Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire General Custer's remains.

With respect to a reluctance to engage in hand to hand combat, I suspect this was one of Remington's all-time favorite paintings




We tend to talk in terms of "Indians ALWAYS did this or Indians ALWAYS did that", forgetting that everyone involved were individuals and that for Indians fighting soldiers and cavalry sent by a steadily encroaching industrial superpower was a much different affair than endless skirmishes and revenge warfare against neighboring tribes for reputation, captives and glory.

Here is a pretty good synopsis of that famous 1857 US Cavalry saber charge against the Cheyenne... http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1555&context=greatplainsquarterly

Note there may be two definitions of "victory" and "defeat" involved. The Cheyennes in this instance were such newbies when it came to fighting concentrations of US troops that they reportedly believed magic would protect them from bullets. When Colonel Sumner instead elected for a charge with sabers they did break and run so Sumner "won". However the casualties suffered by the Indians were light, possibly lighter than the cavalry, for the most part the Indians easily outrunning the heavily-burdened cavalry horses In that respect it was hardly a loss the as the Indians would likely define it. Certainly, in the sort of hunter-gathering economy within which the Cheyennes operated, every man lost would have had a significant effect on the welfare of the tribe as a whole, but few were.

'Course, 18 years later, some of the kids of those same Cheyenne were likely present at the Battle of the Rosebud against Crook. I suspect if Crook had tried a saber charge against THAT bunch his men would have been shot to pieces, bullets and arrows both. The gist of RIP Ford's memoirs concerning fighting Comanches in Texas indicates the same thing. The most potent weapon on the Plains was probably the rifle, including the muzzleloading rifle, flint or percussion. What you did is get within rifle range, get off of your horse and shoot the other guy off of his. Ford fought and won most of his many Indians fights that way.

In any case at the Little Big Horn, retreat was not an option for the Indians, even if they had been innately scared of saber charges. Custer was attacking a camp full of their women and children.

Has anyone checked Shrapnel's colon?

I dunno why anyone would, how did he get to be the issue? I'm just BSing about history is all.....


but IIRC at the Little Big Horn many if not most of the Indians at different points in the fight were crawling on their bellies, raining bullets and arrows upon the besieged dismounted cavalrymen from cover.

I'm pretty sure Pop History has it that Plains Indians never fought that way.

That is a Russell painting, unless you were referring to Remington's appreciation of Russell's work...

um.... yes, of course I was.....


...but who could forget "When Sioux and Blackfoot Meet."

Looser probably didn't remember much.

I am in the second of the books i ordered after the original exchange on Custer. The book is "the custer myth" by W.A. Graham.
one thing that jumps out a me is the participation of the crow and the arikara indians as allies of the white folds. i realize there was reasons for animosity between these tribes and the sioux, but interesting two other tribes would ally with the calvary against the sioux.
interesting also from the indian accounts, not all the indians swarmed out to meet custer.
custer split his command multiple times against a numerically superior enemy, used long range weapons in an environment where those magazine fed guns had an atvantage, did not have backup, and was relying on past experience that the indians would run when they didnt.
fascinating reading this stuff.
One thing i have already learned, it didn't happen the way popular culture says it happened.
from reading the remarks of some of the indians, his men didn't break and run, and fought in a uniform manner, and were thought to be brave men.

Ya well, he might if you sent him off into the next world missing his hair and assorted body parts.

Do you like that book?

i am about half way through it, mostly statements from various indians of what they saw and heard. Hard to know the accuracy given translation differences, what they wanted their audience to hear, etc. It was interesting to see the respect they gave custer and his troopers, that they fought well. It brings up points i am going to try to understand the more that i think of it.
one point was that if reno would have pressed his attack, with custer being in the position he should have been where the attacks would have been coordinated at the same time, things might have gone differently.
i guess it is the fog of war. I think one of those pouches carried 20 rounds of ammo, a belt probably about 30. I keep going back to thinking i would not have wanted my reserve ammo in a saddlebag distanced from me.
It's easy to hindsight something. there is little things but important things brought out, such as the condition of the calvary horses, basically spent, and so on. I keep thinking custer ran into the perfect storm. I also did not know sitting bull was not an active participant, and there was a hint the other chiefs didn't like him. the more i read the more i realize how little i really know.

I have two 1870 rolling blocks, both marked U.S. that came off the san carlos apache reservation. I don't know their history ,and if they were given to the apache, or captured by the apache.
For that matter i didn't know if the military ever used rolling blocks, but they are marked U.S.
makes one wonder.
there are references in the book of indians using the weapons of fallen troopers. Which led me to thinking about those rolling blocks. I believe custer carried a rolling block.

one of my wife's daughters moved up to about 20miles or so distance of the rez on the dakota boarder with nebraska. i keep thinking i am going to eventually have to use that as a base to explore where the battle took place, and the battle on the rosebud.
i have been over crooks base near prescott in arizona, and didn't realize until starting to read this stuff he was up there too.

i keep thinking he was hoping for a repeat of the washita river, and the indians didn't play that game.

Uuuuhh...

Interesting links. Thanks for posting.
7mm

The Washita? That brings up the issue of Major Elliot, which raises the question of what would have been the consequences for Custer leaving men behind today?

http://www.historynet.com/wounds-from-the-washita-the-major-elliott-affair.htm

IIRC Captain Benteen despised Custer even before this incident.

Benteen's opinion of the man certainly bears looking into when studying the life of George Armstrong Custer.


....and the fact that Custer would even leave without ascertaining where Elliot was speaks volumes about his own perceived opinion of the Indians as adversaries.

When the 7th Cavalry rode to the Little Bighorn—and death and glory—in June 1876, it was a military column fractured by internal dissent. Other such units on the frontier had their share of personality conflicts and cliques, but few to such a degree. The mistrust, resentment and fear of betrayal many 7th Cavalry officers harbored toward Custer were in no small part a result of the Elliott affair. Whether it adversely affected the regiment’s martial performance after the Washita is a point for de-bate. But certainly the regiment would have performed its frontier duties with more confidence and less second-guessing had it not been for all the suspicion and mistrust. Custer’s tragedy at the Little Bighorn dwarfed Elliott’s tragedy at the Washita, but it is impossible to forget or dismiss the obvious links between the two.

Benteen historically hated Custer, some has to be attributed to Custer’s advancing to General at such a young age and having rank over Benteen who was older.

As far as Major Elliott and being left on the field of battle, has everything to do with Elliott taking an unauthorized leave of Custer’s command and riding on to his own death. At the point Custer left Black Kettle’s village, it was late in the day, Indians were coming from another camp on the Washita. Custer feigned another attack at the oncoming Indians to set them back and then pulled a full retreat with the rest of his command.

From the beginning, Custer had orders to attack, destroy all essential elements of the encampment and to kill all the ponies. His troopers rejected the idea of killing the ponies, but were forced to complete the act.

This was a winter campaign and days were short and cold. Saving his remaining troops was of greater importance than looking for Major Elliott at their expense.

Most of what you hear of this is from Benteen who had written a letter to a newspaper, condemning Custer’s actions. After the battle, Phil Sheridan went back to the site and found the remains of Elliott and his command, also finding nothing wrong with Custer’s actions.

Don't know if it's still in print, but years ago I read a book called "The court martial of George Armstrong Custer."
If he had survived he might not have been treated kindly.

Lots of books have been written, the truth is, because he didn’t survive he was treated badly...

Elliot left ( abandoned?) his own command of a column to pursue the fleeing Indians.

According to Sergeant Ryan..when Custer received word that Elliott was missing, he sent Captain Myers and a party
for Elliott. Myers' efforts were in vain and reported such to Custer.

With a substantial number (couple thousand ?) warriors mustering from camps some miles further down stream
(reported by.1st Lt. Edward S. Godfrey) and moving in a direction toward Custer...Custer moved his men in that direction
and bluffed the warriors into dispersing back to their villages to protect their families...which gave Custer the time
to haul ass out of there to prevent a possible disaster.

Some say Elliot uttered the words ' a brevet or a coffin' to an officer in his column before going on his fateful persuit.

Custers reported tendency to detail his own battlefield achievements but to be rather vague or in some cases even ignore
citing important actions and efforts by other officers in the 7th didn't help his relationships or reputation.