SRS from your "starting place" I gleaned the following:

Point 1
It would appear that the general concensus of expert opinion backs up what is stated in the Wikipedia entry I submitted with regard to numbers present. The entry that you so roundly disparaged, don't go off into another hissy-fit and start screaming and shouting again, take it up with the historians and archaeologists who have studied this to a far greater degree than you or I ever will.

Quote from text - "Granted, numbers as high as 3000 have been given for the Northern Cheyennes but census records, testimony, and other records all indicate that this high a number was impossible for the 1876 period of time." - End Quote.

By the way in your ranting tirade did you really mean to use the word "paternalistic", or were you frothing so much you forgot to use patronising - no matter.

Point 2
The normal fighting formation for dismounted cavalry was in skirmish lines. Something else I believe I mentioned and was told I was in error.


Point 3
Weapons surrendered and ballistic evidence that identified spent rounds identified that the Indians fighting against Custer had just as many guns as Custer, i.e. 1 in 3 Indians engaging Custer was armed with a rifle. Which means that the bulk were armed with bow and lance.

Point 4
The normal effective range of the Springfield was more than twice that of the Henry repeater. In the hands of trained infantrymen the sustained rate of fire using the Springfield was greater than the repeater. Although the Indians had gathered some ammunition and weapons from their victory against Crooks, they were short of ammunition.


Point 5
Paul Hedren's opinion that very few of the 7th Cavalry's rifles jammed is completely at odds with the independent statements given by Reno and Reno's men. Personally and logically I can see only one reason why the weapons of one group of men should jam while exactly the same type of weapon being used in the same engagement should not jam. One group of men (Reno's) were in a position where they could use their rifles and they jammed for reasons given, whereas the other group (Custer's) were positioned where they could not effectively bring fire to bear on the enemy and their guns not being so hot did not jam.


Point 6
Bows and arrows were used in indirect fire by Gall's warriors in their attack against L Troop who were with Custer in the depression on top of a small hill.


Point 7
Custer had placed and deployed his men in a position where every single advantage they had, or should have had, had they been trained disciplined soldiers, was negated. Your recommended starting point states in terms very similar to those I used way, way, down this thread that had they formed their company in close order and fired in controlled volleys or half volleys they would have cleared everything in front of them. Volley fire would then have enhanced the effective range of the Springfield out towards 1000 yards.


Rapaire - 14 Apr 06 - 09:25 AM

"I would NEVER trust technology with my life if I could help it. That's why I'm expert with map and compass as well as owning a GPS, and know several ways of determining direction without a compass (e.g., I wear an analog watch). I don't believe in "putting all of my eggs in one basket," especially one as frail as technology can be."

Could not agree more, in my case the analog watch also has to be clockwork not battery powered.

Rapaire - 14 Apr 06 - 09:14 AM

Custer's men, or at least some of them, given their state of training and discipline, might possibly have got away with their lives if Custer had been killed by the very first shot of the engagement, someone might of emerged to actually provide leadership - One thing is certain Custer certainly was incapable of it.

I do not think that I did make any arguement advocating that "Stone Age" (neolithic? paleolithic?) means "clumsy and backwards". All I said originally was that at the time of this battle the North American Plains Indian was nearer to their stone age ancestors than either SRS or Metchosin realised. In what I have read, including articles recommended by SRS, Metchosin and Melani there was evidence that supported that point of view - you yourself in this post refer to a bow shooting a stone-tipped arrow. At the time the battle of the Little Big Horn was fought (1876) the North American Plains Indians had only ever 'domesticated' two animals, first was the dog, then later after the arrival of the Spaniards to the South, the horse. I will stand by my statement that they were nearer to their stone-age ancestors than is generally realised.

And I will leave you with this thought, Repaire, and please before jumping down my throat check SRS's sight with regard to weapons, your Plains Indian bow made from sinew-backed wood, firing a stone-tipped arrow will kill you just as dead as a round from an AK-74 or and M-16A2 - FROM A RANGE OF BETWEEN 30 AND 50 YARDS. A pencil or a sharp stick can kill you Repaire, lots of things can kill you, and it's all completely besides the point.

The Sioux and Cheyenne, at the LBH, had weapons far superior to those stone-age weapons you described -- However, they did NOT have superior weapons compared to the men of the 7th Cavalry who opposed them, as was Little Hawks contention.

Now logic would seem to indicate that if you have a group of men hunkered down in a depression on top of a little hill (Custer's position) unless you are on higher ground looking down on that position neither the attacker's or defender's guns are of much use to them. In this situation the Indians possessed the only 'indirect' fire weapon on the battlefield, the bow and arrow, and they used it to great effect against Custer's men. Not my supposition here Repaire, but eye witness account and statement.

As to whether or not the Indians could use those guns as well as the soldiers? Well against the calibre and standard of training of the soldiers of the 7th Cavalry certainly, although they did not defeat Reno or Benteen's troopers, and that was more of a straightforward gun action. Again, not my supposition here Repaire, but eye witness account and statement.