Comments on: Battle of Little Bighorn: Were the Weapons the Deciding Factor http://www.historynet.com/battle-of-little-bighorn-were-the-weapons-the-deciding-factor.htm From the World's Largest History Magazine Publisher Sat, 21 Nov 2009 21:14:19 -0500 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: Paul http://www.historynet.com/battle-of-little-bighorn-were-the-weapons-the-deciding-factor.htm/comment-page-1#comment-146464 Paul Sat, 14 Nov 2009 04:12:13 +0000 #comment-146464 It is always interesting to see the innocent try to re-write history. Modern historians and pre-occupied supporters of equality try to portray the American Indian as the gentle noble native. The truth of course, is they were asian stone-age savages. This is not a denegration, it is merely the truth. They had a penchant for war and torture. Despite all the modern nay-sayers all of the 19th century and early 20th century books on their lives and culture detail this. Fanny Kelly's capture and captive life was brutal and savage. She details how a number of times different indians tried to murder her only to be stopped by another. Whether she was raped or not we only have her word on that. The indians regularly scalped women and small children. Skinning alive and burning at the stake was a common end for captives. Did whites practice brutality against the indians? They certainly did. History is filled with the details. Did the whites practice ethnic cleansing? To a degree they certainly did. Were clerics exempt? Only ocassionally, and usually based on personal relationships. Before people yell "Hokum", read your history books, don't try to make up history as you wish it was. It is always interesting to see the innocent try to re-write history. Modern historians and pre-occupied supporters of equality try to portray the American Indian as the gentle noble native. The truth of course, is they were asian stone-age savages. This is not a denegration, it is merely the truth. They had a penchant for war and torture. Despite all the modern nay-sayers all of the 19th century and early 20th century books on their lives and culture detail this.
Fanny Kelly’s capture and captive life was brutal and savage. She details how a number of times different indians tried to murder her only to be stopped by another. Whether she was raped or not we only have her word on that. The indians regularly scalped women and small children. Skinning alive and burning at the stake was a common end for captives.
Did whites practice brutality against the indians? They certainly did. History is filled with the details. Did the whites practice ethnic cleansing? To a degree they certainly did.
Were clerics exempt? Only ocassionally, and usually based on personal relationships.
Before people yell “Hokum”, read your history books, don’t try to make up history as you wish it was.

]]> By: John Koster http://www.historynet.com/battle-of-little-bighorn-were-the-weapons-the-deciding-factor.htm/comment-page-1#comment-137754 John Koster Mon, 26 Oct 2009 21:20:12 +0000 #comment-137754 Lakota and Cheyenne warriors were generally quick killers and didn't go in for a lot of torture, though they certainly mutilated the dead afterwards. When Fanny Kelly was captured by the Lakota in 1864, they dragged her off into a teepee -- and made them teach her how to read. She appears never to have been raped and when she owned a house in Washington she invited any Lakota who showed up with his wife to stay over. Perhaps the greatest myth of the American West is that Indians were "savages" who did all sorts of terrible things without the slightest provocation. This is hokum. Their most frequent initial response to white people was curiosity, sometimes followed by hospitality. Even when wars were in progress, Catholic priests and Quakers could circulate among the Plains tribes without fear because they were holy men who presented no threat. Once Episcopal Bishop Henry Whipple, visiting Lakota friends, got up on a cold night to bring his saddle into the teepee to prevent theft. "You didn't have to do that," his Lakota host told him. "You're the only white man around for 50 miles...." Lakota and Cheyenne warriors were generally quick killers and didn’t go in for a lot of torture, though they certainly mutilated the dead afterwards. When Fanny Kelly was captured by the Lakota in 1864, they dragged her off into a teepee — and made them teach her how to read. She appears never to have been raped and when she owned a house in Washington she invited any Lakota who showed up with his wife to stay over. Perhaps the greatest myth of the American West is that Indians were “savages” who did all sorts of terrible things without the slightest provocation. This is hokum. Their most frequent initial response to white people was curiosity, sometimes followed by hospitality. Even when wars were in progress, Catholic priests and Quakers could circulate among the Plains tribes without fear because they were holy men who presented no threat. Once Episcopal Bishop Henry Whipple, visiting Lakota friends, got up on a cold night to bring his saddle into the teepee to prevent theft. “You didn’t have to do that,” his Lakota host told him. “You’re the only white man around for 50 miles….”

]]> By: Paul http://www.historynet.com/battle-of-little-bighorn-were-the-weapons-the-deciding-factor.htm/comment-page-1#comment-122024 Paul Mon, 21 Sep 2009 02:06:59 +0000 #comment-122024 I am somewhat at a loss as to what Keith means by paired markers. The only conclusion i can draw is he means a paired marker indicates two soldiers each shot themselves rather than be captured. Or two soldiers fell near each other. If this is so, I would not be so quick to scoff at suicide pacts. This was an situation where "save the last bullet for yourself" had real meaning. These soldiers were fighting a stone age Asian society where torture was freely practiced on their enemies. Being captured alive meant being skinned or burned alive or some similar end. Some Indian biographies note that quite a few soldiers shot themselves when they ran out of ammunition or their rifles jammed (look it up!). So scoffing at suicide pacts is not an objective evaluation of this particular situation and is a personal opinion unsupported by any evidence. I am somewhat at a loss as to what Keith means by paired markers. The only conclusion i can draw is he means a paired marker indicates two soldiers each shot themselves rather than be captured. Or two soldiers fell near each other.
If this is so, I would not be so quick to scoff at suicide pacts. This was an situation where “save the last bullet for yourself” had real meaning. These soldiers were fighting a stone age Asian society where torture was freely practiced on their enemies. Being captured alive meant being skinned or burned alive or some similar end. Some Indian biographies note that quite a few soldiers shot themselves when they ran out of ammunition or their rifles jammed (look it up!).
So scoffing at suicide pacts is not an objective evaluation of this particular situation and is a personal opinion unsupported by any evidence.

]]> By: Keith Patton http://www.historynet.com/battle-of-little-bighorn-were-the-weapons-the-deciding-factor.htm/comment-page-1#comment-120678 Keith Patton Fri, 18 Sep 2009 15:48:22 +0000 #comment-120678 The paired markers is a myth caused by the fact that markers meant for the Reno-Benteen battlefield were mistakenly placed on the Custer field. When the markers were placed, the were put in locations of "depressions" and "rank" vegetation. During the earlier burials earth was scraped up on either side of a body and piled on it. Resulting in two depressions next to one another. Two markers were therefore mistakenly placed where only one should have been and others to mark where horses might have fallen. This has been supported by subsequent excavations at paired markers where only the disarticulated remains of one individual have been found. Still at others, the markers were offset from the remains and only part of the remains were recovered for reburial leaving as much as half or more in place. This says something about the dedication of the burial details and or the Montana summer heat. Bottom line is these myths need to stop being repeated in the face of verifiable historical and scientific fact. Suicide pacts indeed.... The paired markers is a myth caused by the fact that markers meant for the Reno-Benteen battlefield were mistakenly placed on the Custer field. When the markers were placed, the were put in locations of “depressions” and “rank” vegetation. During the earlier burials earth was scraped up on either side of a body and piled on it. Resulting in two depressions next to one another. Two markers were therefore mistakenly placed where only one should have been and others to mark where horses might have fallen.
This has been supported by subsequent excavations at paired markers where only the disarticulated remains of one individual have been found. Still at others, the markers were offset from the remains and only part of the remains were recovered for reburial leaving as much as half or more in place. This says something about the dedication of the burial details and or the Montana summer heat.

Bottom line is these myths need to stop being repeated in the face of verifiable historical and scientific fact.

Suicide pacts indeed….

]]> By: Paul http://www.historynet.com/battle-of-little-bighorn-were-the-weapons-the-deciding-factor.htm/comment-page-1#comment-79867 Paul Mon, 22 Jun 2009 05:19:34 +0000 #comment-79867 Mike; Rather than refer back to my books I think I will just answer off the top of my head. As I remember Custer was reported as having three wounds on his body. One through the right chest, one creasing the head and one some where else of a minor nature. I probably should do the research to renew my memory! The point I am attempting to make is should he have been shot through the chest at the river, by the time he reached LSH he could have bleed out by the time he got there. A good possibility. This of course, is only theory At the Battle of the Rosebud Gen. Crooks account never mentions any jamming of the Springfield's during extensive ammunition expenditure that I can remember. Your own conclusions can be drawn from this. Crook was primarily saved by his own indian allies. Mike; Rather than refer back to my books I think I will just answer off the top of my head. As I remember Custer was reported as having three wounds on his body. One through the right chest, one creasing the head and one some where else of a minor nature. I probably should do the research to renew my memory! The point I am attempting to make is should he have been shot through the chest at the river, by the time he reached LSH he could have bleed out by the time he got there. A good possibility. This of course, is only theory
At the Battle of the Rosebud Gen. Crooks account never mentions any jamming of the Springfield’s during extensive ammunition expenditure that I can remember. Your own conclusions can be drawn from this. Crook was primarily saved by his own indian allies.

]]> By: Mike http://www.historynet.com/battle-of-little-bighorn-were-the-weapons-the-deciding-factor.htm/comment-page-1#comment-75973 Mike Sat, 13 Jun 2009 18:04:14 +0000 #comment-75973 I agree with the view that the most plausible (and imo, ONLY) explanation for the flow of the battle and command suddenly going from offense to defense after the MTC crossing is that Custer was mortally shot at that point, rather then sitting uphill and watching Yates charge the village (which totally contradicts Custer's charatcter and command expectations of the time of having the Genreal at the head of the command) or sending Yates to reconnoiter the village, which was lightly defended but yet not attacked. My only puzzle with this theory is was Surgeon Lord's body was not found by last stand hill but rather with E/F further down towards the River. It would make sense that he would have stayed close to wounded Custer unless of course Custer was dead and nothing could be done for him. Weopon jamming could explain the sudden onset of despair evident by the seeming widespread evidence of suicide pacts (frequent occurance of two paired markers) . Salute. I agree with the view that the most plausible (and imo, ONLY) explanation for the flow of the battle and command suddenly going from offense to defense after the MTC crossing is that Custer was mortally shot at that point, rather then sitting uphill and watching Yates charge the village (which totally contradicts Custer’s charatcter and command expectations of the time of having the Genreal at the head of the command) or sending Yates to reconnoiter the village, which was lightly defended but yet not attacked. My only puzzle with this theory is was Surgeon Lord’s body was not found by last stand hill but rather with E/F further down towards the River. It would make sense that he would have stayed close to wounded Custer unless of course Custer was dead and nothing could be done for him. Weopon jamming could explain the sudden onset of despair evident by the seeming widespread evidence of suicide pacts (frequent occurance of two paired markers) . Salute.

]]> By: Paul http://www.historynet.com/battle-of-little-bighorn-were-the-weapons-the-deciding-factor.htm/comment-page-1#comment-74025 Paul Tue, 09 Jun 2009 16:06:42 +0000 #comment-74025 Jeff: You need to look further and deeper than a archalogical report on a picked over battlefield. There are several books on the .45-70 and its overly soft copper case heads. The key word is REPORTED/DOCUMENTED jamming! Jammed springfiields were prevalent at the Battle of the Little Big Horn. Numerous busted pocket knives found of troopers trying to clear jams. Numerous indian's reported trooper fighting with jammed trapdoors. They also reported throwing many jammed rifles into the river as they were useless. Perhaps 6 or 7 cases with blown heads. Only a small portion of what had occurred. Right after the battle Army Ordinance changed the ammunition and covered up the incident much like they did with the M16 in Vietnam! Do not just be a reader of men's viewpoints, be a researcher. The LBH was not a stand up fight, and the indian's did not fight better than the soldiers. Custer broke his command into three sections, did not wait for the second half of his detachment, and went glory hunting on his own. Three small units, jamming carbines, hordes of indian's. The results were predictable. This hardly makes great stand-up fighters of the indian's. There is considerable evidence to suggest the indians lost a far greater number than is accepted by dogma. In fact they may have actually lost thousands but that is politically not acceptable. Whatever is finally said, the fact is it was the last great battle for the plains indian's. Other than the Nez Peirce conflict the plains indian's were destroyed. I hardly think losing only 33 indian's would have caused that! Yes, the early .45-70 ammunition was unreliable and cost many lives. Were it not for the Colt .45 the loses would likely have been much higher. Custer was an incompetent and would have been courtsmartialed had he survived. DO NOT BE A READER, BE A RESEARCHER! Jeff: You need to look further and deeper than a archalogical report on a picked over battlefield. There are several books on the .45-70 and its overly soft copper case heads. The key word is REPORTED/DOCUMENTED jamming! Jammed springfiields were prevalent at the Battle of the Little Big Horn. Numerous busted pocket knives found of troopers trying to clear jams. Numerous indian’s reported trooper fighting with jammed trapdoors. They also reported throwing many jammed rifles into the river as they were useless. Perhaps 6 or 7 cases with blown heads. Only a small portion of what had occurred. Right after the battle Army Ordinance changed the ammunition and covered up the incident much like they did with the M16 in Vietnam!
Do not just be a reader of men’s viewpoints, be a researcher. The LBH was not a stand up fight, and the indian’s did not fight better than the soldiers. Custer broke his command into three sections, did not wait for the second half of his detachment, and went glory hunting on his own. Three small units, jamming carbines, hordes of indian’s. The results were predictable. This hardly makes great stand-up fighters of the indian’s.
There is considerable evidence to suggest the indians lost a far greater number than is accepted by dogma. In fact they may have actually lost thousands but that is politically not acceptable.
Whatever is finally said, the fact is it was the last great battle for the plains indian’s. Other than the Nez Peirce conflict the plains indian’s were destroyed. I hardly think losing only 33 indian’s would have caused that!
Yes, the early .45-70 ammunition was unreliable and cost many lives. Were it not for the Colt .45 the loses would likely have been much higher.
Custer was an incompetent and would have been courtsmartialed had he survived. DO NOT BE A READER, BE A RESEARCHER!

]]> By: Jeff Helmer http://www.historynet.com/battle-of-little-bighorn-were-the-weapons-the-deciding-factor.htm/comment-page-1#comment-61815 Jeff Helmer Mon, 18 May 2009 02:02:21 +0000 #comment-61815 Paul, You need to read the 1985-85 archaeolgical report at Little Bighorn. Jamming of weapons was more prevalent among the Sioux and Cheyenne weapons than it was for U.S. Army Springfields. Crook's 15 cavalry companies expended approximately 80,000 rounds of .45/55 ammunition aat the Rosebud on 17 June 1876 but experienced little to no documented jamming. Custer was beat in a straight-up engagement. Bested by warriors who fought better than his immediate command. No excuses for his defeat are needed. He lost because the Sioux/Cheyenne won. Paul,

You need to read the 1985-85 archaeolgical report at Little Bighorn. Jamming of weapons was more prevalent among the Sioux and Cheyenne weapons than it was for U.S. Army Springfields.

Crook’s 15 cavalry companies expended approximately 80,000 rounds of .45/55 ammunition aat the Rosebud on 17 June 1876 but experienced little to no documented jamming.

Custer was beat in a straight-up engagement. Bested by warriors who fought better than his immediate command. No excuses for his defeat are needed. He lost because the Sioux/Cheyenne won.

]]> By: Paul http://www.historynet.com/battle-of-little-bighorn-were-the-weapons-the-deciding-factor.htm/comment-page-1#comment-47276 Paul Sat, 28 Mar 2009 19:40:09 +0000 #comment-47276 The original Springfield Rifle adopted by the army was not .45 caliber. It was a .50. Also the ammunition issued for the .45 jammed notoriously and was a factor in the battle. you might want to check these facts out to your satisfaction and posting improvement. The original Springfield Rifle adopted by the army was not .45 caliber. It was a .50. Also the ammunition issued for the .45 jammed notoriously and was a factor in the battle. you might want to check these facts out to your satisfaction and posting improvement.

]]> By: Alberto Gonzalez http://www.historynet.com/battle-of-little-bighorn-were-the-weapons-the-deciding-factor.htm/comment-page-1#comment-35947 Alberto Gonzalez Tue, 24 Feb 2009 17:49:34 +0000 #comment-35947 what kind of weapons use the Indians against the 7m Cavalry & General Custer? what kind of weapons use the Indians against the 7m Cavalry & General Custer?

]]>