|
Post by fred on Aug 27, 2014 14:13:18 GMT -6
Hello Fred, the map I have shows a long line stretching from Greasy Grass to Deep Ravine, the line has the numbers; OM128 Nathan Short, C Company C Company C Company C Company C Company Calhoun Coulee, vicinity of Greasy Grass Ridge, south of 257, but generally north of the other Calhoun Coulee markers and closer to Deep Ravine. C Company. Calhoun Coulee, vicinity of Greasy Grass Ridge, south of 257, but generally north of the other Calhoun Coulee markers and closer to Deep Ravine. C Company. South of Deep Ravine near Greasy Grass Ridge. Isolated, between Deep Ravine and Greasy Grass Ridge. Single individual. The Walter Camp interviews maintained that CPL John Briody-- F Company-- had been found at this site with one leg cut off and placed under his head by the Indians. The placement of the discovered bones would be consistent with such an event. C Company Spurious marker; no evidence of anyone being there. Lowest marker on South Skirmish Line, paired with 6. Isolated; on the Deep Ravine trail directly above the ravine itself. Nothing found, but in all likelihood that was because of the extremely shallow earth. In all likelihood an E Company trooper was found there. Lower South Skirmish Line. Possibly belongs in Deep Ravine; if so possibly E Company trooper. Lower South Skirmish Line. Possibly belongs in Deep Ravine; if so possibly E Company trooper. South Skirmish Line near Deep Ravine: southeast side of Deep Ravine. An isolated marker. Single individual. Marker located within N72 – N73 and E22 – E23 grid square, approximately N7225 – E2215. Probably PVT Tim Donnelly, F Company. Best wishes, Fred.
|
|
|
Post by fred on Aug 27, 2014 15:27:27 GMT -6
Mulligan, If anything interesting comes up I'll keep everyone posted. I would be interested to know what you come up with... publicly or privately, either way. You may want to check the following: Douglas D. Scott and Richard A. Fox, Jr., Archaeological Insights into The Custer Battle, University of Oklahoma Press, Norman, OK, 1987. Douglas D. Scott; Fox, Richard A., Jr.; and Melissa A. Connor, Archaeological Perspectives on the Battle of the Little Bighorn, University of Oklahoma Press, Norman, OK, 1989. Douglas D. Scott, Uncovering History, Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 2013. Don't know much about the Great Swede; I have always been drawn eastwards and south: Hermann Bahr, Karl Kraus, Peter Altenberg, Felix Salten, Hugo von Hofmannsthal. Brilliant writers. I would prefer Clio or Melpomene. Best wishes, Fred.
|
|
|
Post by Yan Taylor on Aug 27, 2014 16:35:16 GMT -6
Thanks Fred, the Briody story is a sad indication of how the bodies were mutilated, but it can show the place were a single unidentified person died and suddenly we can give him his name, not by identification, but by the type of mutilation, in a similar way the same could be said about Vincent Charley, apparently they identified his body by the wound to the hips.
Ian.
|
|
|
Post by Mulligan on Aug 27, 2014 17:38:19 GMT -6
Fred,
Tough to cross literary sabers with a man so impressively well-read!
Back to "Sixty-Six Years In Custer's Shadow". Yes, Hank Weibert's silliness confounded all the Custer Buffs and LBH know-it-alls, I agree. But there are reasons, I'm sure, that his seemingly implausible "Bouyer" theory was attached at the very end of his "Sixty-Six Years" text.
Weibert's work was published, coincidentally, at a time when there was increasing public interest in conspiracy theories generally, most notably those involving the Vietnam War and the Kennedy assassination. A helpful editor may have encouraged some dramatic license to assist sales of the book.
I think the real core of Weibert's contribution, though, is his development of a simple, common-sense approach to debunking long-held assumptions. Two examples,
1) What fool believes battle-tested NA warriors are "napping" at three in the afternoon?
2) What person in his right mind waves his hat in the air from a ridge, revealing the existence of two hundred comrades-in-arms?
~~~
RE: Battle Artifacts from "Ford D" Area.
It is my understanding from NPS rangers -- I visited the battlefield this summer -- that there is some sort of shallow excavation process underway on private land near what is considered the Ford D area. I believe I heard the words "amateur archaeology" used. At the time, to be honest, I had never even heard of a "Ford D", and from what I knew of the battle a time-consuming cavalry advance over Cemetery Ridge, down to the double-looping LBH at that point, seemed an unlikely proposition.
I understand now that many people, including Richard Fox, disagree and think Custer may have attempted to cross the LBH hundreds of yards north of MTC.
My questions:
1) Does anyone know of any recently discovered artifacts from the Ford D area?
2) What precisely is the industrial operation northwest of the battlefield? Acres of topsoil have been stripped away leaving what appears as a sandy, manicured plateau adjacent to the LBH river bank. I have heard it's a commercial gravel business. Anyone know for sure?
Mulligan
|
|
|
Post by tubman13 on Aug 27, 2014 17:53:55 GMT -6
Chuck, now you have fired a number of small arms in your time, now if I gave you a Winchester or a Henry, both equipped with iron sights (notch & V), now how would you fare at firing these weapons over a distance of between 200-300 yards, now if you place these weapons to someone who had no real training, could he easily drop a man at this distance? Don’t forget that this is a battle, and your heart would be pumping and your lungs heavy, so I would guess that a warrior would have to get closer to knock his target down, but alas I have never fired either weapon, so what do you think. Ian. Ian, bullet drop is hellish, sliding ramp sight would help, so would tangs with peep. Indians did not have them. I do ok out to 150 yds. or so on .44 mag with open sights, also hellish drop.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Aug 27, 2014 18:35:28 GMT -6
You heard correctly, and it is so marked on the map.Has been for fifty years.
|
|
|
Post by fred on Aug 27, 2014 20:06:38 GMT -6
But there are reasons, I'm sure, that his seemingly implausible "Bouyer" theory was attached at the very end of his "Sixty-Six Years" text. This, I do not know. Cannot help you there. A semi-literate Italian immigrant. And you wouldn't know this-- no one does; it has not been published yet-- but the was closer to 1:45 than 3 PM. Someone who believes he's caught them "napping." This was a figurative comment, not meant-- when uttered-- to be taken literally. I know nothing about this. I am one of them... Dark Cloud is not. In my overall scheme of things, a foray to Ford D makes perfect sense, especially considering splintering of the command. I would also discount any theory of an advance "over" Cemetery Ridge. There is no evidence for such-- though that area has been butchered beyond belief-- but there is evidence of a government presence in what used to be called Crazy Horse Ravine (leading to the Battle Ridge extension). None at the ford, but a number leading to the ford. Don't know the commercial viability of that area, but the gravel pit has been there for years... Chuck may even be conservative with 50 years. The entire area not owned by the U. S. government or the CBPC has been desecrated over the years. There was even a trash dump at Ford B that has been subsequently removed, but to me, this is just typical. And the Crow Indians who sold their land to the CBPC are now pissing and moaning that the organization wants to donate to the Park Service, howling that it is Crow land. Go figure. At heart, I am an Indian lover, but if you study this campaign enough, you come away with the feeling the Crows were not the swiftest group, not the most loyal, and clearly not the most competent. I have found nothing in today's contemporary population to make me change that viewpoint. Best wishes, Fred.
|
|
|
Post by lew on Aug 27, 2014 21:41:55 GMT -6
Any evidence that George Custer fired any of his weapons that day?
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Aug 27, 2014 21:56:18 GMT -6
I don't see how there could be Larry. Even if it could somehow be proved that his weapons were fired, and I don't see how you could even do that, minus weapon, and shell casings, that would still be no proof that you could take before a jury to convince them that Custer himself fired them.
It would seem that it would be the wise thing to do under the circumstances though.
|
|
|
Post by lew on Aug 27, 2014 22:05:25 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by lew on Aug 27, 2014 22:06:39 GMT -6
The article states that zero shell casings from his revolver has ever been recovered.
|
|
|
Post by Mulligan on Aug 28, 2014 3:21:01 GMT -6
Fred,
Following up on your comment, what are the recent artifact discoveries that have been located in the area descending towards Ford D? How recent are we talking?
~~~
Let me reject, for a moment, my freshman college ideas (1970's) about the flow of battle -- that Custer's entire command suddenly met unexpected and overwhelming force while within yards of MTC and then fled in a notoriously disorganized retreat up Deep Coulee, across Greasy Grass Ridge, and finally to Battle Ridge. Every historian before 1984 and virtually every movie depicts events this way. Let me endeavor to replace this scenario with a couple of modern interpretations of the action.
I must still consider how a charging battalion of two hundred mounted soldiers, led by a controversial but otherwise experienced commander, could be stopped in its tracks and annihilated within minutes.
Although not a military strategist I will cling to my instinct that neither Calhoun's Company C, nor Keogh's Company I, were ever deployed in any type of "Rear Guard" action. I will insist on seeing Custer's columns operating cohesively and parallel to one another at all times. All for one, and one for all.
Two hundred charging cavalrymen, on the verge of what they think will be the greatest victory in the history of Plains Indian warfare, will not be brought to dismount by a band of thirty or forty NA snipers, IMHO. They will change course toward the firing and run the bastards over.
If, in fact, the charging columns have been brought to dismount at the top of Luce Ridge, and begin to form skirmish lines there, then they have encountered overwhelming force at that point. I think 500 or so mobile NAs, armed with repeating firearms, could emerge from the surrounding ravines and become that force.
Custer's command remounts and charges toward Battle Ridge, leaving the NAs behind briefly. Custer orders his soldiers to encircle the entire ridgeline, from Calhoun Hill to Last Stand Hill, and a holding battle ensues while they await reinforcement. Only when additional groups of NAs join the fighting from various areas is the encirclement of Battle Ridge broken and the survivors scatter in all directions, only to be run down like so many buffalo. Later, Benteen reports that corpses are strewn about in a pattern resembling kernels of corn thrown on a floor.
An alternate scenario, assuming Custer's columns move through whatever resistance is encountered atop Luce Ridge, is that a three-pronged attack maneuver begins as the battalion crests the area of Calhoun Hill. Yates to the left with two companies down toward MTC, Calhoun and Keogh down the middle toward Ford C, Custer and the Headquarters Group descending Cemetery Ridge to Ford D as a right wing. Trumpets blow.
Things deteriorate instantly as they meet a thousand NAs coming straight up at them from the river bottom. Yates gets the worst of it, E and F companies folded up northward into Deep Ravine and killed there. Calhoun and Keogh (who have skirted Deep Ravine) withdraw back up the center, firing defensively as skirmishers. Ditto for Headquarters Group, heading up to the northern end of the ridge. As the soldiers reach the ridgeline they're quickly surrounded on all sides. On the southern end Calhoun and Keogh fight until overwhelmed. Headquarters group shoots horses for breastworks, but to no avail. It's over in minutes. 210 troopers are dead and 160 NAs are killed outright or die later from their wounds.
These two "modern" versions of the battle flow no doubt reveal my vast ignorance of many currently accepted theories of troop and NA movement around the battlefield. They are suggested as a basis to consider less complex manuevering than shown on some of the incoherent, multi-colored maps I have seen lately.
I have read Greg Michno's "Lakota Noon". I don't think any of Michno's Indians were ever on the battlefield and I wouldn't believe their accounts even if they were. It's a generalization, but Native American culture operates from a collective memory that can supercede direct experience.
I developed these two possible battle scenarios after hiking around the battlefield for an entire day observing terrain, taking notes, and just thinking. They don't exactly come out of my behind.
Pillory me if you wish. We can all agree that no one knows for sure.
Mulligan
|
|
|
Post by mac on Aug 28, 2014 3:50:26 GMT -6
Mulligan Welcome! I love ideas and enjoyed reading your scenarios. You have the advantage of having viewed the location, I only have maps. I agree it is unlikely that the cavalry encountered enough warriors to stop them in the early stages of the action. I think you have some problems with scale in defending the whole ridge. Now I will sit back and see what better minds than mine have to contribute. Again welcome. Stick around and keep an open mind. Cheers
|
|
|
Post by Yan Taylor on Aug 28, 2014 7:16:38 GMT -6
Your right Mac, I still can’t comprehend the various landmarks and distances as good as being there and seeing it for yourself, don’t get me wrong there are some fine maps and I have a couple myself, but I would rather see the scale of the place with my own “mince pies”.
One thing that would make a difference would be to see how the land undulates, and we all say that the Indians had no tactics, well they showed more brains on how to advance over open terrain and get in close to their foe then all the European armies did in the first two or three years of WW1.
Why does the need of having to find cavalry gear in a certain location a must to prove that soldiers were on that ground, do cavalry drop equipment as they go along? If so then these men should be naked in the time it took to travel from PRD to LBH.
Tom, I always wanted to shoot a “Saturday Night Special” but you can blame “Skynyrd” for that.
Ian.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Aug 28, 2014 8:34:57 GMT -6
I am going to sound like DC here Ian. Personally I discount the presence of cavalry equipment artifacts as having no more meaning than someone dropped something at a particular location and did not retrieve it. It is not in and of itself an indicator of a cavalry presence. Such evidence is only valuable if it fits within the pattern of other evidence.
In Bmore a SNS is called a Roscoe. Don't ask me how I know.
|
|