|
Post by Beth on Oct 1, 2015 17:14:03 GMT -6
The timing here is such that Boston would have only seen the very beginning of the retreat. That means he would not have seen the craziness, the mayhem, and the assumption-- valid-- would be Reno would be pulling back along his route of advance. No one would have expected that retreat route to have been cut off, least of all Custer. We even have a former general; an Indian; and a private soldier alluding to the same thing: you pull back the way you came. Reno couldn't because he was forced toward the river, something the Indians probably fully intended to do. That inserted Reno between Custer and an advancing Benteen. Part of the craziness here is Benteen's route. Stupid Martini never directed Benteen toward Custer and it was only the fortuitous intervention of Curley and a couple of Rees that directed Benteen toward Custer's trail and up the bluffs. That meant for Benteen to advance to Custer he would first have to deal with Reno's situation. Fred, for clarification in my brain. What would the very beginning of the retreat look like? I'm not questioning that was the point of events were but if Boston looked--what would he have seen?
|
|
|
Post by dan25 on Oct 1, 2015 17:16:00 GMT -6
Fred and Dave, thank you. Ordered the book from amazon. They did have your other book, but will wait for the new one.
Dave, I think even a civilian could explain what they seen.
dan25
|
|
|
Post by dave on Oct 1, 2015 17:33:43 GMT -6
Dan I asked simply because of having been in the clean up hours after a tornado so many people were unable to describe what they saw and heard. I thought Boston, being a civilian, might be confused as to what he saw. Regards Dave
|
|
|
Post by dan25 on Oct 1, 2015 17:37:17 GMT -6
That makes a lot of sense Dave. They went thru it. Boston hadn't experienced anything yet, I don't think he was afraid yet.
dan25
|
|
|
Post by fred on Oct 1, 2015 19:09:35 GMT -6
What would the very beginning of the retreat look like? I'm not questioning that was the point of events were but if Boston looked--what would he have seen? I have Reno beginning to move out of the timber at 2:23 PM and Boston passing over 3,411 at 2:26. If he looked into the valley Boston would probably have seen the front-end of Reno's column, beginning to string out, with Indians not yet coalesced into retaliating. Boston would have never seen the rout and I do not think he would have seen any troops being forced toward the river; remember, he was traveling quite fast himself, probably as fast or even faster than Reno, so anything he saw would have been momentary and fleeting. For Reno, in three minutes, at a speed of about 12 to 13 MPH, you are talking about a distance of some 1,100 yards or 3/10 of a mile. The distance involved from the timber to any given crossing point-- and there were several-- was 1.14 to 1.38 miles. For all practical purposes, all Boston would have seen, in my opinion, is rapid troop movement and a lot of dust: not much more. Best wishes, Fred.
|
|
|
Post by Beth on Oct 1, 2015 19:40:30 GMT -6
Boston was often with his brothers and probably knew all about military terms and movements but I don't know if he would have recognized those terms in motion. Just like I have in the last year. learned all about break outs, columns, troop movement so on, but I have never SEEN any of those things in person.
So if Boston sat on his horse at 3411 would he basically have see Reno riding at full speed away from the timber with other troopers sort of in mass--no columns or organized movement--just something that would look like if a bunch of people on horses decided to raise as quickly as they could across the field towards the river?
Since it was only a few minutes into the retreat by your impeccable timetable. I perhaps can assume that the NA have not had a chance to recover from the surprise of Reno's movement and have not had a chance to react? After all isn't that one of the key's to a successful breakout?
Once Boston got to Custer if he reported that he saw Reno riding in pretty much the opposite direction Custer expects, it would be enough to tell Custer something wasn't right. Right? But not necessarily how dire it was?
How's that for a whole lot of tedious "I'm not sure I understand what I should be" questions.
|
|
|
Post by dan25 on Oct 2, 2015 6:45:09 GMT -6
Fred Evidently the maps and times I have are incorrect. My map places Boston in a position to observe the valley at 3:32. It shows Reno still in the timber line, and Reno breaks out at 3:53. Which was a 21 minute difference, allowing Boston to see the indians attempting to surround the timbers. My map also shows where all the indians were attacking from, and when Reno did leave the timbers the direction he went was the only opening. He was forced to go the way he did. Also I should mention that my map shows Custer attempting to reach the river far north of ford B, past Squaw Creek and Cemetery Ridge. Could this be ford D? Click on the link below, these are the maps I have been using. Maps 28 to 31. www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/historical/atlas_of_the_sioux_wars-2006-pt2.pdfdan25
|
|
|
Post by fred on Oct 2, 2015 8:34:00 GMT -6
Evidently the maps and times I have are incorrect. Dan, I have those maps. Remember something: a lot of my work is very, very controversial. I break down norms. Not because that's something I want to do, but because I have tried very, very hard to learn and understand. I believe I have read well over 90% of the primary accounts left us. I have summarized all those I have read and have put those summaries into 236 individual profiles. I try not to eliminate anything someone said unless it is either so outrageous-- and there is some of that-- or if it does not fit with what a majority of others has said. When I wrote my book, I warned people on these boards and on Facebook, along with friends in the LBHA and CBHMA, the book would be extremely controversial and as you can see from one of my posts, there are things in the book that clearly defy the norm and go against everything people have been reading or have believed for over 100 years. The way the valley fight unfolded, is a perfect example. And if I am not mistaken, my depiction of that fighting is the only one of its kind: no one else has ever done it or said it unfolded the way I have depicted. The problem here is that my work throws all these theories to the wind. In my defense, however, I can state that I use every single known account we have of that fighting, whereas no one else does. When writers and historians come across something they cannot understand or fit in with accepted theory, they generally drop it. I have never taken that approach: I have always tried-- very hard-- to figure out what these guys were telling us. Here is an example... for 138 years people have believed Reno kept the horses of all three companies in the timber. There is some evidence for that. There is, however, a number of accounts that cannot be reconciled with that theory. Those accounts are simply dropped by writers: why?, because they cannot understand them. If, however, you think maybe M Company did not sequester its horses in the woods, but had the horses follow behind the skirmish line, then all those accounts begin to make sense. And there is a lot more to it as well that supports my conclusions. Here is another one... there were two skirmish lines. Well, everyone believes the skirmish line formed, M on the left, A in the middle, and G on the right. Correct? That was line # 1. Then it moved to a point and stopped. That was line # 2. Wrong!What really happened, if you read accounts that writers do not use, you will find M Company did not move with the others... except initially, when they formed up. M Company moved toward the bluffs in the west while everyone else swung northward, breaking the line in two. 1SG Ryan's account alludes to this, but is taken out of context and used to support the old theory. That's wrong. A number of years ago, a local land-owner discovered government artifacts some 8/10 of a mile from the timber; considerably farther away than anyone thought the skirmish went. At the RCOI, LT Maguire was asked how long he thought the line was. He responded... are you ready for this?... 8/10 of a mile. Also at the RCOI, SGT Ferdinand Culbertson testified that he was the man on the far left of the line. Fine. Except Culbertson was in Company A. That meant the A - G line had advanced northward, while the M line was still moving toward the west and behind the rest and Culbertson simply did not see them, thinking he was the far end of the line. All of this then throws into question how long Reno fought in the valley. While most people think only 10 minutes, sit back and think about that. Ten minutes? If all the above is even half-way true, how long do you think it would take those men from M Company to run 8/10 of a mile, fighting off Indians on horseback beginning to charge at them, running in heavy boots, to reach the timber? How long would it have taken them to get that far away in the first place? And people think Reno spent only 10 minutes fighting in the valley...? If you go on Amazon and look at the reviews of my book, you will find two really bad reviews. If you read them closely, you will see they are extremely subjective-- not objective-- and center around what I call "cherished theories." This book of mine destroys any number of those precious, "cherished theories." It calls into question so many we have held over the years. Yet all I have done is to use the accounts of those who were there, who fought the battle; and the artifacts found, the archaeology discovered; a good map, a ruler, a lot of common sense; my own experience as a soldier; and some help from good friends like Steve Andrews and the guys I wander the fields with. And to be honest, Dan... people like you, who have asked those important questions and have made me think and ponder and wonder... and discover. That is why you are so important to forums like this. Best wishes, Fred.
|
|
|
Post by dave on Oct 2, 2015 8:55:32 GMT -6
Fred Bless your heart. Does it ever feel like your brain is going to explode? How you manage to carry all that info plus know where to find more in your notes amazes me. You really need to go to Montana and take a break and buy me a beer or two. So tell me, how is Georgetown's football team doing this season? Regards Dave
|
|
|
Post by dan25 on Oct 2, 2015 9:16:30 GMT -6
Fred I certainly can appreciate all the time an effort you have put into this. In the very short time I have been interested, I wish I had 10 cents for every website I have visited.
You mentioned that you have the same maps that I do, but you didn't mention if they are correct or not. In other words should I stop studying them and look for correct ones?
In regards to the time Reno was in the valley and timbers, I have approx. 35 minutes. If my time is correct.
dan25
|
|
|
Post by fred on Oct 2, 2015 9:27:07 GMT -6
You really need to go to Montana and take a break and buy me a beer or two. That goes without saying. As usual... 1 - 2. They just man-handled Columbia... yowzie!!! That much adrenaline should keep them happy through November. I'm a Georgetown basketball whacko... always have been. Best wishes, Fred.
|
|
|
Post by fred on Oct 2, 2015 9:43:36 GMT -6
In other words should I stop studying them and look for correct ones? Dan, Just because I question them is no reason why you should not stop studying them or reading them. You need to develop your own opinions and you can only do that by reading the best. If the University of Texas put those things together, then they are worth reading and studying. What you will find is when you read the "good" stuff, your ideas will coalesce and you will be able to look at those maps and pick out the errors by yourself. One day you will be looking at something and you will say, Hey, that doesn't look right! That is exactly what happened to me when I read John Gray's book, Custer's Last Campaign for the fourth time. By then, I had read some more stuff, read more primary accounts, and could not reconcile Gray's work with so many of those accounts. That was when I knew if I really wanted the truth-- the honest truth... I know that is redundant, but still-- I knew I would have to find it myself. I would have to put my hero-worship of George Custer aside, forget about Benteen's irascible personality and Reno's booze-riddled "cowardice," and figure it all out myself. Another of those "a-ha" moments came when I was at the battlefield with Rich Fox, the archaeologist. I reached for a book to buy, and Fox grabbed it away from me, and handed me a copy of The Arikara Narrative. "Fred," he said, "you don't need someone else's opinion; you need first-hand accounts, accounts by those who were there." Ever since then, my reading and research has been mostly limited to that sort of stuff, and I bridle when I read idiots like that guy next door, Mike Griffith, blabbering away about so-called "scholars" like Sklenar, Donovan, and Philbrick (he uses Utley, too, but Utley is well past his prime with this stuff). The last I checked, none of those guys were on the 7th Cavalry's muster rolls for June 25, 1876. So you need to figure this out for yourself, Dan. Guys like me believe we have found the truth. Guys like Bill Rini on the other boards, believe they have as well, but their version of the truth is nothing but distortions to coat their heroes with sugared-icing. That isn't history... and Bill knows it; he just will not admit it, for whatever reason. I tried desperately hard to make my book as neutral, as fact-ridden, as honest, as non-prejudicial as possible. But because I condemn not Custer, nor Benteen, nor Reno, well then, I am anti-Custer, pro-the-others. It doesn't make sense. My goal is to de-bunk the bullshit and a lot of people resent it. Their straw figures and fatuous theories collapse in the wind and they hate it. So-o-o-o... keep those maps, but read others. One day you will look at them and say, "Hey, that ain't right!" That will be when you know you're on your way. Very best wishes, Fred.
|
|
|
Post by dan25 on Oct 2, 2015 9:51:06 GMT -6
Thanks Fred, I appreciate the good advice.
Best wishes also dan25
|
|
|
Post by fred on Oct 2, 2015 10:47:57 GMT -6
Dan,
You piqued my interest in those maps again, so let me give you a quick run-down of what I believe to be true.
Go to Map 26... the lone tepee is in the wrong spot. This is the traditional thinking, first de-bunked by Don Horn, then re-dicovered by me in 2007 for an article I wrote (and which won an award). The real lone tepee is much closer to the river. Those who condemn Benteen love to have it in this traditional location because they can then claim Benteen took his sweet time rather than hurrying after getting the note from Martini.
Map 27... first of all, the times are all wrong: totally wrong. Next, Reno did not go down the LBH valley in a straight line. The skirmish lines are not bad, but misleading. Custer did not go to Weir Point, but to 3,411, not even marked on the map. I am a bit impressed they got the Martini departure point pretty much spot-on, but they have the Kanipe departure too far south: Kanipe-- according to Kanipe-- advanced a little farther with the column.
Map 28... there is absolutely no evidence of a 2nd skirmish line in the timber; this is incorrect. Curley never got to Weir Point, though Boyer certainly did. There is not the slightest shred of evidence for having Boston Custer meet up with his brother at the confluence of Cedar and Medicine Tail coulees. That is sheer conjecture and it tells me whoever did this has no idea of the timing and the speeds involved. This, however, is the traditional place for their joining. Big mistake.
Map 29... Custer never stayed back on Luce Ridge with Keogh while sending Yates toward Ford B. Can you imagine this happening? George Custer sitting back? There is absolutely no evidence or proof Boyer ever joined Custer in MTC. Hogwash!! And in fact, there are multiple Crow accounts saying Boyer left the three Crow-- Hairy Moccasin, Goes Ahead, and White Man Runs Him... note, no Curley!!-- on Weir Point while he re-joined Custer in Cedar Coulee. This is a perfect example of ignoring first-hand accounts and replacing them with personal theory. The Indian movement is good and I really like the depiction of the Indian movement on the river's east side. I agree with this 100%.
Map 31... no real complaints. Not a bad job.
Does this help?
Best wishes, Fred.
|
|
|
Post by dan25 on Oct 2, 2015 11:43:31 GMT -6
Yes it does Fred. And thanks for taking the time to check the maps for me.
Do you know if the bodies of Custers men were ever recorded where they were actually found after the battle? If so, would you please tell me where I can find that information.
dan25
|
|