|
Post by edavids on Mar 1, 2016 18:34:12 GMT -6
David, Lighten up on Pequod, I actually attacked him on the associates board regarding Fred's book. Just as Trump and Bernie supporters need someone to move the puck down the ice, sometimes we need someone to move things along. If you want to draw him out ask him a question, then decide upon the opinion not the poster. Wow am I being wishy washy. It won't last long! Regards, Tom [br Trying really hard not to be argumentative here. Yes, I have a sarcastic streak but am curious as to why some will take shots at other's posts but not put forth their own opinions. Will keep my opinion to myself and all are welcome to this board. After seeing numerous posts targeted at others I truly am curious what Pequod / Robb's take on this battle is. Impossible to engage in dialogue if it is not a 2-way conversation. It is a bit like answering a question with a question and going in circles. Best, David
|
|
shaw
Full Member
Posts: 187
|
Post by shaw on Mar 1, 2016 18:43:29 GMT -6
Mitch Boyer was a pipe smoker. We can tell by an examination of his teeth. Minutiae strikes again. Perhaps wisps of pipe smoke from atop the bluffs were mistaken for a waving hat? This is from Wikipedia In 1984, a fire burned through much of the Custer Battlefield, enabling archaeological digs to be made. Part of a skull was found that was identified as Bouyer's by comparison of the facial bones with the only photograph known of him. The skull was found to the west of the monument on Custer Hill, at what is called the 'South Skirmish Line'. When I read accounts documenting this archaeological dig it was mentioned that the marks on Boyer's teeth were consistent with that of a long time pipe smoker. It might not seem important to some people, but I love stuff like this.
|
|
shaw
Full Member
Posts: 187
|
Post by shaw on Mar 1, 2016 18:45:37 GMT -6
From the Custer Lives website
After a fire raged across the Custer Battlefield (now know as Little Bighorn Battlefield) in 1984, many undiscovered artifacts were exposed. Several archeological digs were conducted in the subsequent years, taking advantage of the coarse grass and foliage being removed by fire. In 1984 at markers 33 and 34 partial remains of an individual including part of a skull, upper jaw and left eye orbit were unearthed. Anthropologist Dr. Clyde Snow believed the individual to be a Caucasian-Mongoloid mix. Other clues to this person’s identity were worn teeth as if a pipe smoker, along with civilian mother-of-pearl buttons, US Army cartridges, and spent Indian bullets, which led investigators to believe they had found Mitch Bouyer’s remains. While watching the History Channel one night I saw a portion of "Battlefield Detectives" where the facial remains were computer overlayed onto a photograph of Mitch Bouyer. Always a skeptic about computer enhanced findings (I worked in IT for many years), even I was convinced they had truly found Mitch Bouyer.
|
|
|
Post by edavids on Mar 1, 2016 19:24:07 GMT -6
Shaw: go for it! As mentioned, minutiae can and often does add important elements to a discussion. Dwelling on it might be a different story but that is interesting that Bouyer smoked a pipe.
Tom: I did directly ask a question.
Tom again: read back thru your comments on Custer's plan / the battle...RE: Reno And Benteen taking some of the blame. Not agreeing or disagreeing with your statement. Goes back to the age old discussion about "should" either or both have hurried to Custer vs. "could" they. I put a lot of faith in Fred's timeline from "Strategy". From the time Martini delivered the Be Quick note to The destruction of Custer's battallion took just under 2 hours. Without doing a lot of timing breakdown now, the last of the packtrain arrived on Reno Hill 23 minutes before destruction mentioned above. I am in the "they couldn't" camp and keep to the letter of written orders. From there half the fun is the debate and I love hearing other thoughts.
Best,
David
|
|
|
Post by dave on Mar 1, 2016 20:40:11 GMT -6
Shaw I also enjoy studying the minutiae of battlefields and recovered remains. Dr. Snow was a legend in the field physical anthropology who ID the remains of Josef Mengele the Angel of Death in Auschwitz.
Dr. P Willey, a physical anthropology, at California State University, Chico, has worked and written much about the Little Big Horn. I find it fascinating that a skilled interpreter can read so much from human remains and ID them in some cases.
I highly recommend reading his books as they are very interesting. Regards Dave
|
|
|
Post by tubman13 on Mar 2, 2016 5:09:11 GMT -6
Boy did I have that coming, and I had read it. Totally forgot. When they dig me up they will find that I have eaten crow.
|
|
|
Post by AZ Ranger on Mar 2, 2016 8:32:38 GMT -6
I posted this elsewhere. I believe that Reno's action are based upon Custer following him in the valley. With a plan of Custer moving to the bluff the situation will change.
"I think if Reno knew that Custer was not following then he moved to fast and should not have dismounted. If the Indians are willing to come out toward a single battalion. Let them come out Staying mounted they can move further away from the village drawing them further up the valley. Once the horses were in the timber for cover and concealment Reno lost mobility even on foot.
Speed and mobility are the advantages of cavalry over the infantry of the time. Once infantry is mounted the gap narrows.
The Indians took advantage of the gap Custer created by not following Reno. They moved in small groups to surround Reno.
Reno took advantage of the Indians scattered surrounding force by concentrating his force to breakout.
Regards
AZ Ranger"
I think the observations of Custer on the bluffs had no effect on Reno's actions in the valley until the battalion moved to the timber. I don't think there ever was a thought how best to defend the timber. Reno stated he believed it was not defensible in his opinion. French moved from the skirmish line to his company horses and mounted. If he thought they were going on defense in the timber then he would have placed his company on line.
|
|
|
Post by jodak on Mar 2, 2016 9:50:31 GMT -6
I agree. I don't think there was ever any intention of defending the timber, but that they just went there to get the horses and get out.
|
|
|
Post by edavids on Mar 2, 2016 16:57:31 GMT -6
edavids, If it's a Socratic dialogue you're trolling for, this is not the place to engage in it. If enough line is let out, eventually you'll hook something that doesn't require it to be thrown back. Pequod Socratic as in "rich arguments"? Whatever your reason for being on this board is up to you and all (even Herosrest) are welcome. There is nothing further to discuss. Best, David
|
|
|
Post by dave on Mar 2, 2016 22:53:20 GMT -6
Brother Dave GAC never shared a plan or any information about any action especially after Reno advanced on the village. He might as well have ridden to Billings for all the good he did for Reno who was told he would "be supported by the whole outfit."
Far smarter and more experienced folks than me have not been able to explain Custer's actions after he left Reno and went north. Supposedly with a little over 200 men he was going to turn the Indians flank and run the pony herd off making the hostiles mere pedestrians. I don't see the wisdom that General Tom Rosser or General Nelson Miles, Commanding General of the Army who perceived and praised GAC's strategy and execution of his plans.
These men were combat veterans who knew the horror of combat and yet were not able to be unbiased in studying the battle of the Little Big Horn. The allowed personal dislikes for Reno and Benteen to color their view of the debacle and poorly served Custer. As the Bard wrote "but at the length truth will out." The men and their opponents deserve the honor of the truth being known. Regrads Dave
|
|
|
Post by edavids on Mar 2, 2016 23:37:30 GMT -6
Brother Dave GAC never shared a plan or any information about any action especially after Reno advanced on the village. He might as well have ridden to Billings for all the good he did for Reno who was told he would "be supported by the whole outfit." Far smarter and more experienced folks than me have not been able to explain Custer's actions after he left Reno and went north. Supposedly with a little over 200 men he was going to turn the Indians flank and run the pony herd off making the hostiles mere pedestrians. I don't see the wisdom that General Tom Rosser or General Nelson Miles, Commanding General of the Army who perceived and praised GAC's strategy and execution of his plans. These men were combat veterans who knew the horror of combat and yet were not able to be unbiased in studying the battle of the Little Big Horn. The allowed personal dislikes for Reno and Benteen to color their view of the debacle and poorly served Custer. As the Bard wrote "but at the length truth will out." The men and their opponents deserve the honor of the truth being known. Regrads Dave Brother in "D": I shake my head as well on the whole veering to the right leaving Reno unsupported. I recall several combat veterans here and other forums that fighting the battle presented vs. the battle the commander wants is always the better option. Strictly IMHO but it almost seems like Custer tried to forcefeed a Washita-esque scenario and outcome on yhe NA's only nothing was lining up in ways that would enable that outcome. As successful as GAC had been in the ACW, his shortcomings as a commander were exposed at LBH. Brave man, could charge with the best of them but support also bailed him out a few times a la Trevillian Station. Hung himself and 267others (including Reno/Benteen dead) out to dry at LBH. Would like to know from our military experts any fairly sizesble battle where "command by winging it" proved successful. I use the term in quotes to differentiate from "calculated risks" such as Lee at Chancellorsville, Prien in Scapa Flow or Spruance at Midway. Best, David
|
|
|
Post by tubman13 on Mar 3, 2016 5:06:36 GMT -6
Dave, Tom Rosser was GAC's classmate and friend. Miles, as I have said before, could afford to be magnanimous in that Custer had been removed as competition for a star(political correctness). When he shines later it only makes him look better, he completed what the great Custer could not.
Regards, Tom
|
|
|
Post by edavids on Mar 3, 2016 7:20:23 GMT -6
Dave, Tom Rosser was GAC's classmate and friend. Miles, as I have said before, could afford to be magnanimous in that Custer had been removed as competition for a star(political correctness). When he shines later it only makes him look better, he completed what the great Custer could not. Regards, Tom I do remember you stated this and extremely well.
|
|
|
Post by dave on Mar 3, 2016 10:58:52 GMT -6
Dave, Tom Rosser was GAC's classmate and friend. Miles, as I have said before, could afford to be magnanimous in that Custer had been removed as competition for a star(political correctness). When he shines later it only makes him look better, he completed what the great Custer could not. Regards, Tom Tom I agree with David that you are correct regarding Rosser and Miles. Their comments unfortunately carried far more weight than it should and assisted in distorting the truth about the LBH. Libbie and her cadre punished Reno and hounded him into the grave and beyond and these two acclaimed soldiers played right into her hands. GAC's jaunt away from the balance of his command lead to his death and the 200 plus with him and the defeat of the 7th Cavalry and he alone is responsible for this mess. I can not see how Benteen could have affected Custer's plight by attempting to reach him since he would more than likely been swallowed whole by the hostiles. No doubt Benteen saved Reno's command by consolidating their forces and leading by example. I am open to ideas and opinions that I am barking up the wrong tree but the argument must make sense and not be emotionally based. Regards Dave
|
|
|
Post by edavids on Mar 3, 2016 11:52:54 GMT -6
Dave, Tom Rosser was GAC's classmate and friend. Miles, as I have said before, could afford to be magnanimous in that Custer had been removed as competition for a star(political correctness). When he shines later it only makes him look better, he completed what the great Custer could not. Regards, Tom Tom I agree with David that you are correct regarding Rosser and Miles. Their comments unfortunately carried far more weight than it should and assisted in distorting the truth about the LBH. Libbie and her cadre punished Reno and hounded him into the grave and beyond and these two acclaimed soldiers played right into her hands. GAC's jaunt away from the balance of his command lead to his death and the 200 plus with him and the defeat of the 7th Cavalry and he alone is responsible for this mess. I can not see how Benteen could have affected Custer's plight by attempting to reach him since he would more than likely been swallowed whole by the hostiles. No doubt Benteen saved Reno's command by consolidating their forces and leading by example. I am open to ideas and opinions that I am barking up the wrong tree but the argument must make sense and not be emotionally based. Regards Dave Well put Dave. Not sure what impact Miles and Rosser had in the late 1800's regarding public opinion of Custer but know that their statements are often used by some today who feel the need to defend GAC's actions and legacy. Libby did an outstanding job of defending her deceased husband for 57 years after LBH. IMHO time is better spent learning about and learning from what happened but each individual has a different set of priorities. Best, David
|
|