|
Post by royalwelsh on Feb 3, 2017 23:01:44 GMT
Since the Warriors had a complete day to wipe out Reno/Benteen on the hill and could not (?) (did not)... was it because of it being a decent position/ lack of interest in doing so/ trooper firepower/ or what in your opinions? This makes me wonder sometimes of the possibilities if Custer had kept the entire 7th together. Wipe out Reno/Benteen? As Cicero would inquire - cui bono...?
|
|
|
Post by mlynn on Jun 11, 2017 17:03:13 GMT
Perhaps or maybe the NA were experts at weighing the cost vrs reward. They had already neutralized one group of soldiers (Crook) and wiped out another (Custer) with very little cost to them and the reward was protected the village--their families and all of their combined wealth and a bit of booty--and there was a bit of 'in your face' bravado involved as well, especially with Crook. . A charge into the defenses at Reno Hill would have taken a large number of warrior lives-a very high cost since a warrior's life was the one resource they were the lowest on and couldn't replace easily for years. Their village, family and personal wealth were not at risk as long as the soldiers were kept in place. Taking pot shots to take them out one at a time or starve them out, had very little cost. If Reno attempted a breakout from the hill, it still was less of a cost for the NA than it would have been for Reno. Once they realize that Terry is approaching the area, it changed the costs again to the point it was the better to leave then fight another battle. I agree with your last statement. Being aware of more soldiers to come probably would of made the safety of the village a priority. They also could not of destroyed all of the enemy and left the village where it was because they had experienced enough to know more would follow. I also assume that some of the Indians that were continuing to attack were individuals filled with hatred and revenge possibly for family members or friends killed.
|
|
|
Post by Beth on Jun 11, 2017 18:24:09 GMT
I'm not sure about the hatred and revenge for family members killed. I am not sure if that was ever large a driving force at LBH but I am sure that it was a factor for different individuals. I know there is the story of one woman who rode into battle because I believe her brother was killed very early. I keep thinking the boy was called Deeds but I can't remember his sisters name without looking it up. There is no real way of knowing exactly how many NA were killed at LBH but the numbers are estimated to be small I suspect the extended siege of Reno Hill became more of a containment operation so there was no danger as the village was dismantled and everyone moved on. I suspect that perhaps towards the end it was a bit of entertainment-like when someone has a trapped animal and you keep poking it with a stick to get a reaction. It was also a chance for warriors to count coups which was extremely important to a young man.
|
|
dave
Brigadier General
Posts: 1,679
|
Post by dave on Jun 12, 2017 1:32:45 GMT
Beth Deeds was the teenager who was shot after he found the case of hardtack that fell off a pack mule prior to the battle. Moving Robe Woman fought against the soldiers after her brother One Hawk was killed. Regards Dave
|
|
|
Post by Beth on Jun 12, 2017 2:25:26 GMT
Thanks I sometimes have trouble recalling names but remember sort of the essence.
|
|
|
Post by mlynn on Jun 12, 2017 5:07:17 GMT
I'm not sure about the hatred and revenge for family members killed. I am not sure if that was ever large a driving force at LBH but I am sure that it was a factor for different individuals. I know there is the story of one woman who rode into battle because I believe her brother was killed very early. I keep thinking the boy was called Deeds but I can't remember his sisters name without looking it up. There is no real way of knowing exactly how many NA were killed at LBH but the numbers are estimated to be small I suspect the extended siege of Reno Hill became more of a containment operation so there was no danger as the village was dismantled and everyone moved on. I suspect that perhaps towards the end it was a bit of entertainment-like when someone has a trapped animal and you keep poking it with a stick to get a reaction. It was also a chance for warriors to count coups which was extremely important to a young man. I was referring to hatred and revenge for family members killed in previous battles. I also meant that as an addition to the main goal of protecting the village while it moved to safety.
|
|
|
Post by mlynn on Jun 12, 2017 6:17:46 GMT
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Jun 12, 2017 14:47:41 GMT
Wasn't Deeds the kid that was killed, shortly after Reno crossed at Ford A?
|
|
|
Post by yanmacca on Jun 12, 2017 15:28:40 GMT
Fred has this on him [thanks Fred], but of course this is the battle of the little bighorn, so there are imponderables. You can see by these documents that there is a Deed and a Deeds. I have posted them in two files as the story runs over two sections, so it simply carries on in page two .
|
|
dave
Brigadier General
Posts: 1,679
|
Post by dave on Jun 12, 2017 15:49:10 GMT
Mary
Good research work finding the Smithsonian article. I subscribe to the magazine and read it before yet I have the same concerns with Indian testimony. Were there competent interpreters present during the interviews? Did they ask white centric questions as to how many companies, number of soldiers, or using non Indian terms and words?
So many of the recorded interviews of warriors and the battle sounded like white participants and engenders the question, did the recorders make the story fit their own views? These are legitimate questions and concerns about the validity of the Indian testimonies.
I believe the picture art made by Red Horse, Kicking Bear and Amos Bad Heart Buffalo to mention only the ones I can remember provides a much more accurate image of the Indian view of the battle. I highly recommend you look into this matter soon as it is very rich in historical detail.
Regards
Dave
|
|
|
Post by mlynn on Jun 12, 2017 16:42:49 GMT
Mary Good research work finding the Smithsonian article. I subscribe to the magazine and read it before yet I have the same concerns with Indian testimony. Were there competent interpreters present during the interviews? Did they ask white centric questions as to how many companies, number of soldiers, or using non Indian terms and words? So many of the recorded interviews of warriors and the battle sounded like white participants and engenders the question, did the recorders make the story fit their own views? These are legitimate questions and concerns about the validity of the Indian testimonies. I believe the picture art made by Red Horse, Kicking Bear and Amos Bad Heart Buffalo to mention only the ones I can remember provides a much more accurate image of the Indian view of the battle. I highly recommend you look into this matter soon as it is very rich in historical detail. Regards Dave Dave, I always look at written history with questions like your mentioned. I look at the soldier's side with the same kind of questions. Perception is always a factor along with motive. In my opinion, history cannot be seriously discussed without looking at all sides. I will look into the art. It often can tell stories that words cannot express.
|
|
dave
Brigadier General
Posts: 1,679
|
Post by dave on Jun 12, 2017 17:11:56 GMT
A former poster and ogre in residence, Dark Cloud aka DC, always stated that any testimony post* The Reno Court of Inquiry from January to February of 1879 was to be viewed in a skeptical fashion. People tend to inflate their contribution or participation after a period of time lapses so this testimony is not as accurate as that immediately after the event. I find myself in agreement with mindset with the notable exception of Fredrick Benteen's letters to Theo Goldin from 1891 to 1896 which are valuable history documents. Nothing of Goldin is of any value sorry to say but I admire him in that he served and was at the LBH. His medal of honor is very suspect and questionable. Regards Dave * Brother David, did I get the ante post part right?
|
|
|
Post by Beth on Jun 12, 2017 18:26:36 GMT
I believe that the 1879 date is a good cut off as well-after that you start to see the stories creep towards oneness. Martini's story starts to change about where he and Custer parted. I don't know when Curley started changing is story but I suspect some of that had to do with Walter Camp's influence.
Walter Camp interviews are often cited but one has to be careful reading them because Camp had an agenda and asked his questions to get responses to support his agenda.
I have a MD appointment so if no one else discusses Camp and things like putting names on locations I will continue when I get back.
|
|
dave
Brigadier General
Posts: 1,679
|
Post by dave on Jun 12, 2017 20:25:27 GMT
Gee imagine that Camp or any writer/reporter with an agenda? It continues today with idiots and morons from the fringes of both sides issuing their spew of hate and biases. It is for this reason that it is so difficult to find historians or writers who are as neutral as possible. Gordon Tucker, Bell I. Wiley, James I. Robertson, Jr. and David McCullough are some my favorites.
Have a good report from the Dr please. Regards Dave
|
|
|
Post by mlynn on Jun 12, 2017 20:29:56 GMT
Gee imagine that Camp or any writer/reporter with an agenda? It continues today with idiots and morons from the fringes of both sides issuing their spew of hate and biases. It is for this reason that it is so difficult to find historians or writers who are as neutral as possible. Gordon Tucker, Bell I. Wiley, James I. Robertson, Jr. and David McCullough are some my favorites. Have a good report from the Dr please. Regards Dave Ken Burns?
|
|