Cavalry Tactics - Small Units Jan 5, 2013 17:43:33 GMT -5
Post by tunkasila on Jan 5, 2013 17:43:33 GMT -5
Of course the numbers of Indians played a significant part in the outcome that day, but the point is that until that day no army force had faced such numbers, so without precedent there was no reason for any commanding officer of the time to believe that 2,000 warriors wouldn't behave the same as 200.
Hmmm...I think the Indians fielded similar numbers at Kildeer Mountain and its associated fights, and also during the Red Cloud War in their several fights.
Perhaps at Washita there were as many Warriors in the area, outside of Black Kettle's village.
There may have been some earlier Comanche/Kiowa campaigns where there were that many Warriors in the field, but to be sure, the Northern Plains tribes were the most populous of the Army's enemies out there.
Of course, if you consider the ODDS at each fight, rather than the overall numbers, there were MANY fights where the Army won at much worse odds than Custer faced at LBH.
If you consider 2,200 real Warriors at LBH against Custer's 600, that's only 3.7-to-1 odds. Not really that bad, military historically speaking.
Warriors in the field aren't the problem. The problem is warriors defending their families, not a factor in any of the situations you quote. When will you realise the difference between the attitude of raiding war parties of whatever size and warriors obliged to defend camps from attack. The two are entirely different.
Odds are only relevant to the fact that warriors wouldn't attack when the odds were against them.