Panzeri by Panzeri 2
George Szaszvari
In article <5m0dqm$n5d$1...@news3.texas.net>, la...@shell1.texas.net says...
<snip>..
>There are, however, many topics of interest in the old west. Custer gets
>awfully boring to anyone except those few folks with a romantic attachment
>to the man. What does _not_ get boring is watching some folks try to
>shout down anyone who does not agree with their very biased -- one way or
>the other -- position. It is a source of great amusement...hence the
>smirk.
Keep trolling to your heart's content, David, but, sorry, I don't have
the the time or inclination to entertain you.
Bye, bye,
:-)
--
George Szaszvari, DCPS Chess Club, 42 Alleyn Park, London SE21 7AA, UK
Planet Earth, Milky Way Galaxy * The Commodore64 Lives! www.cmdweb.com
David Laro
George Szaszvari <g...@dial.pipex.com> wrote:
: In article <5lt7d9$58v$1...@news3.texas.net>, la...@shell1.texas.net says...
: >The expression "net bully" springs to mind, again! Accusations and
: >a refusal to acknowledge anyone else has a right to an opinion.
: ><Smirking, this conversation sounds familiar.>
: Perhaps you'd be more credible if you posted something on the subject
: instead of just being an holier than thou critic? Keep smirking sonny,
: it suits you.
I WAS on the subject! Perhaps not on the subject you'd choose, but that's
of little concern to me. I responded to YOUR comment concerning the
habits of the other party. If you'd prefer to keep your conversation
private, I suggest you try another, much smaller, newsgroup. Until
that time, you'll just have to accept any comments that come your
way. It's the system.
David Laro
George Szaszvari <g...@dial.pipex.com> wrote:
: In article <5m0dqm$n5d$1...@news3.texas.net>, la...@shell1.texas.net says...
: <snip>..
: >There are, however, many topics of interest in the old west. Custer gets
: >awfully boring to anyone except those few folks with a romantic attachment
: >to the man. What does _not_ get boring is watching some folks try to
: >shout down anyone who does not agree with their very biased -- one way or
: >the other -- position. It is a source of great amusement...hence the
: >smirk.
: Keep trolling to your heart's content, David, but, sorry, I don't have
: the the time or inclination to entertain you.
: Bye, bye,
Since you continue to post your responses in the public forum, I'll assume
you like the exposure. I don't exactly relish it, myself, but I will come
back to you again to state that (a) I am not trolling; and, (b) you
continue to entertain me with your educated responses to the other Custer
"expert" around here. It's sort of like having two "eldest children"
around a household -- neither take well to implied criticism.
I read into your little closing salutation the implication that you are
through replying to me and you're not going to engage in more witty
repartee? Fine with me, amigo, since I didn't ask for your comments or
approval in the first place! If you intended for me to slink away into
the night/net, you've erred. Maybe in your part of the world, not here!
I'll tell you what, I live nearer the west than you do and it interests
me. I enjoy the interesting stories, questions and replies found here.
If I MUST continue to read complicated analyses by Custer scholars and
wannabes, I'll manage to find some way to enjoy it, even if I must work at
it.
I DID see the suggestion the Custer amores take their stuff to
alt.custer.devotees.and.their.opposite.number or something, didn't I? If
that were to occur, I can guarantee I'd not visit that newsgroup. I
promise! That's all the inducement I can offer! :-) Hope it's
sufficient.
David L.
Linda Terrell
In <5m2k2b$8...@join.news.pipex.net>, g...@dial.pipex.com (George Szaszvari) writes:
Laro wrote (much deleted to prevent narcopelsy)
>>There are, however, many topics of interest in the old west. Custer gets
>>awfully boring to anyone except those few folks with a romantic attachment
>>to the man. What does _not_ get boring is watching some folks try to
>>shout down anyone who does not agree with their very biased -- one way or
>>the other -- position. It is a source of great amusement...hence the
>>smirk.
I gues that means you must be romatically inclined toward uster, George
Shall we return to our discussion of things Custer? You seemed to have
stopped in mid-stream.
If you wish, we can take it to e*mail (but that wouldn't annoy Laro)
cheers,
lin...@ibm.net
David Laro
Linda Terrell <lin...@ibm.net> wrote:
: In <5m2k2b$8...@join.news.pipex.net>, g...@dial.pipex.com (George Szaszvari) writes:
: Laro wrote (much deleted to prevent narcopelsy)
: >>There are, however, many topics of interest in the old west. Custer gets
: >>awfully boring to anyone except those few folks with a romantic attachment
: >>to the man. What does _not_ get boring is watching some folks try to
: >>shout down anyone who does not agree with their very biased -- one way or
: >>the other -- position. It is a source of great amusement...hence the
: >>smirk.
: I gues that means you must be romatically inclined toward uster, George
Egad! Are YOU still here, Linda?
I guess this comment was intended to provoke enmity between George and
myself? Off target, again. Your reference to my "romantic attachment"
remark, above, merely demonstrates that you are not above trying to stir
up trouble. It missed because I sincerely enjoy reading George's
challenges to your assumed authority on your topic! I'd hate for
him to go away.
As for you, if you bothered to read anything beside the Custer thread,
you'd recognize that "romance" has other connotations. As in the "romance
of the old-west?" Surely you recognize the old west? In a very recent
post on this newsgroup, the word was used by another poster who was TRYing
to introduce another topic (any topic) into discussion.
But of course, you are unlikely to read any thread which does not carry
the Custer tracks, eh?
Pity. You appear to be fairly intelligent, too! I guess your
relationship with Custer precludes any rational discussion of other
topics. What DID attract you to old George Custer, anyway? Was it
related to his personality? I've always considered him to have been just
a bit rash, arrogant, seeking fame and recognition in excess of what was
merited. (so much for the old saw about opposites!)
: Shall we return to our discussion of things Custer? You seemed to have
: stopped in mid-stream.
Please do! The world awaits. We were SO enjoying your lecture series.
I find it hard to make it through the day without.... (but you get the
idea!)
: If you wish, we can take it to e*mail (but that wouldn't annoy Laro)
:
: cheers,
: lin...@ibm.net
Ah, are we to understand that you are working at being bothersome?
If so, you must try harder. (can you spell "diligence"?) Your
postings are usually SO interesting. I especially enjoyed seeing
YOU accused of "Hollywood history" in a recent post.
SUCH irony!
Apologies to other readers of this nice newsgroup. Has anyone else
ever had such a reaction to Linda and her addiction to name-calling
and always being "right?" Am I just being "a horse's tail?"
Still smilin' and no clenched teeth,
David (am I glad they got this news server fixed)
Linda Terrell
In <5m4aji$1r9$1...@news3.texas.net>, David Laro <la...@shell1.texas.net> writes:
>Linda Terrell <lin...@ibm.net> wrote:
>: In <5m2k2b$8...@join.news.pipex.net>, g...@dial.pipex.com (George Szaszvari) writes:
>
>: I gues that means you must be romatically inclined toward uster, George
>
>
>Egad! Are YOU still here, Linda
Still can't come up with one *fact* can you? Just tomes designed
to show off your wit to yourself and your mirror.
>
>I guess this comment was intended to provoke enmity between George and
>myself? Off target, again. Your reference to my "romantic attachment"
>remark, above, merely demonstrates that you are not above trying to stir
>up trouble. It missed because I sincerely enjoy reading George's
>challenges to your assumed authority on your topic! I'd hate for
>him to go away.
Yawn
>
>As for you, if you bothered to read anything beside the Custer thread,
>you'd recognize that "romance" has other connotations. As in the "romance
>of the old-west?" Surely you recognize the old west? In a very recent
>post on this newsgroup, the word was used by another poster who was TRYing
>to introduce another topic (any topic) into discussion
No one is stopping anyone from starting any thread they want. George and I
*wanted* to discuss Custer with each other, not you or anyone else. That is why
people not affected by the discussion and who don't want to be a part of it
skip over those posts. That is why God gave us "next" keys.
>
>Pity. You appear to be fairly intelligent, too! I guess your
>relationship with Custer precludes any rational discussion of other
>topics. What DID attract you to old George Custer, anyway? Was it
>related to his personality? I've always considered him to have been just
>a bit rash, arrogant, seeking fame and recognition in excess of what was
>merited. (so much for the old saw about opposites!)
Can't understand why you *read* our posts if they annoy you so.
>Please do! The world awaits. We were SO enjoying your lecture series.
>I find it hard to make it through the day without.... (but you get the
>idea!)
Who's we, paleface?
>Ah, are we to understand that you are working at being bothersome
But you already do it so well.
>
>If so, you must try harder. (can you spell "diligence"?) Your
>postings are usually SO interesting. I especially enjoyed seeing
>YOU accused of "Hollywood history" in a recent post
Musta missed that one while I was involved in a discussion with George.
>
>SUCH irony!
>
>Apologies to other readers of this nice newsgroup. Has anyone else
>ever had such a reaction to Linda and her addiction to name-calling
>and always being "right?" Am I just being "a horse's tail?"
And you are so good at it.
Lessee, you've called ME "imbicilic," accused me of a "fixation" or at least inferred
some kind of hormonal rush has to be behind my study of a particular character
in history. You leaped into George's posts to deliver yet another tome maligning
me but *I* am the one calling names?
You are much better at it than I.
I even recall you started a thread on Ranald MacKenzie and I supplied a few para-
graphs from the books I own. You never answered any of it.
Can't you put your money where your mouth is or is it too full of hypocrisy?
cheers,
lin...@ibm.net
George Szaszvari
In article <3384f...@news2.ibm.net>, lin...@ibm.netž says...
> Laro wrote (much deleted to prevent narcopelsy)
>>>There are, however, many topics of interest in the old west. Custer gets
>>>awfully boring to anyone except those few folks with a romantic
attachment
>>>to the man. What does _not_ get boring is watching some folks try to
>>>shout down anyone who does not agree with their very biased -- one way or
>>>the other -- position. It is a source of great amusement...hence the
>>>smirk.
> I gues that means you must be romatically inclined toward uster,
>George
> Shall we return to our discussion of things Custer? You seemed to have
>stopped in mid-stream.
> If you wish, we can take it to e*mail (but that wouldn't annoy Laro)
Waal, I doo declare, Linda, I'd never have thought that a frontier
lady like yo'self would ever con'emplate suggesting e-mail to appease
the rantings of a wannabee net bully like David L! Doggone, hell no,
Linda! Why, David even has a genoowine Texas aaddress and seems to
think that gives him tha' right to tell folk like you and me to shut
up 'n all. Nevertheless, let's be generous: David's hysterical ad
hominem postings only betray his youthful insecurity (and he's
obviously very new to Usenet, anyway)...Uhhh, to be so young again :-)
On my last LBH question, I was fascinated by the reply about the
sabres being left behind because they were *cumbersome* and of little
value outside an initial psychological effect against Indians. It
seems that the art of effectively wielding the sabre (swordsmanship)
by cavalrymen was a fast dying art (with firearms taking over).
I suppose the sabre was fairly heavy and mainly contributed to the
*cumbersome* description. Presumably, most troopers carried a pretty
hefty bowie knife, but that would hardly replace a "battlefield" weapon
like sabre or bayonet. I guess that the lack of edged or pointed weapons
was just another factor in the 7th's LBH defeat. Did the US cavalry
return to carrying sabres after LBH? Anyone have further knowledge or
thoughts on these sabre matters?
Regards
Linda Terrell
In <01bc67aa$edf21da0$bc5592cf@default>, "John Brooks" <johnw...@worldnet.att.net> writes:
>Sounds like we have our own personality conflict working toward a little
>gun play!! Ha! Ha! And I thought these were adults on this news group. JB
Laro is a good example of why some people shouldn't have children.
You also do not have to read our posts.
cheers,
linda t.
Linda Terrell
In <5m50r0$6...@join.news.pipex.net>, g...@dial.pipex.com (George Szaszvari) writes:
>In article <3384f...@news2.ibm.net>, lin...@ibm.netž says...
>lady like yo'self would ever con'emplate suggesting e-mail to appease
>the rantings of a wannabee net bully like David L!
I'll discuss it anywhere, I just didn't know how annoyed YOU were.
>Linda! Why, David even has a genoowine Texas aaddress and seems to
>think that gives him tha' right to tell folk like you and me to shut
>up 'n all. Nevertheless, let's be generous: David's hysterical ad
>hominem postings only betray his youthful insecurity (and he's
>obviously very new to Usenet, anyway)...Uhhh, to be so young again :
Laro reminds me of why I never had children.
>
>On my last LBH question, I was fascinated by the reply about the
>sabres being left behind because they were *cumbersome* and of little
>value outside an initial psychological effect against Indians. It
>seems that the art of effectively wielding the sabre (swordsmanship)
>by cavalrymen was a fast dying art (with firearms taking over).
>I suppose the sabre was fairly heavy and mainly contributed to the
>*cumbersome* description. Presumably, most troopers carried a pretty
>hefty bowie knife,
I've not read of them carrying even that.
but that would hardly replace a "battlefield" weapon
>like sabre or bayonet. I guess that the lack of edged or pointed weapons
>was just another factor in the 7th's LBH defeat. Did the US cavalry
>return to carrying sabres after LBH?
Only as ornamental and they were fast getting away with carrying
them at all except as part of the "dress" uniform (the full dress, I mean
FULL dress, formal Army officer's uniform is still a cavalry type outfit with
saber and a cape. Yum!)
Anyone have further knowledge or
>thoughts on these sabre matters?
There was no time to teach saber use to troopers and it was of no use
at all against Indians who still never closed with the Army. Firepower
indeed made the saber useless.
In fact, during the Civil War it fell into disuse. Some 90,000 or more sabers
were "lost" in one year by the Cavalry. It was a nearly useless weapon and
even then was best used as a tent stake, for holding up a tent flap, for
cooking. . .The CSA Cavalry in general distained them (although Forrest was known
to carry one which was sharp on top as well as the bottem ((which was considered
ungentlemanly but there was a *war* on and Forrest was fond of saying all's
fair in love and war))-- but the way he flung it about, he occasionally slashed
his own men if they were too close!) Mosby never carried one.
But the federals had given Stuart such a thrashing at Brandy Station with sabers, that
the day a couple of divisions of CSA Cavalry stepped out of the trees behind the
Rummel Farm at Gettysburg, all their sabers were flashing.
But since Indian warfare was most often fought at some distance, sabers
didn't serve a trooper well. It was carbines and revolvers that took the day. And
wouldn't have made much of a difference at the LBH except that some men might
have held out a few minutes longer. The Indians would have just stayed
back out of carbine range and shot the troopers when they ran out of ammo. It
was easier and more cost effective.
RSVP yawl.
cheers,
linda t.
Linda Terrell
In <5ma1ov$gu0$1...@news3.texas.net>, David Laro <la...@shell1.texas.net> writes:
>George Szaszvari <g...@dial.pipex.com> wrote:
>
><snip>
So what's your point?
And when are you going to stop being fascinated by your own hubris and
inject something *constructive* and ON TOPIC into the OLD WEST newsgroup?
Linda Terrell
In <5m9vcf$ddu$2...@news3.texas.net>, David Laro <la...@shell1.texas.net> writes:
>Yes, John. So did I. Here's a good example of the level of maturity
>of some of the posts.
So, when are you going to talk ON TOPIC about the OLD WEST?
Steve Grimm
George Szaszvari wrote:
<a bunch snipped>
>
> Question(s): Can anyone say something about Native American traditions
> in close-quarter combat? Does anyone know where I can find out about
> these fighting traditions, i.e., Native American martial arts? I have
> stuff about knife and tomahawk throwing as sport, but nothing about
> actual methods of combat...there must be something, since, after all,
> these were largely warrior societies with most respect and power to
> the bravest....all leads appreciated.
>
Prior to the arrival of the whites, face to face combat was rare. Most
raids (for horses) and ambushes were hit and run. The indians preferred
stealth rather than a full frontal assault. This was one thing that
confused both the indians and the army...their methods and purpose in
battle were much different.
The indians method was more gamemanship with the greatest honor going to
the warrior who took the greatest risk. Killing was not the main
objective. Going in and touching the enemy was what provided the
greatest glory.
The best decription of hand-to-hand combat between tribes is the
following from the book 'Mystic Warrior of the Plains' by Thomas E.
Mails:
"Upon meeting the enemy in the open, and where all hope of surprise or
advantage gone, the leaders of both sides usually rode out to taunt
their opponents, while the main bodies formed long lines behind them.
Sometimes the leader's main task was only to hold his young men back and
in line. The taunting might go on for hours before mass action began.
Once it did, there would first be firing at a distance, and then a
mighty clash, with most battle plans forgotten and every man for
himself. Each rode in singing his sacred war song, living his medicine
to the fullest, and yelling at the top of his lungs to build up his
courage.
The Cheyenne say that in a large battle the din was incredible. Horses
ran into each other, and some fell and rolled. Clubs, hatchets, and
lances were swung in every direction as everyone sought coup, and the
dust was so thick one could hardly see. One of the warriors scalped a
member of his own tribe at the exhortation of others before any of them
realized who the man was. A Crow, in pulling his gun from its case,
accidently shot his own horse!
Many said they all lost track of time and feeling; that when on foot
"their feet hardly touched the ground" As a rule, a fighting unit
limited itself to a maximum of four passes in one place. After that it
shifted its position or abandoned the battle. They did not circle very
often, but made a fierce rush at the target, frequently jumping from
their horses to fight on foot."
Even the Aztecs, in a historical novel I read a while back, use to stage
a 'flower' war with their enemies where the only purpose was to capture
a number of the enemy, but not kill them. When enough were captured the
battle was finished. The captives were, however, sacrifced at their
temples. While still alive their hearts were ripped out and then the
Aztec priests skinned the captives and wore the skins like a body suit.
Back to the American West, the indians, in everything I read, used some
sort of weapon in closeup fighting and did not use their fists or any
type of Jackie Chan moves. It is an interesting question and I will
search for more information regarding hand to hand combat among the
indians.
--
Steve Grimm
sgr...@dimensional.com
(Email address modified for spam control - remove the huh. to respond)
Linda Terrell
In <5mcgvt$7...@join.news.pipex.net>, g...@dial.pipex.com (George Szaszvari) writes:
>Linda wrote:
>Question(s): Can anyone say something about Native American traditions
>in close-quarter combat?
The plains Indians didn't have much in the way of a hand-to-hand
tradition, although they indulged in wrestling among themselves.
Does anyone know where I can find out about
>these fighting traditions, i.e., Native American martial arts?
Library or bookstore.
>That many Indians preferred to fight the US Army at a distance
>might be correct in general for the Plains Indians, but I don't
>believe that all Indians at all times all over America always
>fought that way...and they certainly didn't at LBH when their
>battle tactics were deliberately different: that day, those Plains
>Indians, previously disposed to the running light cavalry tactics,
>were set on bringing the fight directly en masse to the US Army.
>The following extracts from Ittie Kinney Reno's re-write of Major
>Reno's own account, published in *Americana* magazine 1912, highlight
>the points about the 7th's lack of a personal weapon (discounting a
>jammed or discharged rifle as a club) for hand-to-hand combat:
>
> ...I desire also to state that my loss would have been less, had
>I been provided with some instrument similar to the trowel bayonet.
>I am sure, had an opponent of that arm been with my soldiers on the
>night of June 25, 1876, he would have given his right arm for fifty
>bayonets.
Since the Indians surrounding Reno-Benteen hill never got closer than about 50 yards
a bayonet wouldn't have done them any good. There was no hand-to-hand with
Reno's forces -- it was firing from a distance; being picked off by a hail of bullets.
>
>....Their [Custer's] annihilation was effected with comparatively few
>shots being fired for, explained Sitting Bull, "my powder was scarce
>and my warriors did great and quick work with their war clubs to save
>my ammunition"....
There was *heavy* firing heard. The Indians had a huge supply of
bullets that they had taken from Crook the week before. Clubbing wounded
to death was Indian SOP.
>
>Reno's and other accounts also mention numbers of prisoners being
>taken, all tortured (mutilated alive), or beheaded, or (the corpses
>of those men missing from the battlefield or camp) burnt alive at
>the stake.
They found three heads in the village area on June 27.
I suspect the numbers of prisoners would be have been
>much fewer, if any, had the troopers been equipped with a weapon
>for lethal hand-to-hand combat when their ammo ran out. (I've seen
>at least one report of a trooper from Custer's battalion committing
>suicide rather than suffer the horrors of captivity).
That no doubt happened.
>
>I understand that troopers were somewhat free to supplement their
>army issue weaponry with whatever they preferred. How far was it
>possible to go with this?
No very on $13 a month. They were issued less than 100 rounds a YEAR for
target practice.
I suppose standard issue ammunition would
>have to be compatible with any privately owned guns, or it would be
>necessary to carry all of one's own ammo.
If they could afford it, and the average Trooper preferred to spend his
money on booze and whores.
>
>How would you all choose to be equipped (with period weapons) as a
>trooper at LBH?
I would have preferred more training and target practice *with* my mount
so the animal would be used to gunfire and I would be a better shootist.
John Gross
Just a note about bayonets. Virtually all cavalry carbines, the Sharps,
Spencers, Trapdoor Springfields, etc., did not accept a bayonet. The full
length rifle versions of these weapons were adapted for a bayonet.
However cavalry troopers were usually issued carbines, and not full length
rifles.
John Gross
confe...@worldnet.att.net
David Laro
Linda Terrell <lin...@ibm.net> wrote:
: In <5ma1ov$gu0$1...@news3.texas.net>, David Laro <la...@shell1.texas.net> writes:
: So what's your point?
:
:
: And when are you going to stop being fascinated by your own hubris and
: inject something *constructive* and ON TOPIC into the OLD WEST newsgroup?
<entire lindat post included above>
Oh? Do you mean a constructive post like THIS one from you?
Golly, you're a hard act to follow! Such content, such truth!
I'd say, on reflection, that most of your insults do not really
require a reply. I just found it fun to give you back a little
of the trash you've given anyone who ever dared express an
opinion contrary to yours. Hope you've learned something from
it; even a blind hog finds an acorn once in awhile.
As long as you keep up the tantrum posts like this one, I can keep
up the replies! You consider this a challenge? You should.
Linda Terrell
Dusty Webb
Linda Terrell wrote:
>
> In <5mcgvt$7...@join.news.pipex.net>, g...@dial.pipex.com (George Szaszvari) writes:
> >Linda wrote:
>
> >Question(s): Can anyone say something about Native American traditions
> >in close-quarter combat?
>
> The plains Indians didn't have much in the way of a hand-to-hand
> tradition, although they indulged in wrestling among themselves.
"All the Indians were shooting." Such fighting, though necessary in
defending the camp and killing enemies, was to the Indians "just
shooting." For, to the Sioux warrior, the striking of a blow or "coup"
upon an enemy's person with the hand or something held in the hand was
the most glorious deed a warrior could perform, and his rating depended
upon the number of such coups he could gather. Among the Sioux, four
men might count a coup upon the same enemy in the same fight, and on
that occasion ranked in the order of their striking him. To strike
first was the greatest honor possible and the man who had done that
could wear the Indian's medal of honor-an eagle's tail feather-upright
in his back hair. To shoot or scalp an enemy, to capture his gun or his
horse, were credible, but none of these compared as war honors with the
coup."
> >That many Indians preferred to fight the US Army at a distance
> >might be correct in general for the Plains Indians, but I don't
> >believe that all Indians at all times all over America always
> >fought that way...and they certainly didn't at LBH when their
> >battle tactics were deliberately different: that day, those Plains
> >Indians, previously disposed to the running light cavalry tactics,
> >were set on bringing the fight directly en masse to the US Army.
The Cheyenne camp circle lay farthest north, with four Sioux
circles-Sans Arc, Ogalalla, Minniconjou, Hunkpapa-upstream.
That morning he was out with his grazing ponies about a thousand yards
from the river, trying to keep them together. As usual White Bull
carried his seventeen-shot Winchester and wore two filled cartridge
belts. It was very dry and dusty with little wind, and his horses were
restless, for flies were a plague on the Little Big Horn that summer.
It was not yet time for the midday watering when White Bull heard a man
yelling the alarm. The soldiers are coming. Immediately he jumped on
his best running horse, a fast bay, and ran his ponies back to camp. By
that time he could see the column of dust to the south. First of all
White Bull saw his own family mounted and sent on to safety. Then he
rode as hard as he could the three miles to the camp of his uncle,
Sitting Bull, the Hunkpapa circle, which Reno's troops were
approaching. By the time he reached it, the women and children had fled
and nearly a thousand warriors had gathered to resist the troops.
Already some Sioux had been shot down, and Major Reno's Indian scouts
were running off the Sioux ponies.
> Since the Indians surrounding Reno-Benteen hill never got closer than about 50 yards
> a bayonet wouldn't have done them any good. There was no hand-to-hand with
> Reno's forces -- it was firing from a distance; being picked off by a hail of bullets.
The soldiers fell back to the timber along the river, and soon after
climbed into their saddles and raced away up the river looking for
places to cross.
Said, White Bull, "Then the Indians charged them. They used war clubs,
and gun barrels, shooting arrows into them, riding them down. It was
like a buffalo hunt. The soldiers offered no resistance. I saw one
soldier on a gray horse, aimed at him and fired, but missed. Just then
I heard someone behind me yelling that soldiers were coming from the
east[Custer's force] to attack the north end of the camp where I had
left my ponies.
We all raced downstream together. Some rode through the camps and
crossed the river north of them, but I and many others crossed and rode
up a gully to strike the soldiers flank. After a while I could see five
bunches of soldiers trotting along the bluffs. I knew it would be a big
fight.
> I suspect the numbers of prisoners would be have been
> >much fewer, if any, had the troopers been equipped with a weapon
> >for lethal hand-to-hand combat when their ammo ran out. (I've seen
> >at least one report of a trooper from Custer's battalion committing
> >suicide rather than suffer the horrors of captivity).
"I saw a soldier on horseback left behind; his horse had played out. I
charged him, Crazy Horse following. The soldier heard me coming and
tried to turn in saddle and aim his carbine at me. But before he could
shoot, I was alongside. I grabbed him by the shoulders of his blue coat
and jerked hard to throw him off his horse. He fired in the air,
screamed, and fell from his horse. This was another first coup for me.
Crazy Horse struck this man second." Said Chief White Bull.
"Other soldiers were left afoot. I saw one with Indians all around him,
turning from side to side, threatening them with his carbine to keep
them at a distance. I rode straight at him. When I got close, he
fired, but I dodged and he missed me. Then I rode him down. Bear Lice
counted the second coup."
The air was full of dust and smoke. "Here and there through the fog you
could see a wounded man left behind afoot. I saw one bleeding from a
wound in his left thigh. He had a revolver in one hand and a carbine in
the other. He stood all alone shooting at the Indians. By this time
all the soldiers up the hill had let their horses go. They lay down and
kept shooting."
"The horses turned loose by the soldiers-bays, sorrels, and grays-were
running in all directions. Lots of Indians stopped shooting to capture
these horses."
> >I understand that troopers were somewhat free to supplement their
> >army issue weaponry with whatever they preferred. How far was it
> >possible to go with this?
> >How would you all choose to be equipped (with period weapons) as a
> >trooper at LBH?
A Colt manufactured, multibarreled, hand-cranked machine gun invented by
Richard Jordan Gatling in 1861 would have been my selection.
The original model had six barrels. Later models could have as many as
ten or as few as five. All could be whell- or tripod mounted, and the
gun could be had in the following caliber's; .42, .43, .5, .55, .6, .65,
.70, and 1 inch. The ammunition could be loaded by belt-, clip-, or
drum-fed models. The drum held 400 rounds.
The rate of fire depended on the man at the crank: A man could fire from
400 to 1,000 rounds a minute. Later when it the Gatling gun was
adapted to and powered by electricity it could pump out 3,000 rounds a
minute. The Gatling gun was the fastest firing machine gun until the
1950's.
Custer had four issued to the 7th. As you know, due to the terrain and
his wanting to move fast, he left them behind. People have speculated
and commented as to what the outcome would have been if the four Gatling
guns would have been used when Custer's forces attacked the Indians at
Little Big Horn.
I wonder if there wasn't just onnnneeee guuyyy watching all the Injun's
comin' over the hill,or up the hill, around the corner, or up out of the
gully, that didn't say to himself, "I told him we should a brought them
Gatlin Guns."
White Bull scoffed at the yarns about the soldiers committing mass
suicide. Said he: "The soldiers looked tired, but they fought to the
end. There were few cartridges left in the belts I took off the
soldiers." They were brave men.
Such fighting as we did that day was necessary. They [the soldiers]
attacked us. We were defending the camp and killing our enemies.
"Ho Hechetu! That was a fight, a hard fight. But it was a glorious
battle, I enjoyed it. I was picking up head-feathers right and left
that day."
--
Excerpts from "The man who killed Custer" by Stanley (1932)
John Gross
g...@dial.pipex.com (George Szaszvari) wrote:
>
>This is a controversial point. Panzeri is outspoken about the claim
>that the carbines DIDN'T jam...but I've read several reports stating
>those carbines more than likely did jam, broken blades to unjam the gun
>breeches on the battlefield being the evidence. Did the heat and dust
>jam them? Why did the carbines in Custer's battalion jam and not those
>on Reno Hill. Perhaps the hurriedly successive attempts to fire, reload,
>fire, etc, did the damage. Any carbine experts out there?
>
Considerable information on this can be found in: "Archaeolgical
Perspectives on the Battle of the Little Bighorn". The conclusion is that
"Trapdoor" carbines did jam both at Reno Hill and at Custer's location.
This was determined by examining recovered cartridge cases from the
battlefield for signs of being pryed out with a knife or similar object.
It should be noted that recovered Spencer cartridges had a higher failure
ratio than recovered "Trapdoor" cartridges. Quoting the authors from the
book: "That extraction failure did occur is not debatable, but it was not
significant to the outcome of the battle.
The 1872-73 field trials compared the Sharps, Remington, and "Trapdoor"
Springfields. A total of 263,084 rounds of ammunition were fired. The
Sharps had a cartridge failure rate of 3.52%, the Remington 2.86%, and the
"Trapdoor" 1.96%.
John Gross
confe...@worldnet.att.net
Linda Terrell
In <5miihv$jop$1...@soap.uunet.pipex.com>, g...@dial.pipex.com (George Szaszvari) writes:
>In article <338a3...@news2.ibm.net>, lin...@ibm.net says...
>>> Does anyone know where I can find out about
>>>these fighting traditions, i.e., Native American martial arts?
>
>> Library or bookstore.
>
>bookstores. The question was made to pick the brains of aficionados
>on this ng in the hope that somebody knows a specific title, among
>the zillions that exist, that has such info or references buried in
>it. I've already read about much of what others posted in reply, but,
>still, it's all welcome...except replies like yours above...why is
>it necessary to explain all this?
Why is it necessary for you to poijt it out? I gave you an honest answer.
>>>The following extracts from Ittie Kinney Reno's re-write of Major
>>>Reno's own account, published in *Americana* magazine 1912, highlight
>>>the points about the 7th's lack of a personal weapon (discounting a
>>>jammed or discharged rifle as a club) for hand-to-hand combat:
>
>>> ...I desire also to state that my loss would have been less, had
>>>I been provided with some instrument similar to the trowel bayonet.
>>>I am sure, had an opponent of that arm been with my soldiers on the
>>>night of June 25, 1876, he would have given his right arm for fifty
>>>bayonets.
>
>> Since the Indians surrounding Reno-Benteen hill never got closer than
>>about 50 yards a bayonet wouldn't have done them any good. There was
>>no hand-to-hand with Reno's forces -- it was firing from a distance;
>>being picked off by a hail of bullets.
>
>Reno Hill saw more extensive action than any other location at LBH.
>Many LBH books don't even cover the events of June 26
Actuallyu, most of them do. You just haven't read them yet.
as though it
>all ended with Custer's ignominious demise on June 25. The first
>large scale hand-to-hand contact was Reno's dash from the timber
>(where a group of warriors had just moments before crept into Reno's
>position and fired volleys at very close range, splattering scout
>Bloody Knife's brains all over Reno's face). The cavalry "charged"
>up to the top of the hill where "every step of the way Indians
>swarmed around us" [Reno].
Actually, tyhe cavalry "scrambled" Reno called it a "charge" but those left behind
by him in his every man for himself rout say otherwise.
Sgt O'Neill and Lt DeRudio had their
>horses shot from under them and found refuge in thickets whilst
>the battle raged around them: "It was hand-to-hand conflict, both
>Indians and troopers striving to pull each other from their horses,
>after emptying their weapons, and both succeeding, in a great many
>instances." [O'Neill]. DeRudio and O'Neill made it to Reno Hill
>later.
>
>At dawn, June 26, the whole Sioux-Cheyenne force, now completely
>surrounding Reno Hill, launched a terrific onslaught of firepower
>from hundreds of rifles, including many Henrys and Winchesters,
>covering other warriors edging forward. The Indians also kept the
>centre of Reno Hill under a continuous barrage of arrows, as well
>as gunfire, hitting mules, horses and wounded (including amputees).
>The intensity of Indian fire actually increased while all the time
>they came closer to the perimeter lines. Then came the mounted
>charge. In spite of the warning to keep cool, take careful aim,
>some of the Indians got clear into Reno's defence line before they
>were shot or turned aside...trooper casualties were mounting with
>ammo getting very low, too...by now Benteen realized that the
>cavalrymen's position was desperate with another Indian charge
>likely to overrun the defenders. Benteen manoeuvred over to Reno
>and reported: "The Indians are doing their best to cut through
>my lines and it will be impossible to hold it much longer". The
>situation was same all around, with the fighting almost hand-to-
>hand now. One warrior shot a trooper from so close that with one
>plunge forward he touched the body with his short coup stick. The
>man was killed by an alert trooper...then the next mounted charge
>came..but Reno and the officers decided to launch a counterattack
>(on foot) into a ravine to drive back some Indians who were getting
>too close. The counterattack rallied the troopers' spirits. Benteen
>then launched a short charge with the remnants of three companies...
>leaving only one man behind in his pit, crying like a child. When
>the foot charge returned to their defensive position they were
>amazed to find only one casualty: the crying man they'd left behind
>had shot himself. Another counterattack was launched, but water
>became another urgent concern. First some volunteers ventured to
>the river under fire to bring back full canteens. Some made it
>back, some didn't. By now, ammo was scarce, so the men were ordered
>to sit tight with their heads down, hoping for Terry's relief force
>to arrive. The temperature, however, reached 110 Fahrenheit, thirst
>getting to the men and horses, the wounded dying from lack of water,
>so relays to the river had to be organized. (NB the supply packs
>that would have saved quite a few lives had been constantly pilfered
>and heavily depleted during the days before by the civilian scum who
>later testified against Reno at the inquiry)
But there wan't any water in the supply packs.
Another Indian charge
>was expected soon, but first there was a noontime lull. The creeping
>up of the Indians to the perimeter and cavalrymen's counterattacks
>to drive them back continued, but with the number of fighting fit
>men diminishing, ammunition virtually gone, the troopers began to
>despair.
Hundreds of packs of ammo virtually gone!? Nearly 50,000 rounds almost gone?
Damn poor fire control.
One more charge of the thousands the Indians still had would
>have finished the troopers off easily, but, instead, the Indians
>gradually lifted the pressure and withdrew! Terry's column had been
>spotted some distance off and Sitting Bull thought it prudent to
>withdraw.
Indians were cost effective -- they did not take loses if they did not have to.
Surrounding Reno's men at a distance, letting them die of thirst was what they
primarily had in mind.
Gracious, George, now tell me something new.
>
>Sources: Mari Sandoz; OW Reno (inc Major Reno's accounts);
>EA Brininstool (eye-witness testimonies of Capt. Benteen,
>Lt Varnum, Sgt O'Neill, Trooper Slaper, et al, an essential
>book for any LBH student);
Also refer to
Camps' "Custer in 1876" and Graham's collections; the Benteen Goldin Letters
and "Camp Talk" Benteen's letters to his wif, inw hich he tell her one thing then
later tell the Reno Inquiry quite another thing.
P Panzeri.
>
>It's pretty obvious to me why Reno mused about how an infantry
>weapon like the bayonet would have been desirable on Reno Hill
Except the Indians never got that close and had little intention of getting close
enough for hand-to-hand -- it was so much easier and cost effective to sit
back and let thirst do their work for the
And that is attested to in Indian testimony.
David Laro
Linda Terrell <lin...@ibm.net> wrote:
: In <5m9vcf$ddu$2...@news3.texas.net>, David Laro <la...@shell1.texas.net> writes:
: >Yes, John. So did I. Here's a good example of the level of maturity
: >of some of the posts.
: So, when are you going to talk ON TOPIC about the OLD WEST?
:
Let's try this approach with you and see if you are able and willing to
respond:
KEY QUESTION: What is the OLD WEST for you?
(sub-questions:)
Is it geographic?
Is it a period of time?
Is it (apparently) only the LBH massacre (or failure to communicate?)
How do frequent posts about GACuster's Civil War exploits relate to
the OLD WEST?
How did your recent post which revealed to the casual reader that
I made you glad you "never had children" and how do you relate your
childless condition to the topic of OLD WEST?
To conclude, why is it acceptable for YOU to post anything you choose, but
you seem to feel it necessary to try to hold others true to the topic?
I have asked a few questions, some of which even pertain to OLD WEST.
Now for personal privilege: You appear (to me) to be unhappy. While I
may be sorry for you, I am not going to accept your continued insulting
posts without response. The post you replied to, above, was not
even addressed to you, yet you felt it essential to break in with another
"off topic" charge.
While I try to stay within the bounds of decency, merely responding to
your posts (example mentioned above) may seem to go beyond. that is
not my intention.
You are invited to respond to each point above. Since none of them can be
answered from a book on the LBH, I realize that handicaps you.
I'm hoping you'll not merely try to call me names again, or accuse me of
calling you names. I invite you to look closely and see if I have,
indeed, called you any names here. I have not. I have asked questions
and made specific reference to your recent posts in which you mentioned me
by name such as the one where, in your words, "Laro makes me glad I never
had children."
Now, was that really necessary or on topic? Are personal insults
okay for you, but inappropriate and off-topic for everyone else?
You seem to genuinely enjoy defending Custer with every supporting
reference you have at your disposal, while ignoring any negative points,
and "taking down" or attacking anyone who dares mention your apparent
extreme bias/peculiar attachment.
I've tried to bring up another CW make-believe <brevet> general, old
Ranald McKenzie and never saw any response from you. He was an effective
officer who really ended the Indians Wars (whether or not one believes
that was the thing to do) but he seems to be sadly lacking in mention.
No, you seem to insist on spending all the bandwidth on a flambuoyant
LtCol who failed spectacularly in one of his few attempts to fight
Indians.
Was it the very spectacle of his failure which makes him the obligatory
topic of almost every post? Was it that so little was written about "Bad
Hand" McKenzie that no one really cared, while the widow of GAC was busy
proving "the pen may, really, be able to defeat the sword?"
Amazing, the value of publicity.
Okay, this may be off the topic of OLD WEST, but in recent Texas
historical novels, the one called "True Women" became a big flashy CBS
mini-series while a much better written book, meticulously researched and
historically accurate (from my perspective) by Elizabeth Crook was
totally ignored by all. "Promised Land" by Crook, is a great book about
the Texas Revolutionary period of 1835-6 which was lost in the publicity
surrounding "True Women." The "True Women" author hired the same agent
that Alex Haley used, so it would appear that some folks have the gift!
Others do not.
and I rarely (never) read novels unless there is some compelling reason
to do so...these were both recommended to me as "great history." One was;
the other was not so much history as a great yarn.
Another confession: Linda, I have as many books as you, probably more, but
not on the same topic. My favorite period is early Texas, Pre-Spanish,
colonial, Republic, certainly pre-statehood.
The CW is something I try to avoid. Yes, like the plague. It, like the
plague, can be contagious, I understand. It appears here that one single
battle by a former CW officer has so infected some folks that evidence of
"terminal" bleeding is seen here daily. I would gladly give away all my
books on the LBH martyr if I didn't think I'd need them someday -- for
something ( maybe to start a fire?)
The only reason I began to read OLD WEST was because of the romantic
fiction I grew up reading. Zane Grey was a particular favorite of my
boyhood days. I found, here on OLD WEST, an ongoing argument on the LBH
in which you ruled supreme, countering every conflicting opinion with a
"PROVE IT or SHUT UP, you Hollywood Historian!" reply.
Okay, so you have a lot of books on the topic and you can probably prove
any point you choose (either way you choose, too!) You seem to assume
that gives you the right to rule, to be rude, to bully others who have
opinions which may not be as sophisticated as yours. I disagreed.
I still do. I took a few cheap shots at you to get that point across. I
think I succeeded, but you will no doubt disagree. Readers?
If there are not at least a few folks who agree with me, I'll be
very surprised. At any rate, I've wasted way too much time reading
and responding to this useless thread. I find that if the topic of LBH
does not interest me, this newsgroup is really pretty barren, as the
other gentleman (Dusty?) said.
And George, can you recall a single post in which I called you any names?
I think not.
With this closing post, I'll probably take this newsgroup out of my
menu. It is really pretty limited in scope and of little interest to any
outside a very limited circle.
As some of you know, I do respond positively and promptly to like private
mail.
If anyone has anything to say publicly, I'll be around for a few more
days to read it. After that, like the song says, "Goodnight, Irene!"
David
Linda Terrell
>
>Reno Hill saw more extensive action than any other location at LBH.
>Many LBH books don't even cover the events of June 26, as though it
>all ended with Custer's ignominious demise on June 25. The first
>large scale hand-to-hand contact was Reno's dash from the timber
>(where a group of warriors had just moments before crept into Reno's
>position and fired volleys at very close range, splattering scout
>Bloody Knife's brains all over Reno's face). The cavalry "charged"
>up to the top of the hill where "every step of the way Indians
>swarmed around us" [Reno]. Sgt O'Neill and Lt DeRudio had their
>horses shot from under them and found refuge in thickets whilst
>the battle raged around them: "It was hand-to-hand conflict, both
>Indians and troopers striving to pull each other from their horses,
>after emptying their weapons, and both succeeding, in a great many
>instances." [O'Neill]. DeRudio and O'Neill made it to Reno Hill
>later.
With the help of "civilian scum" George Herendeen who saved their lives by helping
keep them hidden over night.
Other "civilian scum" fought along side the soldiers. It was "civilian scum"
sharpshooters at Rosebud that helped save Crook's butt.
But by in large, civilian packers tended to be pretty scummy.
>later testified against Reno at the inquiry). Another Indian charge
>was expected soon, but first there was a noontime lull. The creeping
>up of the Indians to the perimeter and cavalrymen's counterattacks
>to drive them back continued, but with the number of fighting fit
>men diminishing, ammunition virtually gone, the troopers began to
>despair. One more charge of the thousands the Indians still had would
>have finished the troopers off easily, but, instead, the Indians
>gradually lifted the pressure and withdrew! Terry's column had been
>spotted some distance off and Sitting Bull thought it prudent to
>withdraw.
>
>Sources: Mari Sandoz; OW Reno (inc Major Reno's accounts);
>EA Brininstool (eye-witness testimonies of Capt. Benteen,
>Lt Varnum, Sgt O'Neill, Trooper Slaper, et al, an essential
>book for any LBH student); P Panzer
From "Custer in '76" Walter Camp's Notes on the LBH Fight, edited by Dr Kenneth
Hammer.
Walter Camp spent nearly 20 years near turn of century finding every survivor of
LBH, white and Indian, he could and interviewing them. He got many interesting
observations then because the indimidation factor was gone -- no one had to
answer to anyone anymore.
Pvt. John McQuire Co. C. was with pack train
"Reno's Scout was oaut 12 days. Two Gatling guns along. There were a
few infantrymen with Gatlings. At some of the ravines, had to unlimber guns
and unhitch the horses and haul over by hand. Pased over very rough ground
At one time men lifting and pulling guns got tired and gave up and other men
had to be sent back to get them up. They were abandoned only temprarily
at any time. Never were abandoned with thought of leavint them."
((well it would be difficult to explain to Congress why several expensive
Gatlings were abandoned when the regiment wasn't being presssed LT))
Winfield Edgerly, 2nd Lt. Co D
"On Reno's scout up Powder and across to Rosebud, he had officer Lowe and
20th Inf. with battery of 2 Gatlings along. These were abandoned once on the
trip because of rough country; later recovered and this may have had some
influence with Csuter not to take them along. When Custer advised against
taking them along Lowe wept (or almost cried). In regard to Gatlings,
[Edgerly said], it was the feeling with many of the officers that would have
a hard time and did not wish to be encumbered with artillery."
((Varnum, LcLernand, several privates and Cr. Porter all wrote in letters
or journals of constant problems with Gatling not keeping up; of overturning
("upsetting") and breaking poles; of having to be unlimbered to cross ravines;
of hurting several men when they upset. Porter notes 3 men hurt. LT))
Edgerly: "When Indians made charge, Edgerly thought Indians were getting
short of ammo and had resolved on something desperate. Thsi was very
probably for the fighting agter this was desultory and scattering on Indian
side.
((more likely the Indians decided to let thirst do their work for them. This is
mentioned in Indian testimony in Hardorff's books. LT))
Edgerly: "Benteen was really the only officer looking out for the whole
command. . ."
((But he did not order his own Co. H to dig treanches/rifle pits and Co H took
considerable casualties LT))
Luther Hare 2nd Lt.: "In timber, he did not hear any order to retreat."
Later on Reno Hill "Had plenty of ammo -- over 26000 rounds."
Linda Terrell
Thomas McDougall Capt Co B with Pack Train
"Says as soon as he brought pack train up to Reno and reported, Reno
apparently paid no attention, as he replied that "Bennie [Lt. Hodgson] is
lying over there." Says that when he arrived with pack train all was quiet with
Reno's and Benteen's men and one would not have imagined that a battle
had been fought. No line had yet been formed and so he [McDougall] imme-
diately threw out a skirmish line. Had Indians appeared suddenly at this
time, they could have annihilated the whole 7 cos."
"Right away he heard firing and asked Godfrey if he heard it. Godfrey, who
was deaf (hard of hearing) said he believed he did. McDougall then said: I think
we ought to be down there with him, and went up to where Reno and Benteen
stood talking and expressed to them the same opinion. Reno did not appear
to regard the seriousness of the stiuation.
How long on Reno Hill before command of Reno started out to find Custer"
"One and a half hours." How long after he came up did Reno attempt to
open up communications with Custer? Reno said -- at Inquiry -- that he did
as soon as McDougall got all of his pack up. McDougall says "waited some
time after this."
McDougall said to Benteen that Reno was doing nothing to put the command
on the defensive and that he (Benteen) being the senior Captain had better
take charge. . .When he (Benteen) saw that Reno was thoroughly incompetent
to handle the situation, he did finally take hold and practially, if not formally,
command the whole situation. He kept watch of Reno, going over frequently
to where Reno was lying and when he (Benteen) saw the need of action any-
where about the lines, he either suggested what should be done or else ordered
it done.
DeRudio, 1st Lt. Co A
Says he did not hear bugle calls in timber, either. Lt McVeigh told him to
leave the timber. when he got to open plain he saw Reno and nearly the
whole battalion in full retreat.
Frederic F. Gerard -- interpreter with Custer speaks of the Inquiry
"When I got to Chicago, Reno sent for me and treated me very hospitably and
had me talk with his lawyer. This fellow tried to pick out of me what I was going
to testify to but I talked only in general terms. Afater awhile Reno came in
and Gilbert said to him in an undertone "This man is all right; he knows nothing
that is damaging." After I got on the satand, I told some things that did not
set very well with them and Gilbert tried all manner of tricks, to get me to
contradict myself and at times our tilts at each other were rather bitter. I
understood from inside sources at the time that much that passed between
us was not going to be permitted to go on record.
"after I came off the stand, a commissioned officer of the 7th Cavalry with
whom I was on very friendly terms, who was at the LBH, took me aside and
said "Gerard, I want to congratulate you for telling the truth so fearlessly and
for maintaining your story unshaken. When I go on the stand I will tell them a
few things that I know." Shortly after this he and I were together when a
porter came up with a note which he opened and later said: "An invitation
to a champagne supper.." I said "Yes, and it will also be a blanket for you."
In due course he was called as a witness and I heard his testimony and
on meeting him later I said "Well I noticed that when they got you on the stand
you were not as well informed as you intended to be" and he replied "Well,
Gerard, they have got the whip over us; they have some things in the pigeon
holes that could be used to make me feel rather uncomfortable and I thought
there was no use trying to stand against the whole gang by myself."
((interesting to note that the few officers who might have stood together
were not "invited" to testify: French, Gibson; Weir had conveniently died. Knipe
was not called and he was sent with a message for the pack trains to hurry
up across country and should they meet Benteen he should hurry up too LT))
Gerard said the general understaind among all whom he talked with confi-
dentially was that any officer who made himself obnoxious to the defense
would incur the wrath of certain officers in pretty high authority in certain
department hq farther west than Washington and not as far west as St. Paul
((this sounds like allusions to Sheridan and/or Sherman and perhaps Terry LT))
There was much wining and dining all the time the trial was going on and he
(Gerard) knew the whole object was to compromise certain of the witnesses.
Before the trial began he and Dr. Porter and certain of the officers were
called into a room to talk over what information they could give on certain
points. Dr. Porter admitted that he could testify thus and so in reference to
certain pertinent questions but said he hoped he would not be called upon to
do so.
"The trial had not proceeded far before it came to be known among the
witnesses, including commissioned officers, some of whom were outspoken to
me in confidence, that the way of the innocent and truthful could be made
hard. It was amusing therefore, to see how badly some of the memories had
failed in the space of less than three years since the battle. It was made the
business of certain ones active for the defense to get hold of all the doubt-
ful witnesses before they were called and entertain them well. On such
occasions they were cautiously sounded and discreetly primed."
Linda Terrell
In <5miihv$jop$1...@soap.uunet.pipex.com>, g...@dial.pipex.com (George Szaszvari) writes:
>In article <338a3...@news2.ibm.net>, lin...@ibm.net says...
>>> Does anyone know where I can find out about
Plains 1738-1889 Anthony McGinnis
Warrior societies: These "men's clubs" organized the warrior's social life and
raiding activities. The societies were age-graded so as a man grew older and
more adept at war or eventually retired from war, he graduated to a higher
group or his club moved up all together. In most tribes the active life of raiding
started around 15 or 16 and continued on to the late 30's, or longer if the man
had no son to carry on his his place.
The military societies provided a key element in the competative nature of
warfare because they usually made up their own war parties and tried to exceed
the military accomplishments of rival societies.
Warfare among Cheyenne, Sioux, Arapaho and Pawnee:
"Though few in number, massacres occurred when a small camp or hunting
party fell prey to a vastly superior force. Inconclusive battle with few casualties
often fought outside villages, were more typical. At dawn on any given day,
several hundred warriors might suddenly appear. Women getting water from the
river often became unlucky victims. To count coup was the most important war
honor, no matter on whom it was counted -- man, woman, or child. Likewise,
fair odds in the European sense had nothing to do with proving one's courage as
long as the warrior took a risk by attacking an enemy at close quarters.
"The warriors hurled insults back and forth and called the other side's women
ugly. Harangues of bravado, followed, accompanied by sporadic firing. The men
accompanied the jeers with derisive, insulting hand and arm gestures popular
with soldiers in all cultures at all times ((Indians were particularly fond of
mooning an enemy, even slapping their own bare bottem as a dare LT))
"In tribal warfare, men usually increased their statues the more challenging
their enemies."
((which is why today's Amerindians do their ancestors a disservice by belittling
Custer -- this makes their ancestors' victory paltry LT))
George Szaszvari
In article <338e3...@news2.ibm.net>, lin...@ibm.netN says...
>>Believe it or not, Linda, I already, duh, know about libraries and
>>bookstores. The question was made to pick the brains of aficionados
>>on this ng in the hope that somebody knows a specific title, among
>>the zillions that exist, that has such info or references buried in
>>it. I've already read about much of what others posted in reply, but,
>>still, it's all welcome...except replies like yours above...why is
>>it necessary to explain all this?
> Why is it necessary for you to poijt it out? I gave you an honest
> answer.
Ummm, yeesss...whatever you say, Linda.
>>Reno Hill saw more extensive action than any other location at LBH.
>>Many LBH books don't even cover the events of June 26
> Actuallyu, most of them do.
I said *MANY*. Notice the difference between this word and the one
you used, *MOST*, which says 51% or more. That could still leave
very MANY, i.e., up to 49%, believe it or not...
>You just haven't read them yet.
And , of course, you couldn't possibly mean that YOU have read MOST
of them, therefore your "superior" knowledge shouldn't be challenged :-)
You might be more than a little surprised, Linda. Thirty-five years
ago I read a great deal about the Old West, including LBH, perhaps
something that even you haven't read...but that was a long time ago
and I'm having to do a lot of memory jogging in my current catching
up. The vast number of cursory chapters or sections in the thousands
of popular Wild West and general history books out there, as well as
some of the more serious studies, don't discuss the action of June 26.
Panzeri, for instance, just gives a few lines to say the Reno Hill
events of June 26 were of no consequence. The eye-witness comments
of those on Reno Hill tell another story.
Aah, I forgot... since Custer was gone, everything after becomes
insignificant ;-)
>>Bloody Knife's brains all over Reno's face). The cavalry "charged"
>>up to the top of the hill where "every step of the way Indians
>>swarmed around us" [Reno].
>
> Actually, tyhe cavalry "scrambled" Reno called it a "charge" but
>those left behind by him in his every man for himself rout say otherwise.
The quotation marks I put around "charge"? I wonder why I put
them there?
>>so relays to the river had to be organized. (NB the supply packs
>>that would have saved quite a few lives had been constantly pilfered
>>and heavily depleted during the days before by the civilian scum who
>>later testified against Reno at the inquiry)
>
> But there wan't any water in the supply packs.
There was fruit, besides other saliva inducing foodstuffs (and
possibly other liquids and medicinal items?).
>Another Indian charge
>>was expected soon, but first there was a noontime lull. The creeping
>>up of the Indians to the perimeter and cavalrymen's counterattacks
>>to drive them back continued, but with the number of fighting fit
>>men diminishing, ammunition virtually gone, the troopers began to
>>despair.
> Hundreds of packs of ammo virtually gone!? Nearly 50,000 rounds almost
> gone? Damn poor fire control.
Correctly observed. Though not really germane to the discussion about
your *never closer than 50 yards* claim, yes, *virtually gone* is,
I admit, my exaggeration of Mari Sandoz' references for the troopers
necessity to conserve ammo (because they didn't know when the relief
column would arrive, if ever). My mistake, but the detail doesn't
affect the point about distance one iota.
BTW why do you think Reno made the comment about bayonets?
(bearing in mind the quote comes from a later re-write by
Ittie Reno and isn't necessarily completely reliable).
Steve Grimm
Linda Terrell wrote:
>
>From :Couinting Coup and Cutting Horses" Intertribal Warfare on the >Northern Plains 1738-1889 Anthony McGinnis
Now there is a book I will have to find!!!!!
John Gross
g...@dial.pipex.com (George Szaszvari) wrote:
>In article <338D13...@huh.dimensional.com>, sgr...@huh.dimensional.com
>says...
>> Another Hollywood blunder.....his name was John
>>'Jeremiah' Johnston.....not Johnson.
>
>Is this really Hollywood's fault? Didn't the spelling of names "mutate"
>pretty often in those days anyway? I've seen variations, too
>
I often see it spelled as "Johnson". _Firearms of the American West,
Volume II_, has it as "Johnson". _Hawken Rifles, the Mountain Mans
Choice_, has it "Johnson (Johnston)".
I believe both are generally accepted, and more importantly, we all know
who is being discussed.
John Gross
confe...@worldnet.att.net
Linda Terrell
>>You just haven't read them yet.
>And , of course, you couldn't possibly mean that YOU have read MOST
>of them, therefore your "superior" knowledge shouldn't be challenged :-
I never said don't challenge me. I said be prepared for me to answer a
challenge.
>You might be more than a little surprised, Linda. Thirty-five years
>ago I read a great deal about the Old West, including LBH, perhaps
>something that even you haven't read.
and I've been reading about it for the last 35 years.
.but that was a long time ago
>and I'm having to do a lot of memory jogging in my current catching
>up. The vast number of cursory chapters or sections in the thousands
>of popular Wild West and general history books out there, as well as
>some of the more serious studies, don't discuss the action of June 26.
>Panzeri, for instance, just gives a few lines to say the Reno Hill
>events of June 26 were of no consequence. The eye-witness comments
>of those on Reno Hill tell another story.
Which is why I like the Camp notes -- he gets things out of the eyewitnesses
*after* the Inquiry when they weren't feeling intimidated.
>
>Aah, I forgot... since Custer was gone, everything after becomes
>insignificant ;-)
If that is what YOU wish to consider. I do not. You don't do "cute" very
well.
>>>Bloody Knife's brains all over Reno's face). The cavalry "charged"
>>>up to the top of the hill where "every step of the way Indians
>>>swarmed around us" [Reno].
>>
>> Actually, the cavalry "scrambled" Reno called it a "charge" but
>>those left behind by him in his every man for himself rout say otherwise.
>
>The quotation marks I put around "charge"? I wonder why I put
>them there?
I was detailing it for the lurkers.
>>Another Indian charge
>>>was expected soon, but first there was a noontime lull. The creeping
>>>up of the Indians to the perimeter and cavalrymen's counterattacks
>>>to drive them back continued, but with the number of fighting fit
>>>men diminishing, ammunition virtually gone, the troopers began to
>>>despair.
>
>> Hundreds of packs of ammo virtually gone!? Nearly 50,000 rounds almost
>> gone? Damn poor fire control.
>
>Correctly observed. Though not really germane to the discussion about
>your *never closer than 50 yards* claim, yes, *virtually gone* is,
>I admit, my exaggeration of Mari Sandoz' references for the troopers
>necessity to conserve ammo (because they didn't know when the relief
>column would arrive, if ever). My mistake, but the detail doesn't
>affect the point about distance one iota.
I didn't say Indians never got closer than 50 yards at Reno Hill. I said in general
durijng fighting in general ont he Plains Indians rarely got closer than a few hundred
yards. At Reno Hill a few of them glot close but they got shot for their efforts.
The rest of them stood off and showered the soldiers with bullets and arrows.
>
>BTW why do you think Reno made the comment about bayonets?
>(bearing in mind the quote comes from a later re-write by
>Ittie Reno and isn't necessarily completely reliable).
IF the Indians had kept getting close, bayonets would have helped
-- the first time. After the first time, the Indians would have stayed back
and played their favorite game -- waiting the army out and letting thirst
do the work for them.
Indians didn't take hits if they didn't have to.
Linda Terrell
In <338f8...@news2.ibm.net>, lin...@ibm.net (Linda Terrell) writes:
>
>>>You just haven't read them yet.
>
>>of them, therefore your "superior" knowledge shouldn't be challenged :-
>
> I never said don't challenge me. I said be prepared for me to answer a
>challenge.
I also said you hadn't read them all YET. And neither have I.
Another one I think you'll like E. Bode's "A Dose of Frontier Soldiering" his
memoirs. Joined the plains army in 1877 and served until 1881. Good look at
the day to day grunt then -- how he saw Indians (hoped he never would but was
smitten by the young women); what they thought of Officers who ripped off
Indians (not much; what the common soldier lived for (beer, paycheck and whores)
Really good read too, Bode writes well.
Linda Terrell
Linda Terrell
In <5ml0uj$ghg$1...@bore.news.pipex.net>, g...@dial.pipex.com (George Szaszvari) writes:
>In article <338b8...@news2.ibm.net>, lin...@ibm.net says...
>George S. asked:
>> I think the troopers would have wanted to be armed with repeaters and/or
>> brass cased cartridges that didn't swell and jam in their chamber and
>> have to be pulled with a kinife tip.
>
>This is a controversial point. Panzeri is outspoken about the claim
>that the carbines DIDN'T jam...but I've read several reports stating
>those carbines more than likely did jam, broken blades to unjam the gun
>breeches on the battlefield being the evidence. Did the heat and dust
>jam them?
Actually, it appears sweat may have been a factor. Troopers carried
their cartriges in a belt or small pouch but the leather was thin and their
sweat soaked into it and created "verigris" (sp?) on the copper casings which
caused them to swell -- sometimes the cartridge couldn't even be put into a
weapon.
It was a factor, but not a significant one. I think later I wrote that I would have
preferrred more marksmanship practice, more practice firing from and around
my horse so the animal wouldn't panic later on. Then too, the army was mroe into
fighting dismounted -- which, of course, wasted one man per every 4 horses.
But some recruits didn't even arrive
until a week or two before the regiment set out in May. and a large chuck of them
walked all the way to the Powder River depot where they were left for lack of
horses to ride. This dropped the regiment strength nearly 100 -- but as they were
pretty raw recruits, it wasn't considered something that would have made a
difference (in fact, it might have created that much more panic and suicides during
the battle)
Why did the carbines in Custer's battalion jam and not those
>on Reno Hill. Perhaps the hurriedly successive attempts to fire, reload,
>fire, etc, did the damage. Any carbine experts out there?
They had access to the pack train ammunition which was sealed and hadn't
been warped due to sweat.
>My own personal preference of personal weapons (as LBH went) would be
>a shotgun and a wakizashi (short Jap side-sword, lethal in slash or
>thrust, light, single or double handed grip, and highly manoeuvreable
>in both open and confined spaces, best personal weapon of its kind)...
>the army issue revolver would be fine. Shotgun and Jap sword?? What
>kind of cavalry trooper would that be, you may well ask...well, that's
>my personal choice on what I know now, not necessarily best for everyone,
>and obviously highly unusual. I'd leave the carbines, etc, to the
>sharpshooters. And anyone who has done any sword work and handled
>a wakizashi will know that it is a magnificently versatile weapon,
>especially in close combat...
Yes, but how well known was this weapon to the average grunt on the Plains
in 1876? And until then, Indians tended not to get close to troopers so
hand-to-hand and/or swordsmanship went by the board.
cheers,
lin...@ibm.net
George Szaszvari
In article <3392d...@news2.ibm.net>, lin...@ibm.netb says...
>>This is a controversial point. Panzeri is outspoken about the claim
>>that the carbines DIDN'T jam...but I've read several reports stating
>>those carbines more than likely did jam, broken blades to unjam the gun
>>breeches on the battlefield being the evidence. Did the heat and dust
>>jam them?
>
> Actually, it appears sweat may have been a factor. Troopers carried
>their cartriges in a belt or small pouch but the leather was thin and
>their sweat soaked into it and created "verigris" (sp?) on the copper
>casings which caused them to swell -- sometimes the cartridge couldn't
>even be put into a weapon.
>>Why did the carbines in Custer's battalion jam and not those
>>on Reno Hill. Perhaps the hurriedly successive attempts to fire, reload,
>>fire, etc, did the damage. Any carbine experts out there?
> They had access to the pack train ammunition which was sealed and
>hadn't been warped due to sweat.
This is all very fascinating Linda, thanks.
>>My own personal preference of personal weapons (as LBH went) would be
>>a shotgun and a wakizashi (short Jap side-sword, lethal in slash or
>>thrust, light, single or double handed grip, and highly manoeuvreable
>>in both open and confined spaces, best personal weapon of its kind)...
>>the army issue revolver would be fine. Shotgun and Jap sword?? What
>>kind of cavalry trooper would that be, you may well ask...well, that's
>>my personal choice on what I know now, not necessarily best for everyone,
>>and obviously highly unusual. I'd leave the carbines, etc, to the
>>sharpshooters. And anyone who has done any sword work and handled
>>a wakizashi will know that it is a magnificently versatile weapon,
>>especially in close combat...
> Yes, but how well known was this weapon to the average grunt on the
>Plains in 1876? And until then, Indians tended not to get close to
>troopers so hand-to-hand and/or swordsmanship went by the board.
Only someone particularly involved in Jap society, probably unusually
well travelled and educated, too, would have known anything about Jap
swordsmanship in those days...perhaps some Western foreigners found
their way into some martial tradition (but Japan has always been very
isolationist and xenophobic) but as I wrote in the original posting,
unfair modern hindsight and knowledge is allowed ;-) so long as the
weapons are period (unlike that Klaus Kinski film where he goes back
in time [to gunslinging Wild West days] to change the future and shoots
down his opponents by using a weapon made in the twentieth entury...
astutely spotted in newspaper archives by the hero who follows him,
etc, etc,). Didn't Custer have Irish pistols at LBH? Hardly Army issue,
eh? I'll bet there were a lot of unusual weapons used out in the Wild
West by all sorts of characters...some stories about odd weapons would
be interesting...anyone out there...
As for the use of the sword at LBH, what about the assault on the
troops at Custer Hill where Sitting Bull claims his warriors didn't
use so much ammo by doing good work with their clubs? How come so
many troopers were taken prisoner (something nobody would ever want
to do voluntarily)? There must have been a point when there was no
time for a trooper to reload before an Indian was burying a tomahawk
(or whatever) into him...and Reno's rush from the timber to the hill
involved troopers and Indians pulling each other off their horses...
"pulling" for goodness sake! Hey, nobody's gonna pull me off my horse
when I'm slicing his arm off or cutting him down with a very sharp
sword! In both those circumstances the sword would have made an
impression.
PS a further note to why Reno said bayonets would have been useful on
Reno Hill: he might have thought the troopers could have pursued their
counterattacks more vigorously and run their way through some of those
Indian positions. The bayonet was effective defensively at Rorke's Drift
when that small British Army detachment held off several thousand Zulus
for a couple of days, and some Civil War aficionados could no doubt
testify to the effectiveness of the bayonet charge when the attackers
actually reached the enemy lines in sufficient numbers. The bayonet is
still standard army issue today.
Linda Terrell
Linda Terrell
In <338F6B...@huh.dimensional.com>, Steve Grimm <sgr...@huh.dimensional.com> writes:
>Linda Terrell wrote:
>>
>>From "Counting Coup and Cutting Horses" Intertribal Warfare on the
>Northern Plains 1738-1889 Anthony McGinnis
>
>Now there is a book I will have to find!!!
It's generally available on the chain stores in the Native American section. I
got my copy at the Custer Battlefield some years ago on the urging of a Crow
Indian. He and I discussed Benteen at some length.
cheers,
lin...@ibm.net
Stacy R. Swain
Hello George:
Just as a side-note, technically, the weapon issued to the Cavalry at
that time was not a 'sword', it was a saber. The navy had swords, they
had a very sharp edge to them for cutting through downed rigging if
necessary. The saber had more of a curve to it and wasn't sharpened.
It was more effective to use it to run someone through, or to break
bones like a club (skulls,arms,etc.) than to kill people outright. It
took more people out of the fight that way. At least that's how it was
'supposed' to work.<G>
Sincerely,
Stacy Swain
Linda Terrell
In <3394A6...@micron.net>, "Stacy R. Swain" <srs...@micron.net> writes:
Looks like the NPS in the person of Gerard Baker is planning more desecration
of the veterans graves at LBH on June 25 against this year. Last year and the
year before a "coup ceremony" was conducted on the mass grave on Custer
in'which "warriors" danced on the grave and smacked the oblelisk with stick and
claimed "coup" This was not only a pathetic desecration of their own ancestors'
acts of genuine bravery counting coup on living enemy, but such a ceremony
never existed! It was made up out of AIM smoke and NPS effluence and paid for
by the taxpayers.
And they plan to do it again this year.
The NPS has also excluded local VFW and Legion Groups from any ceremonies
at LBH on Memorial Day.
This is not the way to promote "harmony and understanding" as Gerard likes to
hide behind.
And Congressmen and Senators should be notified of these tax-subsidized efforts
to promote racism.
cheers,
Linda Terrell
co-editor
LBH/CUSTER BATTLEFIELD ADVOCATE
P O Box 792
Malibu CA 90265
Linda Terrell
>weapons are period (unlike that Klaus Kinski film where he goes back
>in time [to gunslinging Wild West days] to change the future and shoots
>down his opponents by using a weapon made in the twentieth entury...
>astutely spotted in newspaper archives by the hero who follows him,
>etc, etc,). Didn't Custer have Irish pistols at LBH?
They were English Bulldog pistols, so-called because they were designed
to be able to kill those fierce dogs But they weren't British or Irish, they were
American. It was a type of revolver, not a brand.
Hardly Army issue,
>eh?
Officers weren't required to carry Army issue, they could buy whatever
suited them.
From "Custer and his Sporting Rifles" by C. Vance Haynes, Jr. pg 31
"Custer's rifle provides one of the few examples known of what a Springfield
sporting rifle looks like. The first definitive reserach done on those rare arms
published in 1967 by the late Archer L. Jackson Jr. In the National ARchives he
found correspondence indicating that officers could write to the Chief of Ordnance
requesting that a Springfield rifle be altered (sporterized) to their individual speifica-
tions. If approved a letter from the Chief of Ordnance was sent to the Commanding
Officer, Springfield Armory, saying, "You are directed to manufacture and send to
this office as soon as possible one sporting rifle, cal. 50 with fine sights, hair
trigger, and half stock. Select a handsome piece of wood and forward to this
office as soon as possible with report of cost." Official purchase was then made
through the Government arsenal nearest to the duty station of the requesting
officer. "
They were referred to as "sporting rifles" because they were used for hunting
in addition to being a weapon in battle.
The "English Bulldog" revolvers were made by a number of manufacturers and
were a type of revolver, not a brand.
>As for the use of the sword at LBH, what about the assault on the
>troops at Custer Hill where Sitting Bull claims his warriors didn't
>use so much ammo by doing good work with their clubs?
Indians often killed the wounded off with clubs.
How come so
>many troopers were taken prisoner (something nobody would ever want
>to do voluntarily)?
Could you please define what you mean by "so many troopers were take
prisoner"? The LBH Indians claim they took no prisoners. And it was a fact
that the Plains tribes generally did not take male prisoners.
As for the three blackened heads found in the abandoned village -- well the Sioux
were known to their enemies as "Cut Heads" for their old practice of taking heads
rather than scalps (the Cheyenne liked to take fingers and dry them and wear
them). another explanation for the heads is that a couple of Reno's men were
seen being carried into the village when their horses bolted.
Still another "survivor" who was with Custer ended up with Reno (curiously,
about a dozen or more of men known to be with Custer ended up with Reno),
claimed his horse bolted and carried him through the village, whereupon he
continued racing back to Reno, which strikes me as a good a cover as any for
deserting your comrades. It also renders questionable the stories of those
who had been with Custer but ended up with Reno because their horses
gave out" Did their horses give up or did their riders?
The strongest indication that Custer was still alive and in command was
that he was found with his staff around him. Had he been incapacitated the
command would have gone to the senior Captain, Myles Keogh and Custer's staff
primarily his adjutant, Cooke, and his bugler, Voss would have gone over to
Keogh. Keogh was found with his Company about a quarter mile from Last Stand
Hill, behind the ridge.
What is intersting is the number of men from all five companies found with
Custer. seems to indicate that as one company collapsed, survivors ran to the
next one, until all that was left was the group on top of the Hill. And when that
was overrun, some 25-30 men tried to run to Deep Ravine on foot. This is a
good example of the "internal collapse" that can (and has) occur in the best
of units. Almost anything can set it off and the best of officers and non-coms
can rarely stop it save with the flat of swords, their fists or even shooting them
down (at the ford during REno's retreat, French threatened his own men with
shooting).
Internal collapse is a phenomenon (gone into at some length in Fox's book)
which causes panics and routs and even seasoned veterans will 1. try to run to
any perceived safety (hence why heaps of dead soldiers were often found by their
own machine gun nests, or hoardes of soldiers trying to climb aboard tanks)
or 2. they will throw down their weapon and cringe. Either will get them killed --
but *running* gets them slaughtered. One axiom on the Plains was to never run
from the Indians, that just made them come on harder and more determined.
Running from an enemy seems to arounse a blood-lust. That this collapse is not
uncommon is attested to, indirectly, in "By the Orders of the Great White Queen"
wherein a British officer writes of a crack unit suddenly going beserk with panic
during a relatively minor skirmish with Turks, all apparently because their camp
caught fire. The officer relates finally calming the situation down by resorting to
psysically stopping them and, in some cases, shooting them down. He finished
by musing that the "best General" may not necessarily be the one who wins but
the one who keeps his command intact.
This collapse makes it hard to deply skirmish lines because stressed humans tgend
to group together for safety. Officers and non-coms must walk these lines con-
stantly to keep the men spread out or the line will collapse. This may have
been happening to Reno and surely happened to Custer.
There are signs this collapse was overtaking Reno's command but because they
were *able* to run to "safely" and *regroup", the collapse burned out early.
OTOH, Custer's men had nowhere to run -- the perceived safety was first
Custer's own "fort" atop the hill. When that fell, Deep Ravine became the focus.
But, in fact, when they jumped into it, they couldn't scramble out and were easily
picked off like fish in a barrel. The burial teams reported seeing deep grooves on
the walls of this Ravine from the fingers of the men trying to climb out. I've been
in Deep Ravine (it is the "dowsing rod" of the Battlefield for me. I am very
powerfully drawn to it -- there is more power in it than the top of the Hill). and
it is indeed steep and one ends up on hands and knees trying to negotiate it.
There must have been a point when there was no
>time for a trooper to reload before an Indian was burying a tomahawk
>(or whatever) into him...and Reno's rush from the timber to the hill
>involved troopers and Indians pulling each other off their horses...
they pulled the stragglers from their horses.
>"pulling" for goodness sake! Hey, nobody's gonna pull me off my horse
>when I'm slicing his arm off or cutting him down with a very sharp
>sword! In both those circumstances the sword would have made an
>impression.
It would only have made the Indians back off and keep up a fire from
out of range.
>PS a further note to why Reno said bayonets would have been useful on
>Reno Hill: he might have thought the troopers could have pursued their
>counterattacks more vigorously and run their way through some of those
>Indian positions.
all well and good, but since Indian warfare had proven to be 98% hit and
run, time was not expended on training with sword or bayonet. And fighting with
a sword from horseback is not a simple matter of slashing the weapon about --
you can cut yourself and your horse. That much I've learned from being the
photographer for a local CW Cavalry reenacting unit.
Well, I've certainly provided Laro with enough fodder for yet another one
of his 10-15 screen tomes on my "fixation" and his boordom.
cheers,
lin...@ibm.net
George Szaszvari
In article <33997...@news2.ibm.net>, lin...@ibm.netú says...
> Could you please define what you mean by "so many troopers were take
>prisoner"? The LBH Indians claim they took no prisoners. And it was a
>fact that the Plains tribes generally did not take male prisoners.
Those who were decapitated, burnt at the stake or otherwise tortured
to death in or around the Indian camp the night of 25/6. How many died
like that?
> Running from an enemy seems to arounse a blood-lust. That this collapse
is not
>uncommon is attested to, indirectly, in "By the Orders of the Great White
Queen"
>wherein a British officer writes of a crack unit suddenly going beserk with
panic
>during a relatively minor skirmish with Turks, all apparently because their
camp
>caught fire. The officer relates finally calming the situation down by
resorting to
>psysically stopping them and, in some cases, shooting them down. He
finished
>by musing that the "best General" may not necessarily be the one who wins
but
>the one who keeps his command intact.
Such cases are legion. Another example was with the crack German
paratroopers on Crete 1941. A Maori New Zealand unit had run out
of ammo, but rather than surrender, drew there knives and charged
the Germans with a blood-curling Maori war yell which unnerved
the well armed Germans who broke ranks and ran. (watch the All-Blacks
rugby team just before kick-off and you'll get a hint of what I mean).
>>"pulling" for goodness sake! Hey, nobody's gonna pull me off my horse
>>when I'm slicing his arm off or cutting him down with a very sharp
>>sword! In both those circumstances the sword would have made an
>>impression.
>
> It would only have made the Indians back off and keep up a fire from
>out of range.
Ummm, sure, that's what happened once Reno force reached the top of
the hill and regrouped...but on the way up (before they got to the
top) it was a hand-to-hand melee...I reckon I might well have put a
few Indians out of action by the time I'd gotten to the top, etc,
etc...didn't Custer's force get jumped in the deep ravine with some
men being pulled from their horses? (I know most were shot),,
>>PS a further note to why Reno said bayonets would have been useful on
>>Reno Hill: he might have thought the troopers could have pursued their
>>counterattacks more vigorously and run their way through some of those
>>Indian positions.
>
> all well and good, but since Indian warfare had proven to be 98% hit
>and run, time was not expended on training with sword or bayonet.
Sure, we know this already...why do you insist on parroting the same
old thing ad nauseam? The point is, this thread is about musing in
retrospect what we might have liked as weapons in certain situations
that occurred at LBH, not throughout a century of Indian Wars (even
then I'd have liked my sword with me for whenever anyone got close
enough)...but enough of that....why not comment on my choice of
shotgun over carbine? Don't you find that controversial?
> And fighting with
>a sword from horseback is not a simple matter of slashing the weapon
>about you can cut yourself and your horse. That much I've learned
>from being the photographer for a local CW Cavalry reenacting unit.
Naturally, an untrained swordsman would be dangerous to anyone or
anything around him (or her) ;-). I'm talking about well trained
people. Even Geronimo (Arizpe 1858) had to throw away the sabre he
picked up because it was strange to him; he reverted to the familiar
knife to finish that last Mexican off.
In my younger years I moved in circles where kendo, iaido
and aikido were practised, as well as knowing some fencing (rapier,
epee, etc) instructors and witnessing and discussing lessons for
comparison...I even trained in some Jap fencing routines (iaido and
aikido) myself over the years (and etiquette is much more
strictly enforced in a Jap febcing dojo than the gun club I've
been to here...inexperienced people are not normally allowed to
handle a real sword until some training with mock weapons: they're
very likely to seriously injure themselves, not to mention anyone
else). As an aside, it's interesting to know that during the
Napoleonic Wars more British were dying from the typical thrust
wounds they received than French from the more typical slash wounds...
thus the details in weaponry and training were reviewed by the
British Army.
crow.l...@gmail.com
michael-patrick