|
|
Post by dgfred on Jan 20, 2017 17:34:29 GMT
|
|
mac
Brigadier General
Posts: 1,790
|
Post by mac on Jan 29, 2017 6:52:15 GMT
Let's not forget Constipated Buffalo!
No he is not real...I just miss Royal Welsh!
|
|
|
|
Post by yanmacca on Jan 29, 2017 15:04:31 GMT
When it comes to Indian casualties, you always find that they mean the ones who died fighting Custer and his 209 men, but never any for the actions in the valley against Reno, or from kicking Benteen's men off Weir peaks (don't forget Godfrey's men fought a rear guard) and the siege of Reno hill.
Plus many of the wounded would have succumbed in the days after the battle.
Many of the battles I have researched always had more wounded then dead, so if this is the case then we should be looking at two maybe three times as many wounded Indians then those killed during the fighting, so if we say that 36 were killed (which is one of the figures banded about) then we could be looking at over a hundred wounded, which a good proportion of these would die of their wounds.
But if you think that this is a gruesome thread, well take a look at the black board as they have a thread saying that the Indians stuck a stick up Custer's todger.
|
|
|
|
Post by Beth on Jan 31, 2017 2:52:18 GMT
To which I always wonder "Why would it matter?"
|
|
mac
Brigadier General
Posts: 1,790
|
Post by mac on Jan 31, 2017 3:08:02 GMT
I saw an article once upon a time that said that survival rate from wounds was higher if the wound was to bare skin (think warrior). Apparently being wounded through fabric (say a uniform) leads to fibres being introduced to the wound and increasing the chances of infection. So perhaps survival rates for wounded were better for warriors than for uniformed soldiers.
Cheers
|
|
|
|
Post by yanmacca on Jan 31, 2017 12:50:14 GMT
I guess you saw the film Master and Commander then Mac.
But of course you are correct as you would get a clean wound in the bullet passed right through you and missed any vitals and bones.
|
|
