Battle of the Little Big Horn...................

[Nick Riviezzo]

Thanks Fred, I see now I misread the post. You're the GENT!. Nick

[Bill F]

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/histor...n-Was-Won.html
Interesting take on the fight.

[Shooter5]

Much of those accounts and literature has been available for a very long time for those that cared to look into it. That many didn't or haven't has more to do with with attitudes and prejudices. More recent oral history accounts from American Indian families has also come to the public over the years that has also been informative.
When Dr Fox's research was released it also tended to cause a controversy among those who had sacred cows vulnerable to barbecue.

http://www.amazon.com/Archaeology-Hi.../dp/0806129980
Thought rant:
One element of past prejudice that continues to linger and still amazes me is the provincial attitude that borders on obsession is the pre-occupation with transliterating American Indian names into English - and all too often to the detriment of the actual meaning of the name which is either lost in translation or the subtle explanation of it cannot quickly be described to another cultural-linguistic group. No other ethnic-cultural groups get this treatment from Americans, both past and present. It would be as if we took every non-anglicized name in US history and systematically altered it to suit our perceptions. How about we take Admiral Yamamoto's name and transliterate it into say, "son of samurai warrior" and then forever after refer to only that as his name. No, I say. That is incorrect and inaccurate by all available standards to include decency. A man's name is his name and ought not to be trivialized. I.e., 'Sitting Bull' is not and never was 'Sitting Bull'; his name was and is Tatanka iyotanka. The same holds true for all those others who were (and many still are) are almost never known by their true names. (Yes, I am aware that during his lifetime anyone and nearly everyone outside of the American Indian language groups referred to him as such but that didn't make it right, then or now.)

[GarandinSD]

I was just at the Little Bighorn Battlefield last monday (July4). My first trip there. Although I have read alot about the battle over the years, and looked at the pictures etc, I was not prepared for how rugged the landscape is between Custer's final position and the hill top where Benteen and Reno were dug in. Then consider that Custer's command had been on the march for quite a while and his horses had to be in less than excellent shape. Grain fed and pampered, stabled cavalry mounts tended to not fair well on extended duty. During the civil war this was not too much of a problem as remount depots allowed troops to return worn down horses and get fresh ones. Not so on the frontier. In addition to the excellent discussion above that supports the notion that Custer was probably out gunned by his opponents, he was probably not as well mounted either.
I had my wife and 13 year old grandson with me and by the time we got over to Benteen/Reno hill, it was getting pretty warm. My grandson was looking for water. The perfect "teachable moment". We had a discussion about how those soldiers had to lay in their shallow fighting holes, or behind a dead horse for two days with little or no water. I think it may have gotten his attention.

[Bill D]

I was just at the Little Bighorn Battlefield last monday (July4). My first trip there. Although I have read alot about the battle over the years, and looked at the pictures etc, I was not prepared for how rugged the landscape is between Custer's final position and the hill top where Benteen and Reno were dug in. Then consider that Custer's command had been on the march for quite a while and his horses had to be in less than excellent shape. Grain fed and pampered, stabled cavalry mounts tended to not fair well on extended duty. During the civil war this was not too much of a problem as remount depots allowed troops to return worn down horses and get fresh ones. Not so on the frontier. In addition to the excellent discussion above that supports the notion that Custer was probably out gunned by his opponents, he was probably not as well mounted either.
I had my wife and 13 year old grandson with me and by the time we got over to Benteen/Reno hill, it was getting pretty warm. My grandson was looking for water. The perfect "teachable moment". We had a discussion about how those soldiers had to lay in their shallow fighting holes, or behind a dead horse for two days with little or no water. I think it may have gotten his attention.

Excellent point about the Seventh's mounts. Government purchasing requirements were for horses of 15-16 hands. These larger animals, although necessary for the heavier loads of the troopers, didn't fare well on short rations. The Indians generally rode ponies of 13-14 hands and they were lean and mean. By the time Custer arrived at the LBH site, his mounts were somewhat used up. It really didn't make much difference, though. Custer was outgunned and definitely out Indianed.

[Doug Douglass]

What is interesting, and may have been mentioned in the last ten pages of posts, is the fact that eight years later after the Little Big Horn in 1884 Frankford Arsenal was still loading 45-70 rounds in copper cases. (I have five) Copper cases are prone to swelling in humity and heat causing the US Springfield trap door rifle to become a true single shot rifle. The copper case would over expand when fired and when the ejector grabbed the rim, being soft copper it would give way. Many of the Custer rifles were noted by the indians to be disabled in this manner.