Martini holds the "Key"

[One Tin Soldier]

Elisabeth:

"One Tin Soldier -- sorry, I was being unclear. What I meant to say was that if Curley reports Bouyer as suggesting the move, and says the move then became impossible, it would mean Custer being wounded while Curley was still present to observe this exchange. In which case, strange he doesn't mention such a pivotal event."

Curley's observations would supposedly have came near the flats area, and once again, one assumes not far from where Bouyer remains were later discovered. Approximately 3/4ths of a mile from the ford. While he may have seen the event he may not have known who it was, at that distance. That Curley then chose or elected to leave at this time when coaxed by the wounded Bouyer is in and of itself telling. After seeing the failure of the Ford D event, Bouyer was convinced that it was all over, and encouraged Curly to leave.

[elisabeth]

That's a very good point. People have done endless research on the 'raw recruits' question as concerns the men -- but never, as far as I know, on the horses. If a substantial proportion of those were green and untrained, it would have made things very difficult indeed.

Can't remember if it's Barnitz, or Custer, or someone else, but someone remarks back in the Kansas days that 'American' horses were terrified of Indians until they got used to them. Reacted to them as to a wild animal. Maybe that's a factor as well. Even some of the trained horses won't have encountered 'wild' Indians before. Wonder if that, like target practice, rapidly became part of standard training after LBH?

[elisabeth]

Sorry, out of synch again! I'd had it in my head that Curley left earlier than that. Must re-read, I've obviously got the wrong end of the stick.

[One Tin Soldier]

Elisabeth:

Out of sync is okay. I can keep up with it if you can.

The horses being green would certainly explain alot, wouldn't it? How about it Markland, anything on these horses?

Several times Curly was encouraged by Bouyer to leave. When and where these occured is anyone's guess. And this is one Gray area (pun intended) that is most difficult to tell the actual time. I don't agree with Gray's analysis of this. And as I have said before trying to tell what happened when ~ after Custer and companies decended into the twilight zone is conjecture at best. And I think provides great deal of entertainment as to the speculation of things. Simply put, no one knew or knows for sure. That Bouyer did more than once try to get Curly to leave is compelling. That Tom Custer was somewhere in the vicinity is also compelling. Evidently Curly and Bouyer weren't the only one's to witness the ford D event from afar.

[Tony]

One Tin Soldier--at the risk of sounding confused, can you explain what the dialog between you and Liz is about. What move and what event are you referring to regarding Boyer and Curley--It sounds really interesting!

[One Tin Soldier]

The confusion is over the event of when and more importantly where Curly departed the battlefield. It seems pretty clear that if he witnessed the ford d event, which it appears that he could have. Then he was still somewhere close enough to witness the person who fell into the river. But far enough away to not positively identify him. Also in concert with this, he as we all know, was with Bouyer. And Tom Custer's presence is also testified to in Curly's statements. As with all statements by Curly it is difficult to tell when and where and what event at which ford he was referring to. But that he was close enough to see the man falling into the river certainly puts him nearer the action than atop Nye=Cartwright ridge or vicinity when he later viewed the end of the battle.

[elisabeth]

But what got us into this was Shatonska's reference in Post. No. 48 to Bouyer suggesting an attempt to break out back to Reno Hill, which Curley says then proved impossible -- but doesn't say why. Speculation was that it could be because Custer was wounded. What do you reckon?

[Tony]

OTS--very interesting--but what makes you think Curley was that far North to see ford "D". As I recall all his testimony states that he left from Calhoun Hill area. Are you assuming that he witnessed the ford "D" event from a distant hill after he left Custer? That could be possible. But, didn't the Crow scouts all state that Curley left from Weir Hill? I have to go back and research this--it's interesting. In Custer 76--I believe Curely asserted that he departs from Calhoun Hill in two separate accounts--One saying before the collapse of the right wing and one after the collapse--he rides out of a coulee East of battle ridge with a blanket over him--I always wondered about that account!--He never mentioned ever being further North than Calhoun--unless I missed something.

[One Tin Soldier]

Well, as I said, it's all pure speculation. But it is interesting that Bouyer felt compelled to tell Curly to leave at that moment. Did he know something we didn't? The simple repulse of the ford d attempt, was it enough to convince him? That in and of itself may not have prompted him to feel that all was lost. But if he knew that it was Custer who fell, then that certainly would have made him feel that all was lost.

Some say that it couldn't have been Custer who fell because of the buckskins. But the indian scouts said that at one point after Reno departed Custer did put them on. Was it Custer? Was he wounder or even killed. No one knows. Because Bouyer felt that all was lost and that they would all now die, at that time, and his urging Curly to leave leaves little to interpretation, doesn't it. Now if we only knew for sure.

[One Tin Soldier]

Tony:

I don't think Curly knew where he was at any one time after the battle commenced ~ ie. the confusion and apprehension of battle! He had no reference point in which to refer to these places. I do find it interesting that he found himself in a coulee "east" of battle ridge. This in and of itself indicates that he went futher than Calhoun Hill. The Coulee that he was referring to is that Coulee just east of Custer Hill, that gradually rises to the east of Keogh sector. If he was anywhere near where Bouyer's remains were discovered then he would have had to have gone directly east, near Custer Hill, into that coulee.

[Nomad]

Hello OTS,

On 17 August, at 12:24 am, you wrote: “It would take about 12 minutes alone! ~ to get the 1 1/2 miles to Weir Peak, and that's from the 600 yards east position from where Martini said he departed”. According to the 1939 edition of the R.O.T.C. Cavalry Manual, cavalry horses and troopers were trained to maintain a standardized rate of speed for different gaits:

Walk-4 mph
Trot-8 mph
Canter-10 mph
Maneuvering gallop-12 mph
Extended gallop-16 mph
(ROTC Manual 1939: 330, courtesy of Philip Sauerlender)

Your estimate of 12 minutes to cover a mile and a half is almost twice the amount of time it would have taken Martini at either a Maneuvering gallop or an Extended gallop. My estimate of 5 minutes to cover a mile and a quarter, although less then the 7 to 8 minutes it might have actually taken, offers a more accurate picture. Incidentally, in Graham’s, The Custer Myth, Martini claims that he left Custer’s column, “about a mile down the river from where we went up on the hill”; the hill he’s referring to is Weir Point (Graham 1953: 290). If you look at the map on page 288, if Martini left Custer’s column a mile down river, i.e., north of Weir Point, then Custer was in Cedar Coulee. A map of the same terrain can be found on page 126 in Michno’s Lakota Noon. This map shows that a mile north of Weir Point can mean that Martini either left Custer on the high ground above Medicine Tail Coulee, or 600 yards or so from the river.

You also wrote: “And even then he wouldn't necessarily have ridden over the top. More likely have skirted one of its flanks”. If, as you suggest, Martini rode along the eastern flank of Weir Point hill, the extent of his view would have been limited to the side of the hill; if he rode along the western side of Weir Point hill, his view of Reno’s action would have been hindered by the stands of Cottonwood trees, which lined both banks of the river. My scenario examines Martini’s perspective, based on his testimony: “The Adjutant told me to follow our trail back, and so in a few minutes I was back on the same hill again where the General and I had looked at the village” (Graham 1953: 290, my emphasis). You also mentioned, without being specific, that you feel the “Benteen factor” seems implausible. Something is either plausible or it’s not–in the same sense that one can not determine if a man lingers between life and death–he’s either dead or alive.

I mentioned Benteen in two scenarios. The first describes Martini’s encounter with him along the back trail; the second describes a text-book military tactic. Which of these do you find implausible? Inductive analysis doesn’t deal with deductive certainty, it deals exclusively with plausibility. For any inductive argument to be proven implausible, you must provide a valid deductive alternative. When one takes into account the nature of the testimony and the physical evidence, it become clear that deductive certainty is a nonstarter.

I’m sure you realize that anyone composing a time-line re: Custer’s battle on the Little Bighorn, and this includes Gray, Michno, Tony, or myself, has to contend with discrepancies. My post of 9:46 pm, on Aug 16, 2005, takes these conflicts into account; hence, my use of approximate time and distance factors to examine Tony’s argument, and to propose a few hypothetical scenarios, which parallel what we can know with certainty from the historical record. What is consistent among all our analyses, i.e., Gray, Michno, Tony, and myself, is that we’re all using the same knowledgebase of inconsistent and conflicting testimony. Your Nietzschean concept of destroying the old to build the new, is all well and good, however, it doesn’t apply to either Tony’s or my arguments.

We don’t need to create a time-motion study to analyze Gray and/or Michno’s work. Granted, motion is an element of our arguments, but it’s not the primary issue; what we’re focusing on, is time and distance. I do see your point that one should use the same tools as the original author when trying to disprove their “well documented timelines”, however, we’re not trying to disprove their timelines, what we are doing is reasoning inductively with the information that both authors have introduced, to discover alternate possibilities, which, I’m sure you’ll agree, are two very different approaches.

What we accomplished here was to show that it is possible:
• That while Reno was fleeing the valley, Custer was deploying on the high ground above Medicine Tail Coulee.
• That Custer may have been totally unaware that Reno had “retreated”.
• That Custer may have seen the initial arrival of Reno’s troops on the bluffs.
• That, based on what he was told by his brother Boston, Custer may have believed that those troopers were part of Benteen’s column.
• That Custer may have re-deployed his column to initiate a textbook double envelopment.

These points are derived from the same inconsistent and conflicting data in the historical record that Gray and Michno used, and thus, contributed to, and as such, are equally plausible.

Thank you for your time.


Nomad

[Tony]

OTS--if I'm not mistaken and memory serves me right, in one account Curely said that Boyer came to him to tell him to leave--POINTING at Custer and saying--"that man is crazy, he's going to get us all killed. He's going to go into the village and will stop at nothing"--something to that effect---now that would surly indicate that Custer was near by--if you believe this account. Where this could have happened is anyones guess--I'll have to research this more.
Also wasn't Boyers remains found down near Deep Ravine-(south skirmish line area)---didn't they definitely prove this when they dug up the grave and found part of his face--DNA

[One Tin Soldier]

Yes, Bouyer's remains were found there! I find it intriguing that they were found at this location. And the quote is another one that could prove exactly where Curly was! It was more than likely after Calhoun, wouldn't you agree?

[Tony]

Don't know --could have been at Calhoun or right after Custer came down from Weir--have to research this---most of Curely's accounts have him leaving from Calhoun area---then again, the Crows have Curley leaving from Weir!

[crzhrs]

Boyer's remains were found in the deep ravine area, but that does not mean Curly was anywhere close to it. Curly probably left way before Boyer and the rest of the so-called south skirmish line headed for Deep Ravine, more than likely looking for an escape or cover, rather than a defensive position.

Boyer was said to have been discovered by two Indians, who found him wounded with a broken back. Boyer asked them to kill him quickly, which they did. I have not found any mention of Boyer being disfigured, odd because he was a mixed-blood with Crow connections. Sitting Bull was said to have a bounty on his head. It may be because his mother was Sioux and honored her more than Boyer.