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?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=battle-of-little-bighorn-were-the-weapons-the-deciding-factor From the World's Largest History Magazine Publisher Wed, 15 Feb 2012 06:00:30 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3 By: Dakota 22 http://www.historynet.com/battle-of-little-bighorn-were-the-weapons-the-deciding-factor.htm#comment-784794 Dakota 22 Sat, 17 Dec 2011 18:50:53 +0000 #comment-784794 Custer and the 7th cavalry were demolished by Dakota fighting tactics. General Crook was also defeated at the Battle of Rosebud days prior to the Little Bighorn. The U.S Cavalry fought in skirmish lines just as they did during the Civil War. Who in their right mind fights like that?...The Dakota were masters at prairie battle tactics and used camoflage. Read the officers accounts of the Battle of the Rosebud. The U.S officers had no idea how fight against the Dakotas. They relied on Crow scouts to reveal tactics and positions. Your image of the Dakota warrior is based on hollywood movies. The U.S never defeated the Dakota in battle. Custer and the 7th cavalry were demolished by Dakota fighting tactics. General Crook was also defeated at the Battle of Rosebud days prior to the Little Bighorn. The U.S Cavalry fought in skirmish lines just as they did during the Civil War. Who in their right mind fights like that?…The Dakota were masters at prairie battle tactics and used camoflage. Read the officers accounts of the Battle of the Rosebud. The U.S officers had no idea how fight against the Dakotas. They relied on Crow scouts to reveal tactics and positions.
Your image of the Dakota warrior is based on hollywood movies. The U.S never defeated the Dakota in battle.

]]> By: craig convery http://www.historynet.com/battle-of-little-bighorn-were-the-weapons-the-deciding-factor.htm#comment-782275 craig convery Fri, 25 Nov 2011 22:23:31 +0000 #comment-782275 I think you mean Gen. Crook I think you mean Gen. Crook

]]> By: be correct http://www.historynet.com/battle-of-little-bighorn-were-the-weapons-the-deciding-factor.htm#comment-572044 be correct Wed, 25 May 2011 02:59:18 +0000 #comment-572044 i never knew india had colonies in north america, and that they manged to aquire repeating rifles i never knew india had colonies in north america, and that they manged to aquire repeating rifles

]]> By: Paul http://www.historynet.com/battle-of-little-bighorn-were-the-weapons-the-deciding-factor.htm#comment-528767 Paul Wed, 20 Apr 2011 03:01:19 +0000 #comment-528767 H. Toburen: OK lets get a few facts straight here. 1. Not sure about the paired markers. Many of the bones were simply dumped into a mass grave with the horses. Others "buried' under sagebrush. 2. The Indian's almost always carried their dead off the field if at all possible.Often they were placed in tree's or caves. The Box Wagon Fight is well documented with a long line of ponies carrying Indian dead up the mountain. Later a Lt. followed them and reported finding hundreds of bodies placed in tree's near a clearing. One Buckskinner recorded killing hundreds of Indians as they attacked and attempted body recoveries. 3 Conflict was inevitable in settling the country. Good subjects. H. Toburen:
OK lets get a few facts straight here.
1. Not sure about the paired markers. Many of the bones were simply dumped into a mass grave with the horses. Others "buried' under sagebrush.
2. The Indian's almost always carried their dead off the field if at all possible.Often they were placed in tree's or caves. The Box Wagon Fight is well documented with a long line of ponies carrying Indian dead up the mountain. Later a Lt. followed them and reported finding hundreds of bodies placed in tree's near a clearing. One Buckskinner recorded killing hundreds of Indians as they attacked and attempted body recoveries.
3 Conflict was inevitable in settling the country.
Good subjects.

]]> By: Paul http://www.historynet.com/battle-of-little-bighorn-were-the-weapons-the-deciding-factor.htm#comment-528755 Paul Wed, 20 Apr 2011 02:42:21 +0000 #comment-528755 Kevinmeath; In regard to the mature view of the indians being not savages but instead simply" people with good points and bad". Of course, you know that is completely misleading. The north American indian was for most definitions a "hunter gather society" but some tribes were extremely vicious and cruel and constantly engaged in tribal warfare. These are not my definitions. There is some indication that soldiers captured at the Little Big Horn were tortured well into the night. Any light study of the subject matter shows the word "Savage" regarding the Lakota, Comanche, Apache and most other indians is completely accurate although discomforting to the modern reader. Would saber's have helped? Well, it is obvious they would have helped. It is a very good question to attempt to ascertain to what extent. You mention the British Bayonet and it's wet work in Africa.Massive casualties from a somewhat crude and simple weapon most would be surprised at. I myself have had occasion to work with a bayonet. It is an extremely deadly and under-rated weapon. Imagine yourself on a training field surrounded by ten thousand troops all armed with bayonet fitted M-14's. The Drill Instructer in the center mounted on a twenty foot platform screams "What is the spirit of the bayonet? Ten thousand throats scream back "To Kill". Don't laugh till you have experienced the incredible chill down your back. Hundreds of thousands of warriors have laughed in the face of death with no more than a strand of three foot of steel, iron or bronze in their hand. Of course all kinds of extrapolations can be drawn from this. This weapon was less effective dismounted. So you could say maybe 50% of Custer's company could have killed one indian each and climb up.As you can see this is not going to change the outcome. Scale upward with all elements being lead on a sabre charge into the village indian losses would likely been horrific and probably most of the force would likely been lost. Endless but fascinating scenarios. Custer would not accept the Gatling Guns and the infantry because he wanted to race to the indian village ahead of Terry and Crook to grasp his imagined great victory. His men were dog tired as well as his horses when they got there. I believe the Indian losses are greatly underestimated. This was the last battle of the Plains Indian. Kevinmeath;
In regard to the mature view of the indians being not savages but instead simply" people with good points and bad".
Of course, you know that is completely misleading. The north American indian was for most definitions a "hunter gather society" but some tribes were extremely vicious and cruel and constantly engaged in tribal warfare. These are not my definitions. There is some indication that soldiers captured at the Little Big Horn were tortured well into the night. Any light study of the subject matter shows the word "Savage" regarding the Lakota, Comanche, Apache and most other indians is completely accurate although discomforting to the modern reader.
Would saber's have helped? Well, it is obvious they would have helped. It is a very good question to attempt to ascertain to what extent. You mention the British Bayonet and it's wet work in Africa.Massive casualties from a somewhat crude and simple weapon most would be surprised at. I myself have had occasion to work with a bayonet. It is an extremely deadly and under-rated weapon.
Imagine yourself on a training field surrounded by ten thousand troops all armed with bayonet fitted M-14's. The Drill Instructer in the center mounted on a twenty foot platform screams "What is the spirit of the bayonet? Ten thousand throats scream back "To Kill". Don't laugh till you have experienced the incredible chill down your back.
Hundreds of thousands of warriors have laughed in the face of death with no more than a strand of three foot of steel, iron or bronze in their hand.
Of course all kinds of extrapolations can be drawn from this. This weapon was less effective dismounted. So you could say maybe 50% of Custer's company could have killed one indian each and climb up.As you can see this is not going to change the outcome. Scale upward with all elements being lead on a sabre charge into the village indian losses would likely been horrific and probably most of the force would likely been lost. Endless but fascinating scenarios.
Custer would not accept the Gatling Guns and the infantry because he wanted to race to the indian village ahead of Terry and Crook to grasp his imagined great victory. His men were dog tired as well as his horses when they got there.
I believe the Indian losses are greatly underestimated. This was the last battle of the Plains Indian.

]]> By: H. Toburen http://www.historynet.com/battle-of-little-bighorn-were-the-weapons-the-deciding-factor.htm#comment-520362 H. Toburen Sat, 09 Apr 2011 22:57:47 +0000 #comment-520362 I think I read that the paired markers were because their were markers placed at head and foot. This fact wasn't known later. The Lakotas did not usually carry dead bodies away, except from the fight to the village. They left the dead in the teepees found in the abandoned village. Undoubtedly, many more died of wounds later and their bodies were not found along the trail. The Indian's position in a long term conflict was untenable because they always had their families nearby. Except for occasional raids. I don't suppose they were any more 'savage' than we were, in most circumstances. They were mostly insular though. But they were a warrior dominated society. And they raided, killed and captured other tribes. But when they stole a female, it was to acquire a wife. It's difficult to generalize about other societies. But down through history, when two different societies met, they fought. And the stronger won. Being nomadic is a real disadvantage, because when you're gone some settler would move in and fence the best sites. They then would not be comfortable with the returning nomads. And the nomads would not be happy with their usual foraging grounds being unavailable. It would have been fatal to that nomadic lifestyle. How could there not have been conflict? I think I read that the paired markers were because their were markers placed at head and foot. This fact wasn't known later.

The Lakotas did not usually carry dead bodies away, except from the fight to the village. They left the dead in the teepees found in the abandoned village. Undoubtedly, many more died of wounds later and their bodies were not found along the trail.

The Indian's position in a long term conflict was untenable because they always had their families nearby. Except for occasional raids.

I don't suppose they were any more 'savage' than we were, in most circumstances. They were mostly insular though. But they were a warrior dominated society. And they raided, killed and captured other tribes. But when they stole a female, it was to acquire a wife. It's difficult to generalize about other societies. But down through history, when two different societies met, they fought. And the stronger won.

Being nomadic is a real disadvantage, because when you're gone some settler would move in and fence the best sites. They then would not be comfortable with the returning nomads. And the nomads would not be happy with their usual foraging grounds being unavailable. It would have been fatal to that nomadic lifestyle.

How could there not have been conflict?

]]> By: Kevinmeath http://www.historynet.com/battle-of-little-bighorn-were-the-weapons-the-deciding-factor.htm#comment-520077 Kevinmeath Sat, 09 Apr 2011 15:26:39 +0000 #comment-520077 Thanks for the interesting article, better reading this than doing work (don't tell the boss). Couple of points struck me;- As for the 'indians' being 'savages' I think we have to be mature and move away from the 'traditional' view of demonizing them but equally reject the 'PC' 'hippie' view of the some eco friendly vegetarian, spiritual, warrior(non violent warrior of course). Best comment I have read is that they were simply people with good points and faults etc. It is only in recent times that the notion of taking prisoners (other than as slaves) has become the norm before that well it varied. If you look back to when my peope (Welsh/British) were at the same level of development --what 2-3000 years ago?--- then a captive would be a slave (if she was lucky), given to a druid to sacrifice (Romans were terrffied of being caught) or I'd cut his head off and use his skull as a drinking cup of put it on a stake as a sign of my prowess. Paul would sabres have really helped? have read several accounts and they comment that the troopers had having no close range weapons. The 24th at Rorkes Drift and Isandlwana inflicted very heavy casualties at close range because of their bayonets but they were trained and able (where they were scattered they were quickly overcome) to stand in rally squares or shoulder to shoulder. This would not have been and opotion for the 7th. also ,as you point out, the average US trooper was not trained well in his primary weapon, would they have had any idea how to use a sabre, it is not just a big knife. The officers would perhaps been competent. Would the infantry have been able to keep up? were they mounted? Would they have simply arrived to rescue Benteen earlier? Wasn't he offered extra troops of horse from the 2nd (?), these may have helped but given the totality of his defeat would it have simply added extra casualties? About the casualties from what I have read (agreed you've read more) the low numbers of Indian casualties are based on estimates so are not accurate but there does seem to be agreement in most sources that 'Indian' (sorry not sure of what is the latest PC word required to descibe these good people) casualties were very low especially considering the size of the victory. At Isandlwana the Zulu King described the 'butcher bill' for the victory as a spear thrust into his own belly. However if we accept that only 50 warriors were killed outright for each one of them there must have been 4-5 wounded. The PC brigade will then say that would shouldn't underestimate traditional medicine and that people then were much tougher than today (true that had to be or they would be dead) but sorry wounds inflicted by such guns would require modern ER so many if not most of these wounded would have died. Hope you notice this, sorry coming late to the post. Thanks for the interesting article, better reading this than doing work (don't tell the boss). Couple of points struck me;-

As for the 'indians' being 'savages' I think we have to be mature and move away from the 'traditional' view of demonizing them but equally reject the 'PC' 'hippie' view of the some eco friendly vegetarian, spiritual, warrior(non violent warrior of course). Best comment I have read is that they were simply people with good points and faults etc.

It is only in recent times that the notion of taking prisoners (other than as slaves) has become the norm before that well it varied. If you look back to when my peope (Welsh/British) were at the same level of development –what 2-3000 years ago?— then a captive would be a slave (if she was lucky), given to a druid to sacrifice (Romans were terrffied of being caught) or I'd cut his head off and use his skull as a drinking cup of put it on a stake as a sign of my prowess.

Paul would sabres have really helped? have read several accounts and they comment that the troopers had having no close range weapons. The 24th at Rorkes Drift and Isandlwana inflicted very heavy casualties at close range because of their bayonets but they were trained and able (where they were scattered they were quickly overcome) to stand in rally squares or shoulder to shoulder. This would not have been and opotion for the 7th. also ,as you point out, the average US trooper was not trained well in his primary weapon, would they have had any idea how to use a sabre, it is not just a big knife. The officers would perhaps been competent.

Would the infantry have been able to keep up? were they mounted?
Would they have simply arrived to rescue Benteen earlier?
Wasn't he offered extra troops of horse from the 2nd (?), these may have helped but given the totality of his defeat would it have simply added extra casualties?

About the casualties from what I have read (agreed you've read more) the low numbers of Indian casualties are based on estimates so are not accurate but there does seem to be agreement in most sources that 'Indian' (sorry not sure of what is the latest PC word required to descibe these good people) casualties were very low especially considering the size of the victory. At Isandlwana the Zulu King described the 'butcher bill' for the victory as a spear thrust into his own belly. However if we accept that only 50 warriors were killed outright for each one of them there must have been 4-5 wounded. The PC brigade will then say that would shouldn't underestimate traditional medicine and that people then were much tougher than today (true that had to be or they would be dead) but sorry wounds inflicted by such guns would require modern ER so many if not most of these wounded would have died.
Hope you notice this, sorry coming late to the post.

]]> By: Paul http://www.historynet.com/battle-of-little-bighorn-were-the-weapons-the-deciding-factor.htm#comment-470021 Paul Mon, 21 Feb 2011 15:10:01 +0000 #comment-470021 This type of question is most difficult to answer objectively. The early plains indian's believed that "strong Medicine" could protect them from bullets. This led to some unbelievable displays of bravery or foolhardiness as one would percieve it. Crazy Horse could well have rode back and forth in front of the troops and not stopped a bullet. And also the tale maybe exaggerated as many tales are over the many retelling. This is for the reader to evaluate. This type of question is most difficult to answer objectively. The early plains indian's believed that "strong Medicine" could protect them from bullets. This led to some unbelievable displays of bravery or foolhardiness as one would percieve it. Crazy Horse could well have rode back and forth in front of the troops and not stopped a bullet. And also the tale maybe exaggerated as many tales are over the many retelling. This is for the reader to evaluate.

]]> By: willard http://www.historynet.com/battle-of-little-bighorn-were-the-weapons-the-deciding-factor.htm#comment-459024 willard Fri, 11 Feb 2011 05:44:59 +0000 #comment-459024 Andy: Point of disagreement, the Fetterman clash, I presume that you mean the encounter at Rose Bud, was not so much a smaller affair as you state. In fact when reading descriptions of it one realizes that it was a long, virtually daylong, running battle betweed Fetterman and a force led by Crazy Horse. Initial fighting began as early as 0300 hrs and continued well into the day. In fact, were it not for the assistance of turncoat indians, traditional enemies of the Lakota and Cheyenne, the Rose Bud could have been far worse that LBH. In the event the failure of Fetterman to fulfill his portion of the three pronged pincer on the Lakota/Cheyenne alliance contributed to Custer's defeat at the LBH. Andy:
Point of disagreement, the Fetterman clash, I presume that you mean the encounter at Rose Bud, was not so much a smaller affair as you state. In fact when reading descriptions of it one realizes that it was a long, virtually daylong, running battle betweed Fetterman and a force led by Crazy Horse. Initial fighting began as early as 0300 hrs and continued well into the day. In fact, were it not for the assistance of turncoat indians, traditional enemies of the Lakota and Cheyenne, the Rose Bud could have been far worse that LBH. In the event the failure of Fetterman to fulfill his portion of the three pronged pincer on the Lakota/Cheyenne alliance contributed to Custer's defeat at the LBH.

]]> By: Howard Toburen http://www.historynet.com/battle-of-little-bighorn-were-the-weapons-the-deciding-factor.htm#comment-445377 Howard Toburen Fri, 28 Jan 2011 23:55:24 +0000 #comment-445377 I understand that Custer's woulds would have been instantly fatal, according to the field autopsy. S he was not 'assisted back in the saddle' as the Indian said. Certainly his being wounded as they tried to cross might have discouraged them from going on. More likely though, they just realised they would not be able to cross in the face of increasing fire. I also understand that there were three other officers were wearing buckskin, so it might have been one of them who was shot. The adjutant, Major Cook, likely would have been near Custer on the probe. I understand that Custer's woulds would have been instantly fatal, according to the field autopsy. S he was not 'assisted back in the saddle' as the Indian said.

Certainly his being wounded as they tried to cross might have discouraged them from going on. More likely though, they just realised they would not be able to cross in the face of increasing fire.

I also understand that there were three other officers were wearing buckskin, so it might have been one of them who was shot. The adjutant, Major Cook, likely would have been near Custer on the probe.

]]>