testtest

Could deer hunters with modern day rifles have made a difference at the Alamo?

Bassbob said:
Nope. His scout Bloody Knife and others warned him. In fact lookout hill, where he spotted the encampment himself from is 14 miles away. How big do you think that camp had t be to be seen easily from 14 miles away ?

I would like to see where you got the information that it has been determined what Custer was thinking though if you have a source ?
Click to expand...
Just sitting here mulling over the question you've posed, it comes to mind just how anyone would/could have known that Custer's scout Bloody Knife had warned him of the opposition's size and strength, unless it happened long before the fight since Bloody Knife was killed along with the rest of the 7th cavalry which must have been the case. Every story I've ever heard is always consistent in that there were no survivors of the 'Last Stand'. But assuming he was told prior to the fight and while back at 'Lookout Hill', it appears he didn't believe them. However, I don't recall Benteen or the other officer reporting that he was told any such.

And it seems likely to me that if he had known the opposing force numbers, It's not likely that he would have split his forces up the way he did prior to the fight. I also do seem to remember something about Custer apparently not believing his own scouts about the size of the opposition if in fact he was told, and even after looking himself was not convinced of the number of warriors. But that he was afraid that whatever the number they would try to break away and he's lose them. And since I'm not the least bit familiar with the land layout around that area, I'm not at all sure of just what he could or couldn't have seen from 14 miles away on 'Lookout Hill'.

I seem to remember an old calculation that a 6' tall man can see approximately 3 miles to the horizon across flat land. So, if they were 14 miles away, and the land is/was pretty rolling as I recall in the story, even sitting atop his horse at say 10', at best he couldn't have see 14 miles. I'll guess real quick somewhere between 3 and maybe 5 miles. So my best guess is that at 'Lookout Hill' he likely couldn't/wouldn't have been able to see the camp at all since plain's Indians never camped on the high ground, but in the lower valleys near their water source.

So I don't know Bob, could be I've been wrong all these years, then again maybe not. It was a long time ago that I heard the story, and even longer since the last stand at the Little Big Horn.(y)
 
jumpinjoe said:
Just sitting here mulling over the question you've posed, it comes to mind just how anyone would/could have known that Custer's scout Bloody Knife had warned him of the opposition's size and strength, unless it happened long before the fight since Bloody Knife was killed along with the rest of the 7th cavalry which must have been the case. Every story I've ever heard is always consistent in that there were no survivors of the 'Last Stand'. But assuming he was told prior to the fight and while back at 'Lookout Hill', it appears he didn't believe them. However, I don't recall Benteen or the other officer reporting that he was told any such.

And it seems likely to me that if he had known the opposing force numbers, It's not likely that he would have split his forces up the way he did prior to the fight. I also do seem to remember something about Custer apparently not believing his own scouts about the size of the opposition if in fact he was told, and even after looking himself was not convinced of the number of warriors. But that he was afraid that whatever the number they would try to break away and he's lose them. And since I'm not the least bit familiar with the land layout around that area, I'm not at all sure of just what he could or couldn't have seen from 14 miles away on 'Lookout Hill'.

I seem to remember an old calculation that a 6' tall man can see approximately 3 miles to the horizon across flat land. So, if they were 14 miles away, and the land is/was pretty rolling as I recall in the story, even sitting atop his horse at say 10', at best he couldn't have see 14 miles. I'll guess real quick somewhere between 3 and maybe 5 miles. So my best guess is that at 'Lookout Hill' he likely couldn't/wouldn't have been able to see the camp at all since plain's Indians never camped on the high ground, but in the lower valleys near their water source.

So I don't know Bob, could be I've been wrong all these years, then again maybe not. It was a long time ago that I heard the story, and even longer since the last stand at the Little Big Horn.(y)
Click to expand...
I've been reading, studying and celebrating that battle since I was old enough to read. Some of Custer's scouts did survive the battle because they didn't actually go down to the encampment. I've been on Lookout Hill ( Crow's Nest). And the camp stretched for something like 2 miles.

And you are correct, he split his forces because he was afraid the Indians would get away. He was told ( erroneously) by scouts that the Lakota had discovered his trail and knew he was there.


"Unknown to Custer, the group of Native Americans seen on his trail was actually leaving the encampment and did not alert the rest of the village. Custer's scouts warned him about the size of the village, with Mitch Bouyer reportedly saying, "General, I have been with these Indians for 30 years, and this is the largest village I have ever heard of. "Custer's overriding concern was that the Native American group would break up and scatter. The command began its approach to the village at noon and prepared to attack in full daylight.

With an impending sense of doom, the Crow scout Half Yellow Face prophetically warned Custer (speaking through the interpreter Mitch Bouyer), "You and I are going home today by a road we do not know."



When it comes to researching the history of the battle it is important to remember that Libby Custer, who was very personable, persistent and persuasive, spent the remainder of her life defending her husband's actions that day and trying to preserve his reputation. And she was very successful. The history of the battle of little bighorn was written by white men, but the true history was passed down generation to generation by Lakota and Cheyenne participants in the way their history has always been recorded. Modern researchers have cross referenced much of the Indian "Lore" with known facts and accounts and a great deal of it has been presented in a way that while the authors/researchers can suggest what they believe to be likely facts, not a lot of it can be actually proven.

In the aftermath of the "Massacre" a whole lot of white men, especially military men chose to defend Custer and the 7th ( hence calling it a massacre) and most people who were living when it happened chose to believe the narrative that Custer was above reproach and was the victim in this confrontation with the savage indians.

We are of course free to believe as we wish, but given the known history of US government and military treaties, wars and general treatment of Indians I personally find it impossible to believe that "Greasy Grass" wasn't 100% an example of an arrogant, glory seeking social climber stepping on his own dick.
 
HayesGreener said:
Kinda like leaving your EDC in the car
Click to expand...


In his arrogance and sheer stupidity his main concern was the indians escaping and denying him his glory.

Considering he ( and others) were known to attack and annihilate indian villages full of women and children, while they were asleep in their lodges, it blows my mind how this is equated with "Glory". Wounded Knee, Sand Creek, these were described by the government and media of the day as battles or squashing of indian uprisings.

Instead of subsequent generations, particularly military men, holding disdain for the indians they slaughtered, they should have been embarrassed and ashamed. There is no honor or glory in anything the US government of cavalry did to those indian women and children.
 
I can tell you that not only I, but my wife also has seen (without ocular magnification) about 30 miles. This was in rolling hills and object in question was a McD's sign. I forgot how this was done, but a meteorologist explained how. I think it had something to do with the moisture in the air? Amarillo to Tulia, Texas is about 55 miles and some days you can see Tulia from Amarillo.
 
TEXASforLIFE said:
I can tell you that not only I, but my wife also has seen (without ocular magnification) about 30 miles. This was in rolling hills and object in question was a McD's sign. I forgot how this was done, but a meteorologist explained how. I think it had something to do with the moisture in the air? Amarillo to Tulia, Texas is about 55 miles and some days you can see Tulia from Amarillo.
Click to expand...
You can see the banks of the Little Bighorn from the "Crow's Nest" with the naked eye. Custer and his men however had the optics of the day with them. And there is 100% no doubt Custer knew it was an extremely large concentration of Indians. Instead of being cautious or concerned however, he saw it as a bigger prize. He was arrogant and stupid.
 
I read a book series I think it was called The Time Warriors back in the '90s.

In one of the books they went back to the Alamo and six guys with M16s turned the course of the whole battle.

After the battle they come back to our time and they look at the history books and find out that 2 weeks after they won the original Battle of the Alamo and left Santa Ana brought up reinforcements and basically massacred the entire Garrison just like what happened in the original history.

The whole point of the story was that some things were just meant to happen.

In another one of the stories one of their team essentially desserts in time and goes back to the Civil War and essentially tells Lee every place where the South is going to screw up and lose the war.

He changes history to where the South wins the Civil War and when the team returns to our present time we find out that the South winning the Civil War cause the Allies to lose the Second World War and Hitler and the Nazis now Run the World.

There's a lesson in there if you look for it.
 
Last edited:
20240526_094054.jpg

Pretty interesting book. One of the things that the author posits is that Custer had a history of beating numerically superior forces armed with Stone Age weaponry by using modern weaponry.

He said it wasn't uncommon and based on that it wasn't as insane as people think it was for Custer to attack the village.

He also debunks the Custer was running for president myth by pointing out that there's not a single person that heard Custer say that and by pointing out that Custer had been offered numerous figurehead jobs that would have made him independently wealthy and turn them all down because he wanted to stay in the Army. Donovan speculates that Custer wanted to defeat the Indians to get promoted.

Donovan doesn't say this but it is also a historical fact that's a Democrats had already picked their nominee for the 1876 elections before The Battle of The Little Bighorn.

I personally believe that if Custer had won at Little Bighorn we wouldn't know his name today.
 
The Night Rider said:
View attachment 58801
Pretty interesting book. One of the things that the author posits is that Custer had a history of beating numerically superior forces armed with Stone Age weaponry by using modern weaponry.

He said it wasn't uncommon and based on that it wasn't as insane as people think it was for Custer to attack the village.

He also debunks the Custer was running for president myth by pointing out that there's not a single person that heard Custer say that and by pointing out that Custer had been offered numerous figurehead jobs that would have made him independently wealthy and turn them all down because he wanted to stay in the Army. Donovan speculates that Custer wanted to defeat the Indians to get promoted.

Donovan doesn't say this but it is also a historical fact that's a Democrats had already picked their nominee for the 1876 elections when The Battle of The Little Bighorn.

I personally believe that if Custer had won at Little Bighorn we wouldn't know his name today.
Click to expand...
Yes I am convinced the arrogant fool was bucking for General
 
T
Bassbob said:
In his arrogance and sheer stupidity his main concern was the indians escaping and denying him his glory.

Considering he ( and others) were known to attack and annihilate indian villages full of women and children, while they were asleep in their lodges, it blows my mind how this is equated with "Glory". Wounded Knee, Sand Creek, these were described by the government and media of the day as battles or squashing of indian uprisings.

Instead of subsequent generations, particularly military men, holding disdain for the indians they slaughtered, they should have been embarrassed and ashamed. There is no honor or glory in anything the US government of cavalry did to those indian women and children.
Click to expand...
There was a reason ‘Ol George was LAST in his class…
 
Bassbob said:
I've been reading, studying and celebrating that battle since I was old enough to read. Some of Custer's scouts did survive the battle because they didn't actually go down to the encampment. I've been on Lookout Hill ( Crow's Nest). And the camp stretched for something like 2 miles.

And you are correct, he split his forces because he was afraid the Indians would get away. He was told ( erroneously) by scouts that the Lakota had discovered his trail and knew he was there.


"Unknown to Custer, the group of Native Americans seen on his trail was actually leaving the encampment and did not alert the rest of the village. Custer's scouts warned him about the size of the village, with Mitch Bouyer reportedly saying, "General, I have been with these Indians for 30 years, and this is the largest village I have ever heard of. "Custer's overriding concern was that the Native American group would break up and scatter. The command began its approach to the village at noon and prepared to attack in full daylight.

With an impending sense of doom, the Crow scout Half Yellow Face prophetically warned Custer (speaking through the interpreter Mitch Bouyer), "You and I are going home today by a road we do not know."



When it comes to researching the history of the battle it is important to remember that Libby Custer, who was very personable, persistent and persuasive, spent the remainder of her life defending her husband's actions that day and trying to preserve his reputation. And she was very successful. The history of the battle of little bighorn was written by white men, but the true history was passed down generation to generation by Lakota and Cheyenne participants in the way their history has always been recorded. Modern researchers have cross referenced much of the Indian "Lore" with known facts and accounts and a great deal of it has been presented in a way that while the authors/researchers can suggest what they believe to be likely facts, not a lot of it can be actually proven.

In the aftermath of the "Massacre" a whole lot of white men, especially military men chose to defend Custer and the 7th ( hence calling it a massacre) and most people who were living when it happened chose to believe the narrative that Custer was above reproach and was the victim in this confrontation with the savage indians.

We are of course free to believe as we wish, but given the known history of US government and military treaties, wars and general treatment of Indians I personally find it impossible to believe that "Greasy Grass" wasn't 100% an example of an arrogant, glory seeking social climber stepping on his own dick.
Click to expand...
Gotta say there ain't much in that last paragraph I would argue!!! I too have reviewed (I won't call it 'studied) the 'Last Stand'. And much of what you've said here is not in total contradiction to anything I said and vice versa. Yes, we can both find some discrepancies, or minor differences, but the fact remains it's "legends old from stories told". (y)
 
TEXASforLIFE said:
I can tell you that not only I, but my wife also has seen (without ocular magnification) about 30 miles. This was in rolling hills and object in question was a McD's sign. I forgot how this was done, but a meteorologist explained how. I think it had something to do with the moisture in the air? Amarillo to Tulia, Texas is about 55 miles and some days you can see Tulia from Amarillo.
Click to expand...
There is a phenomenon called super refraction. It can and sometimes does cause a mirage. It's a bending of light rays that causes mirages, and sometimes will make things appear to float. However they are usually, but not always attributed to conditions of high moisture content in the air.

My point was that even if Custer could have seen the hill tops from 14 miles away, he would not have been able to see the camp in the lower valleys

I truly doubt that was an event during the mid day from 'Lookout Hill'. My stated calcs were simple numbers based on common formulas. But these mirages will only display what could ordinarily be seen normally, they can't lift an object up and out of a valley for instance. One will see the higher points almost as if they were actually visable, but nothing that is normally blocked from normal vision. Think of it like seeing a boat mirage, but you won't be able to see it's anchor. Good point though. (y)jj
 
Onewolf426 said:
funshoot.substack.com

Deer Hunters at The Alamo

What effect would deer hunters with modern rifles have had at The Battle of the Alamo?
funshoot.substack.com funshoot.substack.com
Click to expand...
I've seen on Discovery channel about the Alamo with General Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna with between 1800-6000 men with plenty of cannons against Colonel James Bowie and Lieutenant Colonel William B. Travis with 200 men and a few Kentucky long rifles.

In those days the Kentucky long rifle was a long range killer.
Effective firing rangeVariable, 100 yards typical, to well over 200 yards by an experienced user

However Santa Anna had 3 cannons with plenty of ammo against a compound with a church and a few buildings and a few actually walls.
The real game changer was Santa Anna's two 8-lb cannons and a mortar located 350 yards (320 m) with plenty of ammo to destroy the compound.

Would a modern Deer Rifle make a difference, of course with its long range and more rapid reloading compared to black powder muzzle loader. As a modern Deer rifle with scope should be able to hit Santa Anna on first shot at 320m.
 
jumpinjoe said:
You're probably right on. He demoted from General during the Civil war to Colonel IIRC during the so-called Indian wars and it's been recorder he was very bitter about that.
Click to expand...
No. He was promoted to Brevet Brigadier General and later to Brevet Major General of Volunteers. He knew that neither promotion was permanent

He never held a Regular Army commission any higher than Lieutenant Colonel
 
Shibadog said:
There was a reason ‘Ol George was LAST in his class…
Click to expand...
That's a Myth he graduated number 34 in a class of 108.

One of the things that Donovan talks about in his book is that Custer was a lackadaisical Cadet but he wasn't dumb.

He would get all the way down to his last demerit before expulsion then he would buckle down and not get  any demerits until until he worked them off.
 
Here's an interesting historical fact for you.

At the first battle of Adobe Walls Kit Carson was surrounded by an overwhelming enemy Force and ambushed. He was basically in the same Tactical positions as Custer

BUT he maintained discipline and was able to retreat Under Fire with almost his entire commanded intact.

Everybody remembers the Battle of Little Bighorn nobody remembers the first battle of Adobe Walls, actually nobody remembers the Second Battle of Adobe Walls, the one where Billy Jackson shot in Indian off his horse with a 50-70 Sharps rifle at 1500 yards either
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top