how was the battle of little bighorn different from the fighting at wounded knee?

Question

2. how did the battle of little bighorn relate to sitting bull's vision?

Answer 1

I'm not sure about Sitting Bull's vision, although he certainly knew that a fight was coming. The Little Bighorn was a battle in which a single, overmatched calvary regiment of less than 1,000 men fought a force of better armed warriors (they had newer model repeaters) who vastly outnumbered them. Wounded knee wasn't as much a "battle" as a massacare of Native Americans by U.S. calvary, it was lopsided "fight" and almost every American casualty was the result of friendly fire. The Little Bighorn was the hightide of Native American resistance against U.S. encroachment and was probably the most lopsided victory that the Native Americans ever enjoyed against an armed force. Custer was supposed to be one of three prongs that were to attack the large Native American encampment, Custer didn't know that an American force had been routed just days earlier nearby, he rashly cut his force into three parts and took roughly a third of the men and attacked the camp directly, after less than an hour, it was over and Custer and all of the men he took with him were killed. The other two parts of his force united nearby and fought off attacks until they were able to retreat. Wounded Knee was far different, the calvary had already surrounded a much smaller encampment with few warriors. A shot rang out and the calvary began firing indiscriminitely, killing many, mostly women and children. There were only a handful of U.S. casualties and as I said, most of them seem to have been the result of friendly fire.


Update: I accept the challenge, I shall rebut.

1)The Natives did have repeaters, Spencers, Winchesters and a few Henry's, Custers men had single-shot Springfield Carbines-a weapon known to jam when overheated (model 1873).

2)Actually, Captain Benteen met up with Reno and they fought together until approx 9 PM that evening, see Reno's report below for an account.

3)Only 20%, not "most" of Custer's men were recent recruits (had enlisted within the previous 7 months).

4)According to the last survivors of the Battle interviewed by Humphries, the battle with Custer lasted less than 1/2 an hour. See Humphries below.

Answer 2

I don't know where "History_..." got his information from but I challenge him to prove his remarks.

It's a matter of history: Custer had a force of 250 men, mostly young teen age calvary men that were untrained, some never fired a shot in anger. They did have the single shot repeaters. The Indians never had Henry repeaters, they had few rifles between them.

Custer foolishly split his men. He was looking for glory and fame. He was young and untrained to the frontier.
He rode into a gathering of Souix that possibly numbered 2500.

The fight last all afternoon, not an hour. The Souix chased the Cavalry up the hillsides for hours, picking off the men as they raced for any cover they could find.
The area is dotted with ravines and small hills. The men took cover among these but, the Indians slowly picked them off one by one.
Major Reno, to his better judgment was ordered by Custer to look for the Indians further up the ridges, about five miles away. His men recalled they could here the firing, they tried to get back but were also ambushed by a smaller force of Indians. They were able to fight them off.

It was only these two groups, not three. The Indians then proceded to cut the trigger finger of the Calvary men off so they couldn't shoot a gun in the next life, against the Redman. They stripped off all their clothes and then cut off the penisis so the couldn't breed children in the next life to kill the Redman.
All this is recorded and testified by the gravesite that were recently moved to and, made a military cometary for the men.
The entre area was gone over by archeologists a few years ago.

Wounded knee was not a fight, it was a masacure by the Army. There was no reason for it. The Indians that lived run to the creek bed behind the village and hide among the brush there. Sand creek was the same.

This is what brough the Indians together for the Battle of the Little Big Horn River. They had had enough.
After the Battle, Sitting Bull took his people to Canada. The Canadian government welcomed him, they weren't on the best of terms with the U.S. at the time and told Sitting Bull he could stay as long as he behaved himself. A few years later he went back to the U.S. where the Calvary arrested him but, he was murdered. This is another story.

Answer 3

The biggest difference, looking at the facts, is this:

Little Bighorn was a BATTLE, involving two opposing, armed forces, in which one side overwhelmed the other in combat and , in military jargon, proceeded to completely neutralize the enemy's war making ability - meaning they killed them all.

Wounded Knee was a MASSACRE, involving armed troops (U.S cavalry) shooting civilians, including children, women, and old people.

While you could call both of them a massacre because of the large amount of killings, they are clearly not the same.

Answer 4

The whites that got massacred at Big Horn were soldiers and armed and were attacking the Indian encampment- they just didnt know how many Indians were really there and Custer just wanted the Glory.

The Indians who were massacred at Wounded Knee were mostly unarmed women and children who were just trying to get to another agency.

Incidently the soldiers who carried out the massacre at Wounded Knee were the 7th Cavalry- Custers regiment. Any thoughts of revenge or bitterness there? Of course there was

Answer 5

Little big horn was the massacre of US Cavalry at the hands of the souix.

Wounded knee was a massacre of the Souix by the cavalry