|
Post by montrose on May 28, 2015 15:47:44 GMT -6
1. Purpose. Establish a thread to discuss changes to the terrain in the battlefield area since 1876.
2. Fauna. The destruction of the bison, antelope and other large animals obviously effects the local ecosystem.
3. Flora. The local vegetation has changed. Invasive plants introduced in the US after 1876 cover significant parts of the battlefield.
4. Water. Agriculture has taken away at least a third of the water flow in the LBH river. Lower volume of water means less power, and changes not just the location of the river but banks, depth, current. In other words, the LBH was more of an obstacle to movement in 1876 than 2015. The first reference t noting this change was around 1903, that I have seen.
|
|
|
Terrain
May 28, 2015 16:46:46 GMT -6
Post by tubman13 on May 28, 2015 16:46:46 GMT -6
Will,
4. slower water, shallower, maybe more silt build up, less or slower bank erosion. Also, if I am not mistaking, they have built a dam north of the battlefield and can maybe control water flow.
2. Bison zippo, antelope thriving, but antelope do not have impact on the area that bison did.
1.Roads, sand pit, interstate, rail line, and other changes not on or adjacent to battlefield impact the area greatly.
3.I will ask about the grass etc.
Steve and I plan to float the river this year. I have no idea what if anything that might reveal.
Regards, Tom
|
|
|
Post by Beth on May 28, 2015 17:52:32 GMT -6
I've been doing a lot of reading about Little Bighorn and grasses because I hate it when I don't know an answer.
First I found that the area was called greasy grass, not because it was a certain grass but because it was grass so good that it made animals fat (greasy). I suspect that the term greasy grass didn't just apply to Greasy Grass ridge but parts of the entire valley. I suspect that since the ponies were being grazed on the bench, it too had 'greasy grass.' I can't see people who live and die by their horses putting them in on an inferior pasture, if there was better that close. Of course I can't confirm any of those hunches but it is food for thought.
As to why people think greasy grass is Purple top. I found references that that 'people' think the reference to Greasy Grass came from a grass made things made the horses feel greasy when they were in contact with it-- which is why they suggest tridens flavus (purple top). It has a seed that feels greasy. However purple top does not grow anywhere near Montana so it can't be the right plant.
This is my own theory that there is the possibility that more than one type of grass in the area fits the bill so if they were all found together it would indeed make for well feed horses.
I found a source that listed a sampling of plants at LBH by area. Ridgetop grassland's top grasses are: Bluebunch wheatgrass is a very nutritious grass. It grows from 1.5 to 4 foot tall. Western Wheatgrass which grows from 1 to 3 feet tall Junegrass which grows around 7 inches to 29 inches
All three of those grasses are good foliage for grazing.
Anyway those are a whole lot of hunches, you are free to take what you want from them.
Beth
|
|
|
Terrain
May 28, 2015 18:53:45 GMT -6
Post by Beth on May 28, 2015 18:53:45 GMT -6
I forgot to say thanks to Will for setting up this thread.
|
|
|
Terrain
May 28, 2015 20:16:25 GMT -6
Post by montrose on May 28, 2015 20:16:25 GMT -6
Beth, You are quite welcome. Do you mind copying and pasting your flora posts here? Or I will do it over the weekend.
Problem is folks will be looking for your posts one or two years from, now, and will not know where to look.
Fred, having nerve issues again, means can only use one arm and have trouble seeing. Please give me feedback on the valley project, I have some suggestions.
|
|
|
Terrain
May 28, 2015 20:29:25 GMT -6
Post by Beth on May 28, 2015 20:29:25 GMT -6
Beth, You are quite welcome. Do you mind copying and pasting your flora posts here? Or I will do it over the weekend. Problem is folks will be looking for your posts one or two years from, now, and will not know where to look. Fred, having nerve issues again, means can only use one arm and have trouble seeing. Please give me feedback on the valley project, I have some suggestions. Sure, no problem. I start taking care of it right away. I agree they need to be moved, and some perhaps just deleted. I really am sorry I tend to drag your thread off topic. Beth
|
|
|
Terrain
May 28, 2015 20:42:53 GMT -6
Post by Beth on May 28, 2015 20:42:53 GMT -6
|
|
|
Terrain
Jun 7, 2015 14:40:57 GMT -6
Post by owyhee on Jun 7, 2015 14:40:57 GMT -6
I was wondering if the channel of the river is where it was in 1876? When viewing from Google Earth it is easy to see the river has changed course numerous times.
|
|
|
Terrain
Jun 7, 2015 14:48:31 GMT -6
Post by welshofficer on Jun 7, 2015 14:48:31 GMT -6
I was wondering if the channel of the river is where it was in 1876? When viewing from Google Earth it is easy to see the river has changed course numerous times. I can vaguely remember a discussion on this some time ago. Perhaps somebody else will be able to remember which thread and post a link for us both...? I certainly recall a significant change in the Ford D area.
WO
|
|
|
Terrain
Jun 7, 2015 14:55:28 GMT -6
Post by quincannon on Jun 7, 2015 14:55:28 GMT -6
No it is not OH. There are several maps that depict the 1876 course or a very close approximation of it. The best I think is the Bonafides but it has been out of print since 2011, and the copies some members here have of it are probably like mine, in tatters. Mine now has more Scotch Tape than paper at this point. The McElfresh map, which is a period reproduction has it as well, and that is still available. I think the map in the park brochure has the 76 course as well. Mine got so torn up that I finally threw it away, so I can't check that.
It is a key point though especially up in the Ford D area where the river once had a wide loop that came together and was pinched at the base of the loop. As you realize from your own training that pinch could present a lot of problems had Custer crossed at D.
|
|
|
Terrain
Jun 7, 2015 15:49:08 GMT -6
Post by Beth on Jun 7, 2015 15:49:08 GMT -6
I was wondering if the channel of the river is where it was in 1876? When viewing from Google Earth it is easy to see the river has changed course numerous times. You might find this study of interest link
|
|
|
Post by alfakilo on Jun 7, 2015 15:50:48 GMT -6
I was wondering if the channel of the river is where it was in 1876? When viewing from Google Earth it is easy to see the river has changed course numerous times. I can vaguely remember a discussion on this some time ago. Perhaps somebody else will be able to remember which thread and post a link for us both...? I certainly recall a significant change in the Ford D area.
WO
I remember that discussion. Here are some visuals for consideration. First, a revised part of the McGuire map: This old map may show the same river course (upper left side of map showing Cheyenne path). Red circle shows possible old river course along base of bluff. Finally, something I imagined that might show the Ford D area(s) and course of river along the base of the bluff.
|
|
|
Terrain
Jun 7, 2015 15:55:04 GMT -6
Post by welshofficer on Jun 7, 2015 15:55:04 GMT -6
Alfakilo,
That's it. Definite tactical issues in the GAC battalions crossing at the Fords D and putting the river behind them.
WO
|
|
|
Terrain
Jun 7, 2015 16:28:12 GMT -6
Post by Beth on Jun 7, 2015 16:28:12 GMT -6
Is it just me or do those two different Ford D's suggest that neither one is exactly ideal? What could Custer have planned to do? At that point he could only have counted on his battalion (assuming he thinks everything is as he left it. He knows that Benteen is 'somewhere' and I don't know if he has a clue about Reno. Does anyone have an idea what he may have been thinking?
I am struck by the fact than neither fords prevent the NA from just going up on the bench and using the height against Custer--or am I seeing things weird?
|
|
|
Terrain
Jun 7, 2015 18:00:48 GMT -6
Post by alfakilo on Jun 7, 2015 18:00:48 GMT -6
Is it just me or do those two different Ford D's suggest that neither one is exactly ideal? What could Custer have planned to do? At that point he could only have counted on his battalion (assuming he thinks everything is as he left it. He knows that Benteen is 'somewhere' and I don't know if he has a clue about Reno. Does anyone have an idea what he may have been thinking? I am struck by the fact than neither fords prevent the NA from just going up on the bench and using the height against Custer--or am I seeing things weird? Those two circles are strictly notional...if there was a Ford D, my guess is that it would be more like the one to the west...Custer comes around the bluff and chooses to cross where the river turns back to the west. Why? I don't know...maybe he still was entertaining thoughts of trapping the Indians between himself and Reno? Or perhaps he was thinking a page out of the Washita play book and go for the non-coms. My guess is that by the time he got to the fording location, the jig was already up...he wouldn't perhaps know that until he retraced his steps back around the bluff to the Cemetery Ridge area.
|
|