————————

“One additional myth often posed about this battle-The Indians used bows and arrows, with Custer’s men better armed with rifles. The fact that many of the indians were armed with better weapons (some with repeating arms) and outnumbered their blue coated foes were the primary factors in the battle’s outcome. The poor performance of the black powder cartridges that the cavalrymen used, and the unfortunate tendancy of their single shot spencers to jam when hot (brass couldn’t be extracted after firing) contributed to the problems faced by the troopers. BTW, If Custer’s tactics were as good as the author portrays here…why did he lose?”

By CDB on Mar 10, 2009 at 2:13 pm

The standard issue rifle for Custer’s troopers were .45-55 (.45-70) single-shot Springfield carbines. They were indeed loaded with 55 grains of black powder. Black powder is very fouling and it is conceivable that after firing many rounds they may have had functioning problems. As another poster above noted, some few may have had Sharps single-shots and it is reported that Custer himself may have had his Remington rolling block which I believe was in .50-70 caliber, which was the standard military cartridge before the adaptation of the .45-70. The Indians had everything from bows and arrows to Sharps single-shots to muzzle-loading muskets to repeating Winchesters, Henrys, and Spencers. All BTW loaded with black powder cartridges. Generally, I think the Indians had more firepower. And of course they had wayyy more in numbers of combatants. Even the best laid plans and strategy is not enough if you are so significantly outnumbered and outgunned. CDB actually answers his own question within his post.

For what I consider the best theory as to how the Custer part of the battle unfolded, his movements, his strategy, and finally, a movement that he made based on his interpretation of the troops he saw on Weir Point, which most probably caused the unraveling of his command, read the book: Sole Survivor, by Douglas W. Ellison. In his book it is Mr Ellison’s contention that it was actually 1st Lt. Algernon Smith (Co. E) who was shot at Medicine Tail Coulee. And yes Mich Bouyer sent Curley away before the Custer fighting began, although he was able to later report Custer’s movements prior to his leaving.

That said, let’s give the Native Americans credit. They were fighting to protect the lives of their old people, women and children. They fought hard and well in terrain perfectly suited to their style of fightinng. But Custer did surpirse the camp not once but twice. A larger attacking force with reinforcements arriving 30 minutes sooner might have just tipped the balance in Custer’s favor and allowed him to capture a large group of fleeing non-combatants, thus ending the battle with a lot fewer troppers being killed and a lot fewer Native Americans getting killed and harassed until the following spring.

While many of you may not like his rather brusque approach, no two people (including all Sioux and Cheyenne participants) saw the total action, and could not be on all parts of the field at one time. Mr. Michno offers the most plausible analysis circumstances of the pertinent event.

Actions were occurring simulatenously on Calhoun Ridge, Calhoun Hill, and the Keogh sector (among many), and with black powder smoke, screaming, and loose animals running amok, I defy anyone (this includes Custer and Crazy Horse) to give me exact information on what specifically was happening with any of the subordinate commands or bodies of warriors.

Mr. Michno illustrates, if you read it, that a commander makes decisions based upon the information known to him at the time, or in a very fluid action like the Little Bighorn, what some of his scouts thought the village was doing, where it was going, etc. In retrospect, some of it looks foolish, but at the time the decision was rendered, it was made on sound reasoning.

Custer was playing a dangerous hand on 25 June 1876, and there was little latitude for failure. I assume that at least one of has made a decision in your own life (based upon the best information and research available), that later bit you in the ass. Or are you all smothered in millions from your winnings on the stock market?

What I also find interesting is that there appears to be 2 main schools of thought: Those who love Custer and those who despise him. Even after all this time, anything written about Custer or the Little Big Horn is sure to get some response.

While not a bad thing by itself, it also can be as detrimental to those who are merely seeking the truth as totally discounting the Indian accounts on one hand, and totally discounting the whites accounts on the other. My guess is the truth lies somewhere in the middle.

In historical articles, one has to watch what he says and presents BOTH sides of the agrument. One also has to take in account that Native Americans never wrote their history down; they would tell their children or their children’s children. AND there are over thousands of Native Americans languages alone, so translation could’ve been lost and other things.

This article is good, but there should be both sides of the argument and it’s very opinionated which is a bad thing in an artcile.

Please excuse my spelling mistakes ^_^