|
Post by elkslayer on Jun 1, 2012 0:52:20 GMT -6
Trying to wrap my head around this one... One of the "facts" of LBH is that none of the Indians recognized George Custer during the battle. Most of the accounts I have read by witnesses to Custer's body on LSH, is that his body was washed and placed in a comfortable position making him appear like he was sleeping. So, if we accept that he wasn't recognized as fact, why did the the Indians take the time and care to present his body this way?
Thanks,
Jim
|
|
|
Post by fred on Jun 1, 2012 5:04:39 GMT -6
One of the "facts" of LBH is that none of the Indians recognized George Custer during the battle. Most of the accounts I have read by witnesses to Custer's body on LSH, is that his body was washed and placed in a comfortable position making him appear like he was sleeping. So, if we accept that he wasn't recognized as fact, why did the the Indians take the time and care to present his body this way? Jim, I do not know what you have read, but I have never heard the tale of Custer being "washed" and then his body "placed in a comfortable position." If you actually read that, then I believe you are reading the wrong stuff. Fact is, the Indians had no clue who he was and even when many were told, still had no clue other than he was another white man, this one with dirty blond hair. Again, I know nothing about you, but there are those out there who will glorify some of these fellows-- red and white-- into mythical proportions. You know... the American soldier wouldn't... and couldn't... panic; Custer made no mistakes, but was betrayed by Benteen and Reno; there was a gallant last stand, and on and on and on. Personally, I am interested only in finding out or getting as close to the truth as I can, and even with that mantra, I fly into flights of fancy at times. The only one here who does not is DC, who is brutally pragmatic and accepts little as fact unless clearly proven... his posts on "Macabre" display that. So please, Jim... do yourself a favor. Accept these tales with a very healthy dose of skepticism and unless they are backed with continuing corroboration by others or other means, shunt them aside as nothing but fairy tales. And in actuality, we are not even sure the stories of Custer not being mutilated are true. Remember, this was the American version of the Victorian era and sensibilities were much heightened... I mean, compare that era to the putrefying vomit we are heaped in today... read the accounts of how many people had all this respect for Libbie Custer, then ask yourself, why would we want to harm her memories of Boy George by telling her he was horribly mutilated? There do appear to have been some bodies that went untouched-- relatively speaking-- Mark Kellogg being one, but those seem to be few and far between, and Kellogg was killed in a remote area, and so was probably overlooked. I am skeptical when it comes to GAC. And remember, TWC was not married, so the sensitivities were not quite as strong. Best wishes, Fred.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Jun 1, 2012 9:03:15 GMT -6
Elkslayer: Throughout the history of mankind what remains on a battlefield is the detris of rotting mutilated bodies accompanied by the stench of decay and voided bowels. Why would this one be any different save for the faniciful stories of humanity that serve purpose or spare feelings?
|
|
|
Post by Yan Taylor on Jun 1, 2012 9:26:33 GMT -6
It is a similar scenario to the Battle of Hastings.
The 'Carmen de Hastingae Proelio':
"After the glorious light of the sun began to shine and cleanse the world of brooding darkness, the duke surveyed the field, and taking up the bodies of his fallen, he buried them in the bosom of the earth. The corpses of the English, strewn upon the ground, he left to be devoured by worms and wolves, by birds and dogs. Harold's dismembered body he gathered together, and wrapped what he had gathered in fine purple linen, and returning to his camp by the sea, he bore it with him, that he might carry out the customary funeral rites."
But William of Poitiers denies the assertion that Duke William left the English dead to become dinner for wild animals, and says:
‘’Though the duke could legitimately have done just that, he actually chose to allow the bodies to be collected for burial. William of Poitiers does, however, agree that Duke William refused to accept Harold's body-weight in gold from his mother.’’
1066, 1976 nothing changes. Ian.
|
|
|
Post by "Hunk" Papa on Jun 1, 2012 10:28:26 GMT -6
It is a similar scenario to the Battle of Hastings. The 'Carmen de Hastingae Proelio': "After the glorious light of the sun began to shine and cleanse the world of brooding darkness, the duke surveyed the field, and taking up the bodies of his fallen, he buried them in the bosom of the earth. The corpses of the English, strewn upon the ground, he left to be devoured by worms and wolves, by birds and dogs. Harold's dismembered body he gathered together, and wrapped what he had gathered in fine purple linen, and returning to his camp by the sea, he bore it with him, that he might carry out the customary funeral rites." But William of Poitiers denies the assertion that Duke William left the English dead to become dinner for wild animals, and says: ‘’Though the duke could legitimately have done just that, he actually chose to allow the bodies to be collected for burial. William of Poitiers does, however, agree that Duke William refused to accept Harold's body-weight in gold from his mother.’’ 1066, 1976 nothing changes. Ian. Nice one Ian - but 1976? Now if you had said 1966 and mentioned Wembley and the devasting firepower of Geoff Hurst, that I would have understood! Hunk
|
|
|
Post by Yan Taylor on Jun 1, 2012 12:48:42 GMT -6
Hello Gordon, yes 1966 (I can’t believe I put 1976 instead of 1876, well spotted old chap) remember it well, I was living in a pub called The Sun Inn, the Beatles were on every radio station and the Football was on the TV (when we won the World Cup of course).
Have you got anything planned for the Jubilee weekend Gordon, if you have I hope it keeps fine for you.
P.S. Thanks again for the package.
Ian.
|
|
|
Post by "Hunk" Papa on Jun 2, 2012 10:46:53 GMT -6
Hello Gordon, yes 1966 (I can’t believe I put 1976 instead of 1876, well spotted old chap) remember it well, I was living in a pub called The Sun Inn, the Beatles were on every radio station and the Football was on the TV (when we won the World Cup of course). Have you got anything planned for the Jubilee weekend Gordon, if you have I hope it keeps fine for you. P.S. Thanks again for the package. Ian. 12 Minutes = gloom, 20 minutes = joy, 78 minutes = delight, 90 minutes = shattered, 102 minutes = wild excitement (You've got to love that Russian), 120 minutes = euphoria (They think it's all over...) 'Paperback Writer', Got to get you into my life' and of course 'Eleanor Rigby' - What a year!! Hunk
|
|
|
Post by starman on Jul 15, 2012 7:27:58 GMT -6
There is a story that the Cheyenne girl Meozi recognised Custer and she asked that he not be mutilated. When you think of the hundreds of warriors present she couldn't have told them all. However, the only mutilation mentioned is an awl being pushed into both ears. The was also an arrow shoved up his penis, the significance of which fails me, unless it was to take the piss. Many of the Indians involved had never been near a fort or an agency so the name of Custer would mean nothing to them.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Jul 15, 2012 7:55:23 GMT -6
Starman: The criteria I use, and I am only speaking for myself here, is that if the story does not make sense, it probably did not happen.
|
|
|
Post by WY Man on Jul 27, 2012 21:16:13 GMT -6
There is an obscure account told by the wife of Valentine McGillicuddy (the doctor who attended Crazy Horse in his death) that the Oglalas went through the pockets of the slain officers following the battle on Last Stand Hill. They were looking for official papers, maps and such items that might tell them which of the dead men was the leader. Dr. McGillicuddy was a great friend of the Oglalas and Crazy Horse, and this was the story that he told his wife. Dr. McGillicuddy heard this account from Oglala warriors who were at the Little Big Horn.
This account sounds believable to me. We would do the same thing today, to determine who the enemy was. Police do it on crime scenes all the time.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Jul 27, 2012 21:34:24 GMT -6
And just how would they determine the difference in these maps and important papers from say their laundry ticket or a receipt from the Fort Abraham Lincoln Post Exchange? Why would they care who was a leader from say a trooper after they are all dead? This might make a nice story but actually I see no value in doing any of this stuff for any reason save going through a dead man's pockets for money, for they knew the value of that. What you suggest lends one to believe that they practiced the craft of combat intelligence. What it leads me to believe is that they were common theives and pre-grave robbers if the story is true which in my mind is in some doubt.
I took the liberty of reviewing some of your past posts before I wrote the above to take the measure of your depth in this subject matter. I was particulary interested in a post you made over a year ago concluding on horsemanship alone that the American Plains Indian was the finest cavalry in the world. You got beaten up and deservedly so. Were I around then I would have led the charge by saying that horsemanship does not make a cavalryman or cavalry. Horsemanship skill is an indicator of the ability to ride a horse well, extremely well , even supurbly. Cavalry is an organized body of horseman (until the middle of last century) subject to discipline, training and with a system of command and control to perform a specific battlefield function. Does that sound like anything you know about the hostiles of the Plains? Therefore everything you read, every story you pick up from either a widely read or obscure source must be put through the grinder and sniffed for the smell of rotten fish. Both of these posts don't get past the rotten fish smell test.
There is a fellow over at the neighbor's house who just loves McGillicuddy stories. You should ask him what he thinks of your rendition. Of course he thinks he is a cavalryman too, and the closest he ever came to the United States Cavalry is the costume shop.
|
|
|
Post by rosebud on Jul 28, 2012 9:09:47 GMT -6
lets see now...they use an X when they write their name, yet they can read.
White man who believe Indian, Dumber than a post.
Rosebud
|
|
|
Post by Gatewood on Jul 28, 2012 10:44:58 GMT -6
To plunge a little deeper here, Hollywood aside, prior to the LBH did any significant number of Indians really know or care who "Yellow Hair" was? I'm sure that some were familiar with him just in the extent of seeing around FAL, etc. But did they really think of him any differently than they did any number of other officers? Specifically, did they think of him as the "great soldier chief" as portrayed, and, even if they had known that it was Custer that they were fighting at LBH, would they have really cared one way or the other?
|
|
|
Post by WY Man on Jul 29, 2012 11:29:24 GMT -6
To respond to quincannon's statement that I got beaten up over my statement about the Plains Indians being the finest light cavalry in the world, I was merely quoting what military officers of the time said. When I make a statement, quoting a source, that's all I am doing. These were statements made by military officers who fought the Indians themselves. I'm no authority on what the precise definition of the word "cavalry" was during the 19th century, but I think the colorful language used by those writers of the time allowed for some descriptive leeway. It is merely a matter of semantics between then and now.
I had to do some searching, but I did, and I found the source of my quotation, from over a year ago.
From the book, "Sitting Bull, Champion of the Sioux," by Stanley Vestal, p. 145:
"Few people realized the strength of Sitting Bull's small army at the time. But military men, though ignorant of the the number of his warriors, were fully aware of their splendid efficiency. Read Custer's high praise of their tactics, their "individual daring," their horsemanship, (in his opinion the best in the world, surpassing even that of the Cossacks). Read the statement of one of Crook's staff officers, "the finest light cavalry in the world." Read the words of General Charles King, "foeman far more to be dreaded than any European cavalry." Read Colonel Ford's official report, calling the Plains Indians "the finest skirmishers" he ever saw. Read the words of General Anson Mills: "They were the best cavalry in the world, their like will never be seen again." Finally, cap all this by the statement of Mr. P. E. Byrne, who has made a special study of this phase of history, "the greatest mounted fighters of all time."
As to what I said about McGillicuddy's statements, I am just putting it out there for people on this board to read, as it is another account given, by a primary source, of events that occurred on that day back in 1876. If you want to take offense to what I said, well, I can't help that, and you can say any personal statement about me on this board that you want, and I can't stop you. But, I'm not going to spend a lot of time replying to any thing else on this thread, so have your last word.
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on Jul 29, 2012 12:30:07 GMT -6
lbha.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=Queries&thread=3871&page=1I don't know that you got beaten up, but the short thread you reference is here, if anyone wants to read it. England and America fluff those they beat. England lauds Napoleon, whom they beat, and doesn't mention Washington, whom they did not. We call Lee and Yamamoto genius, and we beat them. Cough. Draw the correct conclusions. Custer didn't want to be fighting anything but the best. The Indians were great horsemen and individual warriors, but were not cavalry in any military sense. In the same way, the Indians were not 'military' in that they did not plan how to fight wars for very long, and logistics was not a strong point, nor what to do with their families just as the Army had issues with what to do with wounded. If we started referring to the Indian families as camp followers, which is derisively used to indicate bad, sloppy, and undisciplined armies when referencing any other such group and means much the same, we'd not see them as the great threat they're made out to be in the 19th century. Nobody in St. Louis feared attack after the CW or for many years previous.
|
|