Ryan
New Member
Posts: 49
|
Post by Ryan on Feb 8, 2009 19:08:47 GMT -6
Firstly, markers are certainly inaccurate on Custer Hill....but the trouble with the "officers getting shot of their horses at the crest" theory is that Indian accounts describe men getting off their horses and hiding behind their horses for cover. Wooden Leg Hill, a knoll located about 250 yards east of Custer Hill, has yielded springfield .45/.55 bullets, indiciating that cavalry at the crest of the hill turned their carbines on that position, in response to Indian shooters operating in that vicinity. This could only have come from troopers positioned along the crest, i.e. behind the 5 or 6 dead horses allegedly shot for breastworks, near which T.W. Custer and G.A. Custer were found, along with about ten or so men.
I've also read eyewitness accounts that report between 5 - 20 remington sporting rifle cases under Custer's body? (A tad hard to work a lever-action rifle when you have been shot off your horse at the onset of the episode in question..)
Generally, the markers do show where men fell on the western slope. The markers there today are too numerous, and certainly some markers belong more towards the crest along the ridgeline..but we do have the confidence of eyewitness accounts, particularly american troopers that buried them, who reported 42 men on Custer Hill. Some accounts describe men on top of horses, horses on top of men, in heaps here and there...it was not a particularly organized fight, and probably only measured in minutes.
|
|
|
Post by desertlobster on Feb 8, 2009 19:18:30 GMT -6
Yes, the officers' getting shot off their horses theory has nothing to back it.
|
|
Ryan
New Member
Posts: 49
|
Post by Ryan on Feb 8, 2009 19:31:54 GMT -6
Also, Dark Cloud raises another issue as far as expended ammunition goes; post battle related artifacts that are erroneously categorized as battle-related. People could have fired Henrys, Winchesters, and muzzle loaders or bows and arrows if they wanted to after the battle; there were reenactments on the battlefield, such as during the ten year anniversary. But without any substantiated evidence to suggest that the bulk of cases/bullets consist of post-battle shooting-range activities, this talking-point serves as little more than a minor footnote; surely post-battle bullets/cases comprise a small percentage of the genuine battle-related artifacts? Especially considering when we actually find bullets in such concentrated clusters that it could hardly be coincidence that this or that position had been an Indian/cavalry position. Dozens of cases found along the Greasy Grass, Henryville are not post-battle shooting galleries; logically, they denote Indian positions. It would be one hell of a coincidence to find impacted springfield carbine rounds in these sectors, which further suggests these areas were occupied by warriors. Utilizing bullets/cases, in this sort of context, provides pretty compelling evidence that bullets/cases are a legitimate archaeological record of the battle. Also, .45./.55 rounds manufactured after 1876 were stamped with their year of manufacture.
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on Feb 8, 2009 20:29:07 GMT -6
It's not just a possibility that "People could have fired Henrys, Winchesters, and muzzle loaders or bows and arrows if they wanted to after the battle; there were reenactments on the battlefield, such as during the ten year anniversary." While true, it's far worse than that.
Starting during the battle, Indians picked up soldier weapons as well as used their own and fired at corpses in celebration or desecration. Went on the next day as well, it seems. The only soldier eye-witnesses to firing on what is called the 'Custer field' on June 25th is of that activity by Indians, although it probably was of the Calhoun portion, even though some say they could see the Custer hill activity from Weir Point.
So: eyewitness Army testimony that this happened. None saw other soldiers shooting back.
When Wooden Leg visited the field that winter and picked up tons of still boxed ammo lying around - and this is six months or more for animals to have dug up the dead, which apparently happened - would something shield him from desecrating the enemy by shooting the corpses apart when he had all that ammo as was the almost obligatory custom, so well attested elsewhere? Would any other Indians, like the ones who said it smelled so bad that summer and so admit themselves there, have done so as well?
Safe bet. And they likely did it every time they crossed near the place, so beloved was the Army.
Of course, there was a later skirmish between the Crow and the Army, much smaller, on the same field. Same weapons. People don't turn in ammo because it's old each year. Certainly the scavenger Sioux and Cheyenne did not.
"Dozens of cases" aren't very much, and could well be indicative of anything. Impacted bullets from those cases? How many again, I keep forgetting, it's such a huge number..... We're told the field was devoid of cases for a while in the 19th century, pillaged clean. Then, voila! There they were again! A miracle.....
It's certainly reasonable to use the evidence at hand as not in conflict with any number of theories. Certainly, that they took place during the actual battle is a leading one. But, only one. There are ample instances of firing on the field during the few times people were there to note it since the battle. Most of the time, nobody was there to note it except those who claimed to have done it.
Cavalry bullets fired by Indians with captured weapons might indicate what is now considered an Indian position was just other soldiers. Might not.
No intention of continuing the point to absurdity, but no more absurd than the ridiculously precise and prissy manuevers offered up out of the ether as surety based on these finds with an entirely suspect history. Those theories are weak, given the several different entirely plausible explanations in combination that could have produced the artifacts as found.
|
|
|
Post by AZ Ranger on Feb 9, 2009 8:27:42 GMT -6
Yes, the officers' getting shot off their horses theory has nothing to back it. When you use evidence at best described as "consistent with" then you would be obligated to show they were not shot off their horses to make such a statement. I find it more likely that some officers were shot off their horses on the Custer Battlefield then not. It is the lack of finding of fact for most of the evidence that allows so many theories. If they weren't under fire why stop there? Whether they were shot off horses or received enough fire to stop them would have the same evidence. I am not sure anyones theory states they were all shot off their horses just enough to make them stop on the Custer Hill location would be enough. My question would be how under fire do you decide to get off your horse get it in the proper position and shoot it so it drops in a position to be used for cover? The only way I can think of is you are out range of fire and decide to make a defensive stand. Is there any evidence that the horses were shot in the head to drop them in the desired location. AZ Ranger
|
|
|
Post by AZ Ranger on Feb 9, 2009 8:44:34 GMT -6
Also, Dark Cloud raises another issue as far as expended ammunition goes; post battle related artifacts that are erroneously categorized as battle-related. People could have fired Henrys, Winchesters, and muzzle loaders or bows and arrows if they wanted to after the battle; there were reenactments on the battlefield, such as during the ten year anniversary. But without any substantiated evidence to suggest that the bulk of cases/bullets consist of post-battle shooting-range activities, this talking-point serves as little more than a minor footnote; surely post-battle bullets/cases comprise a small percentage of the genuine battle-related artifacts? Especially considering when we actually find bullets in such concentrated clusters that it could hardly be coincidence that this or that position had been an Indian/cavalry position. Dozens of cases found along the Greasy Grass, Henryville are not post-battle shooting galleries; logically, they denote Indian positions. It would be one hell of a coincidence to find impacted springfield carbine rounds in these sectors, which further suggests these areas were occupied by warriors. Utilizing bullets/cases, in this sort of context, provides pretty compelling evidence that bullets/cases are a legitimate archaeological record of the battle. Also, .45./.55 rounds manufactured after 1876 were stamped with their year of manufacture. At the end of the Custer Battlefield fight all weapons belonged to the Indians. What forensic technique determines whether it was fired by cavalry or Indian? So on June 25, 1876 all firearms evidence is "consistent with" and not a true finding of fact. Some consistencies are more likely such as Henry rifle cartridges being fired by Indians since the cavalry never had them in their hands. There is not much on the field that the Indians with all the guns could not have done even if more likely done by the cavalry.
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on Feb 9, 2009 9:26:46 GMT -6
The field provides two mysteries.
1. Why, after promising support, did Custer not do it? Further, why did he not take advantage of MTC which had an acceptable ford and into the near center of the village, and in failing to do so, not take advantage of surprise, speed, shock, the supposed Trinity of cavalry buffs?
2. Why, in the alleged Last Stand area of proactive defense, do we find the officers together, not in the center, but on the perimeter of a supposed defensive position?
Since even asking the questions doesn't make Custer look as good as FanBoys want, the more absurd logics and fantasy driven drivel has been wheeled out over the years. My favorite is Custer willingly sacrificed his five companies to save Reno's three.
But to the point, whether the horse or rider is shot topping the hill, it seems visibly logical (after redoing the markers, per Lecture 307B-3, etc......) that they were stopped there, and fought there, with the remnants coming up behind and dropped on the way.
The surviving officers were doing their duty to their friends and granting them every benefit of the doubt in discussing the field. I further think it was an understood convention in uniform or not of the times, of which too few today are aware on these boards. When you have Sweet saying "I morally believe that....." so'n'so died with his men as the reason he placed a marker for a young man where he did absent all evidence, than all fact is rendered subservient to the sobs of the school boys through the ages.
|
|
|
Post by desertlobster on Feb 9, 2009 9:31:02 GMT -6
AZ Ranger,
My answer was just short. Of course, several horses might have been shot by the Indians and dropped where they were hit, but I would guess that many should have been spooked or hit and took off, or their riders got hit and then the horse took off. I think it highly unlikely that 6 horses fell in a rather nice barricade pattern without being killed by their riders. Plus, some of the nearby horses, but not in that tiny pseudo-circle of 6, might have been sacrificed also. How many cav horses were found amongst those 42 bodies? I guess the horse skulls are going to have to be dug up and checked for close range entry wounds to the head.
|
|
|
Post by biggordie on Feb 9, 2009 10:26:22 GMT -6
Or you could read the sources which describe the hill's dead and the horses found there.
Gordie
|
|
|
Post by desertlobster on Feb 9, 2009 11:00:17 GMT -6
Gordie,
Did you crawl out from under your rock?
|
|
|
Post by biggordie on Feb 9, 2009 11:03:14 GMT -6
Yeah - the sun is finally out, and I am basking on top of that rock.
You could look it up.
Gordie
|
|
|
Post by desertlobster on Feb 9, 2009 11:03:56 GMT -6
I don't have a book handy. I think 29 horses. How about a loan and I'll have a library right here next to my computer.
|
|
|
Post by Melani on Feb 9, 2009 13:29:28 GMT -6
32 horses sticks in my mind.
|
|
|
Post by El Crab on Feb 9, 2009 13:34:20 GMT -6
42 men and 39 horses on Custer Hill, said Godfrey.
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on Feb 9, 2009 14:38:19 GMT -6
What did Godfrey consider the perimeter of "Custer Hill?" Reed and Boston were supposedly found hundreds of yards from the top, if Reed was found at all. Did he include them? If so, that gives an indication of the area he included. Does it therefore include any down by SSL or between? Given the stakes going down to Keogh, which of those are included in the 42, and which were included with Keogh? If any, of course.
Thirty-nine reclining or kneeling horses eat up a lot of ground, but the descriptions don't seem to suggest that many in the area covered by the fence today. And, there's the description of Vic further down, as if shot while running.
Godfrey, we recall, changed his story about mutilations (few were mutilated originally, but he ended up claiming that all were...) while maintaining one falsehood (.....except Custer), so it isn't unbelievable to think he'd adjust the tale to a more reassuring type about going down together when La Custer was still with them. Not to say he did it, but this was common operating procedure, and still appears in official behavior as of the Iraq War.
Virtually all the Indian accounts appear after the story was more or less agreed upon in the media, so it's difficult to view them as mutually confirming tales.
And also, what was that compelling number of blunted Army bullets that designate an Indian position?
|
|