's what it's like figuring out how many Indians there were.

One interesting note: it may have been very difficult for ALL warriors to participate in the fight at one time, owing to available terrain to work in. If that was the case then it may have been even more impressive of a victory.

As to "What caused the fall?"

The division of command before the full intelligence of what was up ahead was known. Custer rushing to attack once on Weir Point rather than setting up a command post and directing operations, knowing there was a river to cross and no known point of crossing.

[Jim]

Although I believe 1500 is a good estimate, I believe that 500 or less could have defeated the 5 companies of GAC. For one, the physical condition of the troopers & horses provided a lack of cohesion. Secondly, the idea that the indians were defending their families & existence, plus the Rosebud victory a few days earlier, gave them enough confidence to destroy anything that they would have been confronted with.

[El Crab]

I'd say Custer's battalion probably fought about 1000 of them, but not all at once. The numbers grew as the battle developed.

I do think Custer could have won this battle. The number of warriors, if around 1500, was the amount Custer actually expected, and not too large for his regiment. In a Rosebud-like situation, a victory was not possible. But in reaching and attacking the village, Custer could have won. But he didn't, and there are many reasons for that.

[crzhrs]

Failure to reach the village by the entire command was another major reason for the 7th's defeat. Attacking in piece meal worked at Washita due to a dawn attack in winter. Attacking mid-day in the summer did not produce the shock & awe attack that could have resulted in victory.

The number of warriors was a factor due to the separation of command, the cavalry fighting in unsuitable terrain for a horse charge (other than Reno), and the presence of hard-core non-reservation Indians who would not run in the face of an attack.

Remember, most of the non-treaty warriors had attacked Crook aggressively at the Rosebud. Crook had twice as many men as Custer and was lucky to get away with a small number of casualties only due to Crow and Shoshoni warriors who blunted the Sioux/Cheyenne attack.

The "hostiles" in the camp were the elite forces and had support provided by reservation Indians.

[El Crab]

At Washita, the 7th surrounded the village first. A staggered attack might have worked at LBH, but Benteen was late and Reno was timid and Custer, well, we don't exactly know what his deal was, do we?

[tenrab]

lets say there were about 1000 warriors arrayed against Custer and his command,only so many can fight at any given time,in my opinion the reason Custer lost was sheer arrogance.How could these barbarians defeat the cream of U S. fighting men?I say by underestimating them,anyway,here's to free speech!