Battle of Little Big Horn River

Status
Not open for further replies.

jamesinalaska

Member
Joined
Feb 9, 2015
Messages
256
I just finished reading a remarkable book about the Plains Indians. It is called Wooden Leg: A Warrior Who Fought Custer. The ISBN number is: 0-8032-5124-6.

Although the focal point of the book is the famous battle at the Little Big Horn River, the book is really more about the lives and customs and social world of the plains tribes, particularly the Northern Cheyenne, of which Wooden Leg was a teenage member -and warrior- at the time of the famous battle.

Wooden Leg spoke very little English, and his story was translated and interpreted by Thomas B. Marquis, a medical doctor at the Indian Agency where the Cheyenne were eventually settled sometime after the battle. In a preface to the book, Dr. Marquis gives a testimonial to the validity of Wooden Leg's stories, saying Wooden Leg was not one given to lying or embellishments, and that his accounts matched the accounts of other warriors he had interviewed who were also at the battle. Wooden Leg and the Doctor seemed to be friends and so Dr. Marquis was able to talk with Wooden Leg extensively.

Because this is a firearms forum, If THR readers will allow, I would like to share some of the firearms related insights I learned from the book. (I apologize, but I did not take notes as I read so I don't have page numbers to share.) Here are some of the elements that struck me:

1) Their use of firearms at the time (Civil War Era and past) was far more limited than what we are led to believe from television and History Channel dramas. Cartridge loading rifles were prized, but muzzle loading rifles were predominate apparently because they were more available as surplus and second-hand firearms as the cartridge loading rifles became predominate.

2) Cap and ball revolvers were also available and were prized for there usefulness in self defense and close quarters combat, and these only seemed to be the pistols' main purpose. Hunting with pistols was never mentioned. (It was interesting to me how the concept of some firearms, and the particular roles they play, has changed very little.)

3) Short rifles were favored. The Springfield Trapdoor Carbine was highly regarded. The carbine rifles were favored for the same reasons then as they are today: they could be swung faster, they were easier to carry, they were lighter. Long distance shooting was not the goal. The tribal members were mounted and the ability to swing the rifle quickly around the horse (for hunting, as they rode close to the buffalo) was the greater necessity.

4) The Plains Indians enjoyed sporting competitions and betting at their festivities. Several events included marksmanship. There were two types of competitions with the rifles: the first was for distance and the second was for accuracy. The same is true for competition with their bows: accuracy, distance, and a third category of throwing the arrow by hand. The target for the rifle competitions was a black circle inside a white circle, while the archery targets were representations of the human torso.

5) At the battle of The Little Big Horn River, the Sioux and Cheyenne did have firearms but not nearly the number as purported on the television or at the cinema. Some had the then decade old, and quite famous, Henry Repeating Rifle, but most had muzzleloaders or other "soldier rifles". Ammunition at the start of the battle was a problem for the indians; each warrior with a rifle probably had only a few shots (Wooden Leg doesn't give a number but as he tells the story he repeats often how glad he is to find a box of ammunition or to secure some powder. How happy are we, nowadays, to find some powder?)

6) Although rifles were used somewhat effectively against the attacking soldiers, it was really the thousands upon thousands of raining arrows that whittled against the then huddled, and surrounded soldiers to their defeat. Wooden Leg noted that when an arrow pierced a soldier horse a particular destructive mayhem would be created as the wounded horse stomped and kicked its way through the huddled soldiers.

7) The 7th Cavalry committed suicide. Literally. Wooden Leg and other warriors testified that as the situation grew obviously inescapable for the soldiers, they began to turn their revolvers onto themselves. Dr. Marquis makes a special note in the book that this account is true and was verified by many of the warriors he interviewed. Dr. Marquis noted most of the soldiers were young and inexperienced and lived with the notion to "save the last bullet for yourself". This they apparently did except it was not their last bullet. Wooden Leg tells how after the battle many boxes of bullets were found, sometimes cases of cartridge boxes -all unopened- and nearly all saddle bags had boxes of bullets.

8) Wooden Leg never mentions cleaning a rifle or pistol. And since black powder was still in use in cartridges I can't help but imagine the terrible condition of most indian firearms. Wooden Leg tells of another warrior who captured a soldier rifle (a Springfield Trapdoor) which fired but then had the case stuck in the chamber. The new owner did not know how to remedy the fault and so threw the rifle in to the river. (They did this with other items they did not comprehend or have experience with, like silver watches and currency.)

I thought THR members would be interested in the few firearms related gleanings I found in the book, but on the whole, and outside the firearms stuff, the story was compelling and extremely interesting. If any THR members see this paperback in a used book store I would encourage its purchase. Enjoy.
 
Archeology of the battle site suggests the Indians had a LOT of firearms and of varying types. One National Geographic special showed recovered skull or bone suggests a bullet fired from a rifle that it wasn't chambered for, suggesting a shortage of ammo or an unfamiliarity with firearms.. they could have been 'less than common' however there were a LOT of Indians.

Placement of spent rifle casings shows a lot about how the 7th fought, in skirmish lines at times and at random in others.

There was a lot of stuff left on the battlefield (including weapons), and professionals are still finding artifacts.
 
Yes, Dr. Rob. You are right. I saw that National Geographic special too, but for myself, that televised special created more questions than answers it gave. For instance, the geographic special did not mention the considerable suicides of soldiers. (At least I don't recall them mentioning them.) Why would a premier research group like National Geographic fail to mention that historical fact?

Also in that special (again, this is from memory) the allusion was that almost every indian had a Henry Repeating Rifle. I am no expert in the Henry Rifle but according to Wooden Leg and Dr. Marquis, that just wasn't so.

But you are right. There were so MANY warriors that even if only 30% were armed the 7th cavalry would be greatly outgunned.
 
One thing that stands out about the battle is that, in spite of his self delusions, Custer was no Alexander.
 
I hope I get this right, my wife's great-great grandfathers brother died with the 7th at Little Big Horn. Her great-great grandfather later married a Cherokee. Her family immigrated to Minnesota from Denmark in the 1850's time frame if her ancestry research is correct.
 
history channel thing i saw not too long ago said the native americans had lever action rifles, and we were using muzzle loading rifles. like bringing a bunch of break open shotguns to fight guys with ar10s.
 
No. Our cavalrymen used Model 1873 Springfield carbons. They were single shot breechloaders chambered for .45 Cal. cartridges.
 
Archeology of the battle site suggests the Indians had a LOT of firearms and of varying types

i wonder if they found any 30-30 brass ? in 1959AD me and two friends went Deer hunting near Buffalo WY. on a ranch owned by one of my friend uncle, we got there 2 days early to scout the area and sight in our rifles, second day we drove up to the Custer battlefield, spending about 5 hours walking and driving around the site, i decided to screw with some future minds and threw out about 30 spent 30-30 brass in several areas.

i wish i knew if those brass were found, if they done a real search they should have found them, but never read of any mention of finding 30-30 brass, anyone ever heard about finding 30-30 brass? :D
 
OP -- thanks for sharing what you've read.

I recall a made-for-TV movie called "Son of the Morning Star," about George Custer (played by Gary Cole) and the Little Big Horn as seen through the eyes of a Native American woman.

Although I'm not a particular student of that era or that battle, I was struck by how authentic the movie felt, in its depiction of the personalities involved, that period in history, etc. There is at least one moment in the re-creation of the battle where a young trooper puts a revolver to his own head and kills himself. I vaguely recall at least one other trooper trying to clear his jammed carbine as he is being swarmed.

I'd be curious as to how people who have seen that movie feel about its depiction vis-a-vis all "known" and documented history.

.
 
I am guessing it would be difficult for archaeologists to verify many wounds on skeletons as "suicides". You have to understand that the Natives mutilated the bodies of their slain enemies quite extensively.
Being able to tell whether a head shot was self inflicted or not would be hard to do. I would imagine that many 7th Cav soldiers attempted to surrender and may have been executed on the spot, perhaps creating a similar wound to one resulting from suicide.
 
I am guessing it would be difficult for archaeologists to verify many wounds on skeletons as "suicides". You have to understand that the Natives mutilated the bodies of their slain enemies quite extensively.
Being able to tell whether a head shot was self inflicted or not would be hard to do. I would imagine that many 7th Cav soldiers attempted to surrender and may have been executed on the spot, perhaps creating a similar wound to one resulting from suicide.

Yeah -- as the only survivors of the battle were on the Sioux side, I guess we have to distill their myriad oral accounts with whatever physical data can be gleaned, with a good dose of historical guesswork.

The one thing that occurs to me is that it's more of a human tendency to inflate and elevate the opposition, to make one's own victory that much greater. So it really wouldn't have served a Sioux warrior's purpose to talk about the troopers killing themselves, unless that's what he actually saw.

But -- who knows...

.
 
OP -- thanks for sharing what you've read.

I recall a made-for-TV movie called "Son of the Morning Star," about George Custer (played by Gary Cole) and the Little Big Horn as seen through the eyes of a Native American woman.

Although I'm not a particular student of that era or that battle, I was struck by how authentic the movie felt, in its depiction of the personalities involved, that period in history, etc. There is at least one moment in the re-creation of the battle where a young trooper puts a revolver to his own head and kills himself. I vaguely recall at least one other trooper trying to clear his jammed carbine as he is being swarmed.

I'd be curious as to how people who have seen that movie feel about its depiction vis-a-vis all "known" and documented history.

.

I saw the movie -- in fact I have it on video. So far as TV goes, it is a fairly accurate rendition of the affair. This past Sunday Fox News Anchor Bill O'Rielly's western series portrayed Custer, and the Fox News channel totally misrepresented the Wa sh i t a Battle (put those letters together to get the word; a computer censoring system replaces certain letters with asterisks and I once got burned by using those on this site), but did a better, but still insufficient job of the Little Bighorn Battle.
Some of the discrepancies in The Son of the Morning Star relate to broadcast TV's sensitivities. In real life, Custer was found nearly nude with only parts of his boots still there. An arrow had been shoved into his .... uh, "manhood," a tip of one finger was missing, and Indian women had shoved sewing awls into his ears, piercing his eardrums, "so that in the next life, he might better hear his own promises."
He hadn't been scalped; while remembered for his long curly blond hair, Custer was actually experincing male pattern baldness and, in preparation for the expedition, had had a haircut, so he did not have the scalp that Indian warriors would prize.
A TV movie on broadcast would, of course, be unable to accuratly portray Custer's true conditon, much less his brother Tom Custer's condition. He had been horribly eviscerated.
A previous commentator, Dr. Rob, is correct about archeological investigations revealing that the Indians had many modern firearms. One historian stated there were probably more Indians equipped with Winchester or other repeaters than Custer had troopers with him.

jamesinalaska said:
6) Although rifles were used somewhat effectively against the attacking soldiers, it was really the thousands upon thousands of raining arrows that whittled against the then huddled, and surrounded soldiers to their defeat. Wooden Leg noted that when an arrow pierced a soldier horse a particular destructive mayhem would be created as the wounded horse stomped and kicked its way through the huddled soldiers.

Many historians subscribe to this theory, and I also think there is a lot of validity. One theory is that due to the rough geography, with hills and coulees all around, the Indians could congregate behind one hill, and lob arrows over the hill into cavalry troopers on the other side, and thus be relatively protected from direct line of sight weapons like .45-55 Springfield carbines.

A good read on the Battle of the Little Bighorn is a Potomac Press book titled A SAD AND TERRIBLE BLUNDER, by (IIRC) Roger Darling. It closely examines Custer's activities at the LBG; other books in the series detail the excellent archeological work done there that has been able to precisely locate some sights were smaller skirmishes happened, as well as identify, through examination of cartridge cases, even where individual cavalrymen moved. The techniques were similar to matching marks on crime scene munition, like we all see on TV.
 
Thanks OP!

This is always a good topic!

All we have are factual accounts from the winners and the ground where the battle was fought. There will forever be speculation.

I always thought that the Indians preferred the cap and ball pistols and rifles because powder and lead (to be melted into bullets) were easier to come by at that time. For most of the Indians, cartridge rifles and ammo would have to be looted after a fight or stolen. Either option would be risky, I would think.

Who knows? Certainly an intriguing writeup and account.
 
I stood at the battlefield of the Little Big Horn along with many others throughout the USA. Having read the accounts of the battles allows one to visualize in your own mind the engagement as it was happening. A sense of awe comes over you as you feel yourself transported in time.

As a kid, I played Cowboys & Indians. The cowboys had the guns, the Indians had the bow and arrow; the cowboys always won. In this case, the Indians had guns and outnumbered Custer’s troops by 3 to 1. The Indians won the battle but lost the war. The land they were trying to protect was removed from the reservation by the US government.

In trying to understand the significance of this battle, I can only guess that it is because of the number of unknowns; no survivors from Custer’s regiment. There are plenty of “what if” scenarios. Guns played a part but were they the deciding factor? I do not know but my opinion is that they were not.
 
The National Park Service makes several errors in their analysis of the battle:

1. They say Custer intended a 3-prong attack, with Benteen's battalion being the third prong. Yet at the Reno Inquiry Benteen testified, "If there was a plan, it was never communicated to me." And of course there is the "Bring pacs" message, which shows Custer expected Benteen to be following the main trail.

2. Fox says the cases that exhibited pry marks can be used to calculate how many Springfields jammed. He's wrong -- the cases he found only indicate carbines that jammed AND WERE SUCCESSFULLY CLEARED. We don't know how many jammed and the trooper died before clearing the jam.

3. The NPS mistakes fighting from defilade as fighting from the "military crest." The military crest would be on the opposite slope.

4. The NPS uses SLA Marshall's studies to analyze the "psychological" issues. Historians have long known Marshall simply made up all his data.
 
One of my favorite timelines: at the same time that we were modern enough to be building engineering marvels back east, we were still fighting, and occasionally losing battles to, "primitives" out on the western plains of this huge and magnificent country.

1876, when Custer was defeated in Montana, the Brooklyn Bridge was being constructed in NYC.
 
I had a book about historic battles as told by participants the title I do not remember (I gave away my entire library years ago in an attempt to cure what was thought to be dust allergies which in reality was a tumor) that had a chapter of Little Big Horn as told in an interview by an Indian warrior. He mentioned that the Indians thought that the soldiers had all gone insane because of how many were shooting themselves in the head during the battle.
 
In trying to understand the significance of this battle, I can only guess that it is because of the number of unknowns; no survivors from Custer’s regiment
That's not correct. The 7th Cavalry had 12 companies (it would be another 4 years before they would be re-designated "troops") Five companies, C, E, F, I, and L went with Custer and were wiped out.

Three more companies, M, A and G were assigned to Reno, and took significant casualties. The remaining four companies -- B company with the pack train, and Benteen's D, K and H suffered few casualties.

In addition, each company donated 6 privates and 1 Sergeant to work the pack train, and these 84 men suffered few casualties.

In all, with a strength of about 600 men, the 7th Cavalry lost 16 officers and 242 troopers killed or died of wounds.
 
MEHavey said:
Notwithstanding his later grandstanding, Custer was one helluva Union cavalry commander...
arguably one of (if not) the best of the entire war on either side.

It is not for nothing that he was very specifically part of this group....


Custer had his moments during the Civil War as a Cavalry officer. But a Nathan Bedford Forrest he was not.

Forrest was the best by a long country mile. Feared by every Yankee in the Union Army.

330px-NathanBedfordForrest.jpg
 
Might I suggest this book: http://nathanielphilbrick.com/books/the-last-stand/

I am not sure that Custer did much, if anything, right from the time he set out on his last mission.

He had won battles against the Native Americans before, and he likely believed that the same strategy and tactics that he had used would prevail again.

However, in his "victory" in November, 1868, he encountered the western-most part of a much larger series of encampments, killed the inhabitants of Black Kettle's camp and their horses, and retreated headlong without trying to find out what happened to the troops who had gone further east and been wiped out. He regarded it as a victory, others called it murder, and still others saw it as a display of cowardice.

Regardless, it is quite possible that, had his approach been made from a different angle, "Custer's Last Stand" might well have taken place on the Wash ita River instead of the Little Big Horn.

The discussion would be about Remington revolvers and Spencer carbines.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top