Talk:Battle of the Little Bighorn
|
|
| Contents |
A horny correction
The battle took place along the Little Bighorn River with "Bighorn" in one word. The US Geological Survey site list the Battlefield site as "Bighorn" in one word, even though it is in "Big Horn" (two words) County, Montana. Eclecticology 23:44 Oct 12, 2002 (UTC)
yes but
The rivers, mountains, and county were originally named after a horn, not a sheep. The name had nothing to do with Bighorn sheep or big horns. The river it flows into was the Horn River initially. That was okay. Then the tributary Little Horn was named.
Still okay, but then the confusion started: in response to Little Horn, the Horn began to be called the Big Horn. Then (of course!?) the Little Horn had to be called the Little Big Horn. Well, everybody around there understood that. The mountains nearby that were the source of much of the water of the system were named the Big Horn Mountains. The county where the Big Horn and the Little Big Horn converge was named Big Horn county. But sometime after that.....
...some (probably)pointy-headed non-local person who only knew about the Battle, said "hey, that must be the sheep name, bighorn, written incorrectly by these ignorant westerners." (okay, I'm making up some of this scenario.) So the people who write books began to use Bighorn instead of Big Horn. So you will see old books and sources say Big Horn River, Big Horn Mountains, and Little Big Horn River. Meanwhile, new books and maps are usually using Bighorn for the rivers and some other features. Here is an illustration: at Bighorn National Forest (http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/bighorn/|) is the US Forest service stuff on Bighorn National Forest, a more recent naming. But in their text they refer to the Big Horn Mountains, where the Bighorn National Forest is.
Edgar Rice Burroughs
In his tongue-in-cheek autobiography (see here (http://www.tombtown.com/html/index2.htm?http%3A//www.tombtown.com/bios/burrough.htm), rightmost pane), Edgar Rice Burroughs claims to be the sole survivor of this battle. Impossible, to be sure, since he claimed to be a soldier, though at the time he would have only been a year old. Should this be included in the article or is it too trivial? The only reason I ask is that Burroughs is a well-known figure. TIA! — Frecklefoot | Talk 16:47, Jul 9, 2004 (UTC)
- I think that you will find there are a lot of instances of this sort of thing. The narrator in Little Big Man by Thomas Berger makes the same claim, for example. Jonathan O'Donnell 07:51, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Photo
I added a photo of the iron sculpture from the relative new exhibition covering the Native Americans role in the battle. Please don't make a thumb out of it, since it should be wide screen as in the original sculpture. --Hansjorn 13:08, Aug 2, 2004 (UTC)
correction
The number on the indian side is very exaggerated . If it was 5000 then the whole dakota nation would be present , and its proven that the majority was home . The true number is 1,200
I also corrected the numbers on the US side
Source : Centennial campaign by John S.Gray
must beg to differ on forces
While 5000 is certainly too high, WADR the 1200 would be at the extreme low end of present estimates, and the Gray reference is now pretty dated. See Michno's Lakota Noon, or Bruce Liddic's recent book. Most current sources come in between 1700 and 2000. US estimates are best given by Nichols in Men with Custer, 2000; that would be about 750 men in the regiment, independent of civilians and scouts. The latter two categories would add another 30 MOL, for a total of 780. Best wishes, Seesdifferent 24.182.100.66 18:27, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)Question
So how many US soldiers died? 264? 201? The article seems unclear.
dino 20:47, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
answer
262 on the battlefield; six more later; see Nichols ref. Best wishes, Seesdifferent 24.182.100.66 18:22, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
NPOV
It is not the intent, I am sure, of anyone, to present unbalanced amounts of info as judged by sheer weight, or to ascribe lesser or greater virtue to either side this battle. HST, it will never be symmetrical. So lets just try to get info in there and not see it as BLBH the sequel. Ha ha.
Factual corrections or vandalism?
Could someone check the edits by 152.163.100.203 for accuracy? Bushytails 06:44, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- I'll take the revert as an answer to that. Bushytails 07:03, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- I checked the contribution history of said user, and it seemed suspect. Kingturtle 07:42, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- When I posted that, I'd just reverted him replacing a paragraph with "bitch ass" on another article... But the changes here seemed a bit more thought out than that, so didn't want to assume it was vandalism on a subject I know absolutely nothing about. Bushytails 17:47, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- I checked the contribution history of said user, and it seemed suspect. Kingturtle 07:42, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)