| Author |
 Topic  |
|
|
frankboddn
Major
USA
Status: offline |
 Posted - August 22 2004 : 11:44:34 AM
|
I'm curious. The Indians, after finishing off Custer, could've finished off Reno/Benteen if they'd have wanted to. Why didn't they? Maybe they knew of Terry's approach? They had their victory and didn't want to lose more warriors? I don't know.
But my question has to do with after wiping out Fetterman, and with overwhelming odds, why the heck didn't they go after Ten Eyke? He was within a few hundred yards of them. They could've easily ridden between his position and the fort and cut him off and wiped him out easily. Instead they just sat there and challenged him to come fight. Again, maybe they had their victory and didn't want to lose anymore warriors. I just don't understand the Indian mind. They hated the little fort on the Piney, and had their chance to wipe out another 90 or so--can't remember how many he had with him--and just let him go. I've driven the terrain many times and looks like he was easy pickings. Opinions, please?
|
|
|
joseph wiggs
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - September 19 2004 : 8:34:06 PM
|
That question was asked of Sitting Bull and, several other warriors, regarding their failure to finish off Reno/Benteen. The general consensus was why waste more lives and ammunition when the June heat would make short work of the troopers. It makes sense when you think about it.
The arrival of Terry's command was the determinative factor for their ultimate withdrawal. Despite the media blitz of the 50's, 60's, and 70's, Indian warriors were extremely hesitant to assault fortified positions. This relunctancy may be the answer to the second portion of your question. I am not familiar with Ten Eyke. Could you provide more info regarding his position near the Fetterman Incident? Thanks.
|
  |
|
|
frankboddn
Major
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - September 20 2004 : 11:14:51 AM
|
| Thanks for the info. I can see why Sitting Bull didn't try to finish off Reno Hill. AS for Ten Eyke (sp??) he was only about a mile or so from Massacre Rocks. He was slightly to the southeast of the Indians' position, and the fort was about four miles slightly to the southwest. I've driven by the area many times and observed his position from the rocks, and I've got to believe the Indians could've easily cut him off, intersected him before he could've gotten to the fort. Reno was more fortified by comparison and Sitting Bull would've paid dearly to take Reno Hill. NOt so Ten Eyke. |
|
|
|
joseph wiggs
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - September 29 2004 : 9:50:47 PM
|
| Thanks Frank, you've given me the motivation to learn more about a subject I was totally unaware of. Isn't this forum great?!!! |
|
|
|
hunkpapa7
Lieutenant
United Kingdom
Status: offline |
Posted - November 03 2004 : 6:48:23 PM
|
| I think in Ten Eyks case,he was probarbly lucky,that the indians had there victory.American Indians didn't have the Anglo-American way of fighting as like the cival war,although as you say they could have probarbly taken them,and with the garrison at the fort down to a minimum,having stored the amunition in a pit,and surrounded them with up turned wagons which was to be the last defense. |
wev'e caught them napping boys
Aye Right ! |
|
|
|
BJMarkland
Colonel
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - November 04 2004 : 10:51:34 AM
|
Regarding the failure to follow-up the defeat of Fetterman with an attack on Ten Eyck, A couple of points come to mind.
First, as was said earlier, they had their win, why incur additional casualties? In addition, they had casualties from the Fetterman fight that had to be taken care of.
Second, to attack Ten Eyck, they either would have had to attack frontally, uphill or flank him and cut-off his retreat to the fort. Attacking frontally would have incurred heavy casualties, in my opinion. Cutting off his retreat might have worked but then they would have had an enemy force on both their front and back. Yes, they had superior numbers but Man Afraid was not a neophyte tactician and knew that the lumber train would soon be returning to the fort which would have increased the risk. Also, I believe I read in the inquiry that the soldiers and civilians in Ten Eyck's command believed that the Indians thought they had a howitzer with them.
Best of wishes,
Billy
|
Edited by - BJMarkland on November 04 2004 10:52:12 AM |
|
|
|
frankboddn
Major
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - November 05 2004 : 11:31:47 PM
|
Billy, I think they could've flanked them if they wanted to and not met any resistance or reinforcements from the fort. In the fort, they were holed up, hardly had any horses left and would've left the fort almost defenseless. I think it was just the Indian mentality that they had their victory, so why risk more warriors?quote:
Originally posted by BJMarkland
Regarding the failure to follow-up the defeat of Fetterman with an attack on Ten Eyck, A couple of points come to mind.
First, as was said earlier, they had their win, why incur additional casualties? In addition, they had casualties from the Fetterman fight that had to be taken care of.
Second, to attack Ten Eyck, they either would have had to attack frontally, uphill or flank him and cut-off his retreat to the fort. Attacking frontally would have incurred heavy casualties, in my opinion. Cutting off his retreat might have worked but then they would have had an enemy force on both their front and back. Yes, they had superior numbers but Man Afraid was not a neophyte tactician and knew that the lumber train would soon be returning to the fort which would have increased the risk. Also, I believe I read in the inquiry that the soldiers and civilians in Ten Eyck's command believed that the Indians thought they had a howitzer with them.
Best of wishes,
Billy
|
|
|
|
joseph wiggs
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - November 06 2004 : 3:30:35 PM
|
| I concur! Unlike the media blitz of past decades, the Indian warrior was not prone towards attacking fortified positions. Unlike European style, standing armies replete with professional fighters who are inudated with military discipline, the warriors were motivated by other issues. Whom, why, and how they attacked was often predicated on the exposure of their families. |
|
|
|
frankboddn
Major
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - August 11 2007 : 01:08:14 AM
|
Okay, since I've been in a picture posting kind of mood, here's some from my June trip of the Fetterman rocks, massacre ridge, etc:
This is the monument erected at the southernmost point of Massacre Ridge. The Fetterman Rocks, where he and Brown and others were found, are enclosed in the rock wall you can see:
These are the infamous Fetterman Rocks. If you read the accounts, they said that on these rocks the Indians had placed brains that had been pounded into pudding, along with all sorts of body parts. It was among these rocks that Fetterman and Brown allegedly committed suicide. I think there were also around 40 bodies found around this end of the ridge:
Our group of six walkling Massacre Ridge. The ridge runs maybe half to three-quarters of a mile, and it also follows the Bozeman Trail as it also followed this ridge. For those who haven't been there, there are interpretive signs all along the ridge. This is a do-no-miss place to visit, about 12 miles north of Buffalo, Wy.:
|
|
|
|
joseph wiggs
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - August 11 2007 : 8:32:30 PM
|
| Please stay in a "picture taking mood" forever. Your fantastic photo's have done so much in helping me to visualize a moment in history regarding what actually occurred there. Your pictorial essay has assisted us in experiencing an exceptional moment, a moment when one connects with the past. Thank you so much! Contributions such as yours are always appreciated. |
Edited by - joseph wiggs on August 11 2007 8:36:32 PM |
|
|
|
frankboddn
Major
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - August 12 2007 : 12:13:42 AM
|
You're welcome, Joe. By the way, I'm the big dude in the purple shirt in the picture at Massacre Ridge.
quote:
Originally posted by joseph wiggs
Please stay in a "picture taking mood" forever. Your fantastic photo's have done so much in helping me to visualize a moment in history regarding what actually occurred there. Your pictorial essay has assisted us in experiencing an exceptional moment, a moment when one connects with the past. Thank you so much! Contributions such as yours are always appreciated.
|
|
|
|
joseph wiggs
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - August 12 2007 : 6:25:51 PM
|
Yes, and leading the way like a true leader I see! |
Edited by - joseph wiggs on August 12 2007 6:27:17 PM |
|
|
|
AZ Ranger
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - September 30 2007 : 7:17:49 PM
|
| Frank did you get pictures of the metal Indians silhouettes? |
“ An officer's first duty is to his horses.”
SEMPER FI |
|
|
|
frankboddn
Major
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - October 17 2007 : 8:35:07 PM
|
| AZ, I think at some time or another I've taken pictures. I'm not sure if you mean the one on Lodge Trail Ridge overlooking the Fetterman battlefield or the ones on the Sullivant Hills overlooking the fort. I actually stood next to the ones overlooking the fort and took pictures of me with them as well as the view of the fort. They were 35mm, and I might have put them on a disk. If I did, I'll post them. It's an awesome view looking down at the fort. |
|
|
|
joe wiggs
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - July 08 2008 : 4:45:21 PM
|
| Frank, did you ever get those photo's on disk? we'd sure like to see them! |
|
|
|
frankboddn
Major
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - July 08 2008 : 8:47:54 PM
|
| No, Joe. I need to try to find the negatives and have them put on a disk. Thanks for reminding me. |
|
|
|
joe wiggs
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - July 11 2008 : 8:52:32 PM
|
| What makes this site spectacular are the splendid photos that are submitted by outstanding individuals like yourself. It is so great to be able to see the actual landmarks that comprise this battle. |
|
|
| |
Topic |
|
Why stop with Fetterman?
