|
Post by Dark Cloud on Jul 1, 2011 11:46:45 GMT -6
Start with this: what are the boundaries of LSH? There were far more than 30 found on it, but what was it? The fenced area? That can't be right, because we know Custer and his group were found up where the monument is.
We know Boston and Reed were found hundreds of yards west, but referenced as LSH, sometimes.
Start with definition and stick to it. And good luck.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Jul 1, 2011 13:23:02 GMT -6
Ian: DC is right (I think). Most of us refer to Last Stand Hill as the little rise at the north end of Battle Ridge, where the monument and the fenced area are. There is a road that runs up to and on the back side of the munument. When it was put in some markers had to be moved into what is now fenced in. In reality the scene of the action of Hqs E and F covers many hundreds of square meters. Markers are strung all the way down to near the river. I have also heard but never seen any details that when the cemetery was established there were markers there too, which were later moved. So I think what DC is saying is that you have to establish boundries in your own mind as to what constitutes LSH for you.
|
|
|
Post by Yan Taylor on Jul 1, 2011 13:50:12 GMT -6
Thanks Quincannon, I have a good Idea in my mind were the bounderies are, but what was the area of ground were they found the ring of dead horses, I am sure I sen a reference to 30 dead Troopers somewhere. Regards Ian.
|
|
|
Post by bc on Jul 1, 2011 14:30:12 GMT -6
The battlefield has changed a lot. Particularly when the NPS moved into public display and preservation mode after the tree huggers and grass preservers were allowed to flourish and take over the west (don't get me started on the Sierra Club). Before the worst thing that happened was when 10 feet of height was lopped off of battle ridge for a road. It used to rise up to a narrow ridge before almost to a point. Barely enough and in some places not enough for a one lane wagon road. LSH was a small knoll barely big enough for the HQ officers found dead. The backside was really changed when they buried all the old horse bones under the present day road. Then they put in the national cemetery up there which is now under the present day parking lot. All that dirt moving dramatically changed what it used to be. Many of the markers stringing in/to the Keogh sector were moved. The dead horses could not have been on the knoll itself but a few feet lower.
My first time or two there, we were allowed to walk down Deep Ravine all the way to the river. It was quite a ways to where they believed the 28 soldiers buried in the ravine were. You can look at the old Fouch photos from 1877 to see how far down the troops were standing when looking down the SSL.
bc
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Jul 1, 2011 14:31:08 GMT -6
Ian: If memory serves it was on the western slope of LSH within a few meters of the monument. If you can get your hands on "Where Custer Fell"in the UK, you would be well served.
PS: Britt is talking about the first cemetery, not the one that is there now.
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on Jul 1, 2011 14:38:44 GMT -6
"Where Custer Fell" has both photos and learned study on the supposed leveling of Custer Hill. Page 150, 174. Not remotely ten feet.
It didn't happen. Very little changed, photos prove it.
I'd bet the 30 foot reduction of Weir Point for the road played a role, when stories were told about a road demanding that amount of loss. Harpskiddie, for one, kept saying LSH was 30 feet lower. Is Weir Point part of 'the battlefield?' This is why the Glossary of Terminology is so important.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Jul 1, 2011 14:51:53 GMT -6
DC: That cut they made for the road at Weir Point distorts the whole story for me somehow. If we ever get together remind me to tell you the story of Old Ironpants and her run in with Jake and Jake's little brother at Weir Point. She often remarks to me when we visit a battlefield: "I don't know why you do this stuff. One damned cannon looks just like another" I usually come back with an answer indicating how little she appreciates the finer things of life. That day she found out that two nasty looking rattlers do look just alike.
|
|
|
Post by Yan Taylor on Jul 1, 2011 15:57:41 GMT -6
So now that I have found were LSH is, which area of the field did the men of F & E make a last stand, given the fact that there was 85 or there abouts in Custer's wing, I know from you guys about how Keogh's wing was over run and what remained fell back to an area called LSH, was this the area F & E were defending. Regards Ian.
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on Jul 1, 2011 16:24:25 GMT -6
Well, we may have a definition of LSH, but the people we quote often have a different one. The term "Custer battlefield" sometimes just includes the area around LSH, sometimes expands to include the Keogh/Calhoun area and down to Deep Ravine. To include the hundreds of yards west sometimes offered as the location of Boston's corpse, the definition expands. You cannot just equate terms from 1876 to today or any year between. What Camp or Fox (or anyone) means may not coincide, and may not even be correct.
If you start out wondering where someone's "Last Stand" was, you've deformed your search. There may not have been an actual last stand, which is proactive decision of 'here, and no further.' It may have been a decision of the Indians of "There, and no further" which is different in every way.
|
|
|
Post by wild on Jul 1, 2011 16:54:31 GMT -6
I believe he ruled out an attack across Ford B because he had too few troops for the size of the village, And What Fred has already related is probably as near to the truth as we are going to get. And At the time people start stating that Capt. Keogh and/or Custer did this or that or thought this or that or Company E formed a skirmish line of 56.7 feet during which they fired four volleys, you can stand up with full assurance of approval of the Gods and scream "Horsehockey!"
Ian no disrespect to you or rudeness intended but my friends are really taking the opportunity afforded by your questions to address each other indirectly. So my reply here is not intended specifically for your goodself but as a contributation to the general debate. Fred says Custer did not have enough troops with which to attack.A slight miscalculation which he endevours to repair by sending for Benteen.My friends now have Custer split his already weakened command so as to perform certain cosmetic maneuvers.I ask in the name of the great god of horsehockey why does he compounds his error of dividing his force yet again?
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Jul 1, 2011 17:12:48 GMT -6
Richard: When you find the answer to that one with 100% certitude, I will personally go to the local fluid emporium, buy you a case of Bushmills, and personally deliver it to you, where we will both sit on the stone outside Dan Murphy's door and sing Garryowen in the mother tounge until our lungs burst.
|
|
|
Post by fred on Jul 1, 2011 21:51:44 GMT -6
Fred says Custer did not have enough troops with which to attack. A slight miscalculation which he endevours to repair by sending for Benteen. My friends now have Custer split his already weakened command so as to perform certain cosmetic maneuvers. I ask in the name of the great god of horsehockey why does he compounds his error of dividing his force yet again? Wild, My comment there may need some clarification, so let me try to wiggle out of it. I do not know if Custer felt that having or not having enough troops for an attack across Ford B was the issue. I don't know that an attack there was ever an issue. The way I would view this were I George Custer is that if I now saw the village extending farther north-- beyond the crossing point-- I would have a problem as to which direction to deploy my force... and what good would it do anyway? Would it be more effective to go right? Or left? Or are all the Indians out of that area anyway and I would be attacking nothing but air? And what about all those fleeing families? The only explanation I can come up with that makes any sense at all, is that he felt any foray across the ford was fruitless, and when he went there, he realized-- or discovered-- he was correct in not attacking there. He determined two things: (1) a huge number of Indians were fleeing north and were well beyond his immediate reach, and (2) resistance at the ford-- while sharp and determined-- was light, thereby reinforcing his notion that the village, in that area, was pretty much undefended. He now moves to Calhoun Hill and re-unites with Keogh. Why would he divide his force here... and now. To me, the only logical, sensible reason is because he was under no pressure. That would indicate to me that Custer saw absolutely no threat on the east side of the river and felt perfectly safe dividing his force at that point in time, at that location. To me, nothing else makes any sense. And all this, despite sniping Indians, crossing at "B," tailing him. They were merely pin-pricks that could be held at bay by Keogh/Calhoun. A lack of threat, leading to an increase in hubris, explains a lot. It does for me. Best wishes, Fred.
|
|
|
Post by El Crab on Jul 2, 2011 1:03:15 GMT -6
One thing I'll never understand is why an undefended village wouldn't be worth taking. I know Custer would've rather had contained the flight of the occupants, but taking the village and burning everything in sight would've crippled the Indians.
Of course, that village would've been hard to burn upon the counterattack/defense he'd certainly encounter. But this idea of an empty village being of no value is ridiculous. Get in the village, the rest of the regiment gets in with you, defend it with 11 companies while 1 company burns lodges and possessions.
Perhaps the village itself would be too large to do this while still dealing with the enraged warriors.
Really, I just find fault with the statement that Custer found the village empty and thus of no value and no reason to enter it. I do think there was value, but that if it crossed Custer's mind, he dismissed it as not a priority. Slow or stop the exodus north, defeat the warriors and the village is still there to destroy when mopping up.
|
|
|
Post by Yan Taylor on Jul 2, 2011 7:18:55 GMT -6
Hi, back to an earlier point, if Custer falls back in good order an meets up with the remains of Keogh's wing, they must have defended an area together on the Custer Battle field, reports about Troopers, some on horse back and some on foot attempted something, weather it was just a mad panic flee for your life sort of mission or it was a push the hostiles back and get some riders out to Benteen mission, this area of resistance by the remains of Custer's Battalion, now was it South Skirmish line spreading around to the west of Custer Ridge ?. and later when they were totally surrounded the area around monument hill, and the circle of horses, I got these map details from Grey's book, I am only fishing for clues her (no need to sharpen your tomahawks), I am just trying to find out about Custer's two Companies, I have heard a lot over what may have taken place on Calhoun and Custer Ridges, (sorry over what I said regarding LSH), another area were bodies were found is the area called, west perimeter, it looks like there are about 14 grave markers there, but I will come back to that later. Regards Ian.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Jul 2, 2011 9:21:55 GMT -6
Ian: I am going to try and answer you and at the same time address Richard, who made the earlier point about the anchors on the line of advance.
If you were to take a map and lay a string upon connecting the known points from Calhoun Hill to the cemetery/Ford D area it would take the form of a line, with a left hook at the end. From this we can state that Custer's command was in column, with the rear guard Co L on Calhoun Hill, Co I as rear guard reserve a little further north and positioned in a slight swale on the ridge's eastern side. Further along still is Co C, which I prefer to look at as a company sized connecting file, not part of the rear guard reserve per say, but still under the control of the guy who also commands the follow on squadron.
Far ahead is the Hqs and Yates squadron. It is either deployed in toto at the cemetery/Ford D area or it has split with Co F remaining in the vacinty of what became LSH, and Hqs and Co E going to the cemetery/ford.
These are essentially the dispositions of the various units prior to them being closely engaged. They seem quite logical to me, if as Fred says there was not a lot of pressure, perhaps not even any to speak of, prior to Hqs and Yates' squadron moving north.
The situation changed very rapidly in the south. That slight pressure became an overwhelming tide to the point where it swamped the Keogh battalion. Just how fast that happened, when it did, is a good point of discussion. In the north the same thing happened only from a different source. Custer was driven back over the period of what I believe was no more than half an hour, plus or minus. At some point it must have become apparent that there was no rear guard/reserve to fall back on. They had ceased to exist, save for perhaps a few that made it to where Custer stood.
I have not addressed the actions of Company C, because an explanation still confounds me.
All in all it is a hugh area considering the size of the force Custer had. There is only one area where Custer had any chance of defending, that being the area of Calhoun Hill extending from that hilltop about four to five hundred meters to the north. To do this he would have had to make the decision to do so at the point of reuniting, and not move north. I believe he did not make that decision based upon what he thought was the situation at the time - no great pressure.
There are also two other areas which I feel could have been defended in the greater (Custer) area. Nye-Cartright-Ridge, and the position on the bluffs down on the western edge of the cemetery ridge extension. None of these are sure things. The only thing that could be said for them is that they were better than what they ended up with.
When you get caught parceling out your resources, you invite defeat in detail, which is just what happened,
|
|