Indian numbers at Little Big Horn. Feb 22, 2014 15:16:43 GMT -5
Post by fuchs on Feb 22, 2014 15:16:43 GMT -5
Feb 22, 2014 12:17:56 GMT -5 @fred said:That is not fair, "fuchs," and you should know it by the simple addition of that second sentence. Give the man a break and if you disagree with him, explain why and give your own analysis.
I did give my own analysis (at least linked to it in the post m&m referenced), and as he did invest the time to read the (lengthy) Bray paper, I think I am entitled to the courtesy of at least reading my (much shorter) argument before dismissing it as nonsense.
And m&m clearly showed that he isn't interested in engaging in a constructive argument, just sowing doubt by misrepresenting and/or taking out of context some snippets out of Brays paper and my post.
For the most part, I have accepted your entire argument. The post you quoted was 10 months old and I believe it has been since that time when I changed my opinion and agreed with you... for the most part.
Somehow I think there is still quite a lot of discrepancy between our opinions here. You have agreed on the "15000-16000, or thereabouts" as the most plausible value for the total Lakota population, but I think you are still stuck with unreasonably high numbers for the number of Indians at the LBH, and even more for the number of warriors present and the number active in the fight, with the number of warriors present bordering on "impossible"
That's not saying you didn't change your opinion at all in those parts, but this appears mostly due to your own research, namely your roster of warriors active in the fight and a bit more scrutiny of those various "bazillions of Indians" "estimates"
So where, exactly, have I "recoiled"? If there is any discrepancy or difference between us it is in the number of warriors at the LBH, as a percentage of the whole. Nothing else. I still hold my belief there were as many as 2,500 to 3,000 at the battle or in the vicinity. If memory serves me correctly, that represents about 1/6 the entire Sioux population, inflated by the Cheyenne.
But you seems to have a hard time making the next logical step, a synthesis of the total population data, broken down to the different tribal factions, your warrior roster, and having at least a superficial look at those factions that did stay away from the LBH and their politics and warrior demographics.
The most glaring problem are the Brule. Take them out of the picture, and your "warriors present number" require pretty much every man in the 15-35 bracket of the other "stay at home" factions to be present at the LBH. And your own data very much supports what everything else indicates: next to no Brule at the LBH.
Now if there were next to no Brule at the LBH, how plausible is it that those other "friendly" factions send all their young men to the LBH?
The next biggest faction, the Oglala, had a lot of their prominent warriors "at home", and there was a vicious hostility between their "Northern"/Hostile parts and the treaty faction, which came within a hair's breadth of flaming into major bloodshedding in 1877. Again, quite implausible that most of the warriors of the treaty faction suddenly decided to fall in with their rivals. And at that point we would already have run out of warriors to account for your "3000", and the small tribal divisions aren't yet accounted for.
Your "1/6 of the entire Sioux population" sounds like not a big deal, but those 3000 warriors roughly equals about 8000 Sioux+Cheyenne with their families, plus every other man below about 35 from the not-Brule Lakota factions.
Your "2072" fighting warriors are very much dependent on the assumption of "900" warriors in the valley, and to a smaller part on how representative you warrior sample is exactly.
If the estimates for the total number of warriors present from the participants are biased high, the number for the valley fight would probably have the same problem. And from the above follows that they are likely biased high.
Your warrior sample is probably skewing the result slightly to the high side, too.
On the positive side, the numbers 9000 total, 3000 warriors present, 2000 fighting and the non-Brule reservations drained of warriors are internally consistent, but I contest that they don't quite make the reality check against the wider context.