New Article on Custer's Last Stand

[WayneK]

Thanks for the clarification!

I assume that Reno would have been approximately where Custer expected him to be.

Yes, before descending the bluffs, Custer had seen that Reno had stopped his charge and was deploying into a skirmish line at the south end of the village.

I'm giving a simplified version of events. Custer and his command were seen at various points on the bluffs by Reno's men. It's not always clear what point on the bluffs the witnesses were referring to, nor is it possible to smoothly reconcile the varying accounts.

 

[dropzone]

There wasn't a lot of liquor there but some of the officers had flasks, I believe. Some Indians claimed the soldiers fought like they were drunk. This is generally seen as an attempt to shift blame and avoid retribution.

I prefer Richard Fox's explanation that the Indians were trying to describe the troopers' disorientation and loss of unit cohesion but lacked the vocabulary or the psychological concepts. But generally, the troopers were shockingly sober, by the standards of their forefathers. No whisky ration before battle for them!

 

[WayneK]

I prefer Richard Fox's explanation that the Indians were trying to describe the troopers' disorientation and loss of unit cohesion but lacked the vocabulary or the psychological concepts. But generally, the troopers were shockingly sober, by the standards of their forefathers. No whisky ration before battle for them!

You're just saying that because of his pipe.

I'm not sure if I should mention this but maybe it's relevant to my credibility since no one here knows me from Adam. He references me in his book "Archaeology, History, and Custer's Last Battle".

Obviously, that makes me no one special whatsoever but maybe it shows that I've put in a respectable amount of time studying the battle. That doesn't make me right and others wrong, but maybe it indicates that I'm not just completely making stuff up. I believe I've run into that a couple of times on the internet.

 

[dropzone]

Well, the pipe is mighty sweet, but I'm into girls. Anyway, my Anthro specialization was Archaeology, so I like how he thinks. For those who'd rather watch TV (it's a dry read) there's https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PDYsJ6OACmY that pretty much covers it.

Before they married my folks worked at Glacier National Park, back in the 1940s when there were still glaciers. One of the attractions was one of Sitting Bull's wives.

 

[Rincewind]

Well, the pipe is mighty sweet, but I'm into girls. Anyway, my Anthro specialization was Archaeology, so I like how he thinks. For those who'd rather watch TV (it's a dry read) there's https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PDYsJ6OACmY that pretty much covers it.

Before they married my folks worked at Glacier National Park, back in the 1940s when there were still glaciers. One of the attractions was one of Sitting Bull's wives.

He married a glacier?

 

[bluesjnr]

Well, the pipe is mighty sweet, but I'm into girls. Anyway, my Anthro specialization was Archaeology, so I like how he thinks. For those who'd rather watch TV (it's a dry read) there's https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PDYsJ6OACmY that pretty much covers it.

Before they married my folks worked at Glacier National Park, back in the 1940s when there were still glaciers. One of the attractions was one of Sitting Bull's wives.

An interesting watch but the programme omits much about Reno's battle and Benteens lack of urgency. It seems to wish to portray the 7th Cavalry as thoroughly routed and fleeing the battle field in disarray. Last stand? They say. Didn't happen and the gathering of men around Custer was simply battlefield panic causing men to bunch together.

Their conclusion? The proliferation of short range arms (Henry rifle) amongst the Indians, which allowed them to take advantage of their fighting tactics whilst being able to fire at a rate 30% higher than the 7th who, to a man, were issued with the single shot Springfield Carbine gave them a significant advantage. The inflexibility of military tactics and rate of fire meant the Indians were able to get amongst the 7th causing panic. Manouverability, by way of remaining mounted, whereby the cavalry trooper dismounted to fight.Lastly, the fact that they outnumbered Custer's troops.

In summary, outnumbered, outgunned and outfought.

 

[WayneK]

Their conclusion? The proliferation of short range arms (Henry rifle) amongst the Indians, which allowed them to take advantage of their fighting tactics whilst being able to fire at a rate 30% higher than the 7th who, to a man, were issued with the single shot Springfield Carbine gave them a significant advantage. The inflexibility of military tactics and rate of fire meant the Indians were able to get amongst the 7th causing panic. Manouverability, by way of remaining mounted, whereby the cavalry trooper dismounted to fight.Lastly, the fact that they outnumbered Custer's troops.

In summary, outnumbered, outgunned and outfought.

All of the "causes" apply equally to Reno and Benteen, yet they held off the same Indians for a day and a half with no problem. Think maybe that has a bearing on understanding what happened to Custer?

I know it's the nature of television, but programs like this are misleading because they freely mix established facts with conjecture, with no attempt to distinguish the two. What they're presenting is the Doug Scott version of the battle. There's nothing wrong with Doug Scott. He's knowledgeable and credible. Still, some of the things he postulates for the Custer Fight are disputable, to say the least.

It's fashionable to claim that Custer split his battalion into two wings with one going to the ford while the other passed over Nye-Cartwright Ridge to Calhoun Hill. Maybe that's what happened but it's difficult to find solid evidence for it.

The Indian accounts do not support the idea that Custer divided his command into two wings. Some say the soldiers came down to the ford; others say the soldiers stayed on the ridges and never approached the river. I don't believe there are any Indian accounts that say some of the soldiers approached the river while others stayed on the bluffs. That doesn't mean it couldn't have happened but it's disconcerting that it doesn't show up in the eyewitness accounts

 

[WayneK]

Manouverability, by way of remaining mounted, whereby the cavalry trooper dismounted to fight.

The Indians fought on foot against Custer, except for a few cases of warriors making daring passes in front of the soldiers to show their bravery. I haven't watched the program for a while but I'll guess he was referring to Indians using their horses to rapidly shift firing positions.

It decidedly is not an advantage to fight on horseback against dismounted soldiers. Infantry will beat cavalry all day long for the simple fact that they're on the ground, can take advantage of cover, and can take steady aim. When you're on horseback you're a huge target and cannot fire accurately.

 

[WayneK]

Last stand? They say. Didn't happen and the gathering of men around Custer was simply battlefield panic causing men to bunch together.

I guess it depends on what you mean by "Last Stand". Some 40-50 men were gathered around Custer and other officers at the north end of Battle Ridge. The Indian accounts are virtually unanimous in saying this was the last group to die. That sounds like a "Last Stand" to me.

 

[bluesjnr]

I guess it depends on what you mean by "Last Stand". Some 40-50 men were gathered around Custer and other officers at the north end of Battle Ridge. The Indian accounts are virtually unanimous in saying this was the last group to die. That sounds like a "Last Stand" to me.

According to the programme and apparently eye witness accounts they most decidedly were not the last group to die. Twenty eight men ran into an area called Deep Ravine and were slaughtered as they attempted to escape, firing wildly. Unfortunately for that theory, no bodies have been recovers in that area.

Do you know where the programme makers obtained their eyewitness accounts because they seem in places to be at odds with yours?

(For the record I'm not advancing one version of events over the other)

 

[bluesjnr]

The Indians fought on foot against Custer, except for a few cases of warriors making daring passes in front of the soldiers to show their bravery. I haven't watched the program for a while but I'll guess he was referring to Indians using their horses to rapidly shift firing positions.

The programme makes the case that the Indians fought on horseback, in the main and that fact gave them the advantage over static military deployments.

It decidedly is not an advantage to fight on horseback against dismounted soldiers. Infantry will beat cavalry all day long for the simple fact that they're on the ground, can take advantage of cover, and can take steady aim. When you're on horseback you're a huge target and cannot fire accurately.

It seems that the speed of the mounted attack and sheer numbers overwhelmed the poor fire rate of the dismounted soldiers, who were reduced in numbers by 25% due to every fourth man marshalling the horses (according to the programme). The men panicked and ran.

 

[WayneK]

According to the programme and apparently eye witness accounts they most decidedly were not the last group to die. Twenty eight men ran into an area called Deep Ravine and were slaughtered as they attempted to escape, firing wildly. Unfortunately for that theory, no bodies have been recovers in that area.

Do you know where the programme makers obtained their eyewitness accounts because they seem in places to be at odds with yours?

(For the record I'm not advancing one version of events over the other)

I don't think we're disagreeing. I didn't say they were the last ones to die. I said the Custer group was the last one to "make a stand" (ie organized resistance as a group). I started to add that but thought it was understood. Yes, there were men who jumped up and made a run for it at the end. There were also wounded men alive all over the field who were finished off later. I don't consider those men "making a stand".

We don't have different Indian accounts. At one point I think I had all the Indian accounts ever published plus accounts from unpublished sources like the Walter Camp and Walter Campbell Collections. I said earlier that I've been out of the loop for quite a while so maybe new sources have come to light. I'm looking forward to checking into that.

It's not a question of "their" Indian accounts vs "my" Indian accounts. The Indian accounts are equally fascinating and frustrating. Many of them are too vague to be of use in reconstructing the details of what happened. Many of them are absolutely contradictory. You cannot take all the accounts and weave them into a single coherent narrative. Everyone ultimately ends up accepting some accounts and disregarding others. It's impossible to do otherwise.

These are just a few issues on which you can find eyewitness accounts that say the opposite:

The soldiers fought well; the soldiers fought poorly.
The soldiers approached the ford; the soldiers never approached the ford.
The soldiers charged the Indians; the soldiers never charged.

I could go on and on.

I'm not going back and fact-checking everything, though I have checked some things to refresh my memory. For example, on the question of Indians witnessing the split in Custer's battalion, I remember specifically looking for confirmation in the Indian accounts and failing to find it. If I'm wrong, I welcome correction.

 

[bluesjnr]

Good points. I'd be in no position to correct you, and although I find the forensic accounting evidence compelling, I'm not won over.

It's interesting, to me at any rate, to note that the programme refers to Deep Ravine as the last stand despite the description of what occured being the furthest thing from a "stand". One other thing to note (which I dictates the general tone) is that they conclude that the group around Custer was simply a result of men forgetting tactics, being routed and clumping together preferring safety in numbers.

 

[WayneK]

The programme makes the case that the Indians fought on horseback, in the main and that fact gave them the advantage over static military deployments.

It seems that the speed of the mounted attack and sheer numbers overwhelmed the poor fire rate of the dismounted soldiers, who were reduced in numbers by 25% due to every fourth man marshalling the horses (according to the programme). The men panicked and ran.

I think you may be misinterpreting what Scott said. Could you cite the time location in the video where Scott talks about it so I can look at it?

Yes, there were Indians on horseback during parts of the fight. They rode their horses into battle and used them to change positions (I suspect that's what he means if he talks about "manuever"). There were boys riding around on horseback far back from the front lines. There were a few individuals making brave runs in front of the soldiers.

The Indians likely mounted their horses at the end when the soldiers at Calhoun began to break and run. This is when cavalry can be effective: when foot soldiers are retreating in panic.

The pattern of Indian cartridges showed them grouped in limited locations along ridge lines and below hilltops where the Indians could lie down and fire from cover. They are not scattered around the battlefield as they would be if they were riding about firing from horseback. There's a tight group of cartridges down slope of Calhoun Hill that's been dubbed "Henryville". Do you think a couple of dozen Indians were crowded together on horseback firing from one spot?

We also have abundant evidence of how the Indians fought from the Reno-Benteen fight. They got behind ridges and fired from long distance, just like they did against Custer.

If you don't believe me, maybe you'll believe Doug Scott himself in the book he co-authored with Richard Fox, "Archaeological Insights into The Custer Battle" (all emphases are mine):

"From their positions under cover, and intially at a distance from the soldiers, the Indian fire began to take its toll. (p 117)

"They took positions close to Calhoun's line and poured in intense fire into his men." (p 177) [This was Henryville]

[Northeast of Custer Hill:] "This position provided some cover to the Indian attackers as they fired into the knot of men on Last Stand Hill." ( p 119)

To my mind, it likely went like this: an extended period of static fighting with the Indians on foot and well-hidden behind ridges. The soldiers gradually weakened from this fire being delivered from several directions. As the soldier fire slackened, the Indians moved in to closer positions and poured in an even more devastating fire. At the end, seeing that the soldier fire had dwindled and perhaps seeing them start to break and run, the Indians rushed in on foot and horseback to finish them off.

I think the above description is pretty consistent with what Doug Scott believes. It's when you start trying to get into finer details about events that things start getting more and more conjectural.

 

[WayneK]

Good points. I'd be in no position to correct you, and although I find the forensic accounting evidence compelling, I'm not won over.

It's interesting, to me at any rate, to note that the programme refers to Deep Ravine as the last stand despite the description of what occured being the furthest thing from a "stand". One other thing to note (which I dictates the general tone) is that they conclude that the group around Custer was simply a result of men forgetting tactics, being routed and clumping together preferring safety in numbers.

Yes, I agree with the description of Custer Hill. The Deep Ravine issue is a puzzler because there are multiple, clear eyewitness accounts describing the burial of men at the bottom of this ravine. It appears now that they were simply mistaken. There are, in fact, one or more accounts that describe the burials being made near the head of the ravine. So it appears that these men are represented by the markers leading down from Custer Hill to the ravine (what's been called the "South Skirmish Line"). I haven't kept up with news so I don't know if more digs have been done there.

 

[WayneK]

The cartridge and bullet finds are fundamental to figuring out what happened. Unfortunately, it's not easy to interpret them. One of the biggest problems is that when we see the location of a soldier cartridge, there's no way to tell if it was fired by a soldier or an Indian with a captured weapon.

I remember going over the finds when they first published the results of the dig. It was riveting to be able to see the movements of individual Indians around the battlefield. I remember thinking, "if only we had more of these, we could really add a lot of solid detail about what happened." But there aren't enough of these to draw many firm conclusions.

And there's still the problem of interpretation. You can see that the same Indian fired from two different points but you can't tell if he moved from "A" to "B" or "B" to "A".

 

[bluesjnr]

I think you may be misinterpreting what Scott said. Could you cite the time location in the video where Scott talks about it so I can look at it?

Having looked at the video again I can confidently state that I didn't misinterpret what was said. Without a shadow of doubt I have completely invented my assertion that a comparison about the effectiveness of mounted versus dismounted troops took place. My apologies.

What was compared was the effectiveness of "close in" combat against the military tactics of the time which favoured engaging the enemy at a distance.

It's a great reminder of the job you have deciding who's version of events to trust when I so capably demonstrate such appalling recall.

 

[WayneK]

Having looked at the video again I can confidently state that I didn't misinterpret what was said. Without a shadow of doubt I have completely invented my assertion that a comparison about the effectiveness of mounted versus dismounted troops took place. My apologies.

What was compared was the effectiveness of "close in" combat against the military tactics of the time which favoured engaging the enemy at a distance.

It's a great reminder of the job you have deciding who's version of events to trust when I so capably demonstrate such appalling recall.

Thank you for your simple admission that so many people (including myself sometimes) find difficult to make. It makes me more likely to trust your judgment, not less.

 

[WayneK]

If anyone is interested in pursuing it, what other reasons might there have been for Custer's destruction? Let's set aside everything leading up to the fight. Leave Reno and Benteen out of it and all the questions about whether they did enough to help Custer.

Let's look at the Custer fight in isolation. The number disparity is enough to explain the defeat. Custer had lost the initiative and was on the defensive, outnumbered maybe 5-1. At that point, I think his best hope was some kind of stalemate fight and withdrawal.

So I'm not asking about the defeat. I'm asking about the utter destruction of a cavalry force of 210 men in the space of something over an hour (I'm setting the time of the heavy fighting starting when the warriors returned from the Reno fight and attacked Custer).

It's easy to forget how stunningly improbable this was. There was nothing else like it in the western Indian Wars. The closest was probably the Fetterman Massacre but he had only about 70 men. A force of 210 cavalrymen was a powerful force that should be able to take care of itself for an extended fight. Reno and Benteen's men insisted they never suspected that Custer was being wiped out. They thought he'd been repulsed and had retreated downstream. It never occurred to them that so many men could be killed to the last man in such a short time. I believe them.

I'm not suggesting that there's one simple answer to this but so far I don't think the most important factors have been mentioned. Any ideas what I'm thinking of? I gave a hint when I asked "why did Reno-Benteen survive against the same Indian force that destroyed Custer"?

I'll give another hint: has anyone ever walked the battlefield and looked at the distribution of markers that show (roughly) where Custer's men were killed? Did anything look wrong?

 

[Garrette]

I have not been to the site, but I am going to guess from your comments that there is a combination of poor disposition and poor choice of ground, likely conferring excellent vantage points to the Native Americans while denying it to themselves and also leaving flanks unanchored (I don't know if Custer and his men set up a 360 degree perimeter early on or not).

I have joined Border Reiver in criticizing Custer for engaging without the proper reconnaissance. I stand by that. Yet I am willing to concede that once engaged he fought well for the circumstances. He remained aggressive and tried to implement the tactics that had worked before, i.e., capture the non-combatants to force the warriors to capitulate.