|
Post by AZ Ranger on Jan 2, 2016 6:36:21 GMT -6
I think Tom is pointing out what happens with statements from individual witnesses or locational witnesses. Of the two soldier accounts Martin and Thompson they both describe some action near Ford B. So JSIT version could mean he never talked with anyone that was near Ford B earlier than the observations made by whomever he talked with from the Ford D area. Of the options of the Ford Ds area I would think most likely chose the northern crossing. Just thinking out loud here and trying to recall what Scott and Donahue were presenting.
So if your are an observer but located at the north end of the village the closeness of the troopers might begin in the Ford D area and the shooting going on at the other end of the village could be Reno or Custer near Ford B. I don't know that on the ground near ford Ds you could see anything at the other end more than a lot of dust in air.
From Reno Creek to Ford D is an overall movement north to south. Depending on where you are located at any time your observations would be different. Reno moved south to north at first. Late comers to the valley fight would only observe a north to south movement to the bluffs.
I think Fred's timeline leaves some wiggle room but whatever your theory it should fit within it. Some one shot at Martin's horse and I don't think that was from across the river. Martin states he looked back and Custer was in action with the Indians. Witnesses in the timber heard shots being fired.
What I like about Fred's timeline is that he fits into it the majority of accounts rather forming an opinion and then selecting the accounts.
My question would be why would Custer leave the Ford B area crossing open and unopposed without ever looking at it from close up?
Regards
AZ Ranger
|
|
|
Post by Yan Taylor on Jan 2, 2016 6:46:44 GMT -6
You do give food for thought Steve, Fred’s work has been extensive and covers all the bases. A few accounts say that the soldiers left a rear guard and moved north, one of them said that this party had about fifty soldiers. On the JSIT map we have what looks like Custer’s whole command in two lines moving from LNC to Calhoun hill or just behind it, and there was Indian activity on either side of their advance.
Once on Calhoun Custer could view the ford B area and make any quick decisions he thought prudent, if he expected reserves to approach from the south and the ford below was showing signs activity then maybe he could see the advantage of leaving a company behind.
I know I might get laughed out of town with this but whats to say that Custer didn't approach the northern ford with four companies.
Ian.
|
|
|
Post by AZ Ranger on Jan 2, 2016 7:00:43 GMT -6
Ian
That's not the first time that has been brought up. I think the observation may have been of Custer on the cemetery area rather than BR. Just like Fred pointing out that road construction filled in gaps in the battle ridge area the current entrance road filled in what we call CH draw.
Three years ago with the walk put on by the Friends both Scott and Donahue discussed the discoveries and observations at the north. One of things presented was not new but some observations of Benteen's map. There is line on it across the cemetery area toward the Ford D area. It is roughly where the old entrance was located. While researching the photos in the basement a photo was discovered showing the old entrance road with Kellogg's marker in the picture. Attempting to put together the exact location of where the picture was taken from they concluded it was from the new road and the height above the road was approximately the height of a school bus. The picture was of a high school band marching in the dedication of the new road.
Regards
AZ Ranger
|
|
|
Post by AZ Ranger on Jan 2, 2016 7:07:24 GMT -6
Ian
I was working on my post when posted your last. My post was reference previous posts. I have learned to never laugh at anything without seeing what the individual uses to form an opinion. Things I laugh at are more likely to be something like the Indians were fixed by Reno. My feeling is that Fred used his sources to form his timeline but a lot of others start with their timeline and chose only sources that fit.
I prefer Fred's method.
Regards
Steve
|
|
|
Post by fred on Jan 2, 2016 10:51:25 GMT -6
I know I might get laughed out of town with this but whats to say that Custer didn't approach the northern ford with four companies. You will get laughed out of no place. You have earned your spurs and can freely count yourself among the "Grand Masters" of this subject. We protected you during the Dark Cloud purges and you grew. No one will be kicking you anywhere. Now... John Stands In Timber and interpretations. To reach some semblance of truth in this whole thing, every shred of evidence, every account, every theory needs to be examined. It may be insanely smug of me, but I believe I have come very close to achieving that and have therefore written Strategy. Methodology is important. If 6 guys say one thing and 2 guys say something completely different, all must be considered and we need to discover why there are those two dissenters. If the accounts of the 6 make sense, why the discrepancies? Well, maybe those other two were in a different place... or maybe they are using hearsay... or maybe there is some other reason. All that needs to be investigated. Here is a perfect example... and I am not checking my notes, so there may be a little fudge-factor here, so please forgive me: Did Custer make a second trip to the "Crow's Nest"? This is another of those things debated time and time again, some saying "no," others claiming "yes." And what do we have? Well, we have the account of Charlie Varnum-- absolutely gold-plated-- that says, categorically, Custer did NOT make a second trip to the Crow's Nest (notice the absence of quote marks?). Yet we have Luke Hare-- equally gold-plated-- and some others (?... notes, please!!) who say Custer made a second trip "to view the village." And by the way, he took De Rudio's field glasses with him. So what have we? Accept both. Varnum said "no" to the Crow's Nest and if I am not mistaken, Hare never used the term, "Crow's Nest." So if both are correct, then where did Custer go? Obviously, the divide... and since the divide was considerably lower in elevation than the hilltops and Custer was doubting anything was there to begin with, he needed those field glasses to make sure, one way or the other. That conclusion accepts all the accounts, eliminating none, and making perfect sense: Custer claimed nothing was there; others disagreed; Custer went to resolve the issue. Mystery solved. Now all that is needed is for historians and writers and battle students to accept reality. And we have one less mystery to deal with. Just to make sure you all catch a nice New Year's Saturday nap-- early-- I will continue: let's discuss distortions. Distortions with prejudice. I will pick on my friend "keogh" from next door, only because he can't reciprocate over here and I can have a good laugh at his expense when next we meet. Unfair, I know, but what the hell are friends for, right? Custer crossed the divide around noon. "Keogh" prefers 11 AM because he has an agenda that includes blaming Benteen for Custer's defeat. Believe me, I have no intention of trying to blind-side "keogh," preferring instead to use his "model" as an example of distortion... so follow me closely. Yes, there is or are an account or accounts where an 11 AM can be justified, but those accounts pale in comparison with others claiming noon. The most definitive, however, came from the guy keeping some sort of track of time, George Wallace. To eliminate Wallace as a credible source, however, Wallace is said to be lying and that claim is supported by another Wallace time claim. Wallace does, however, say he consulted his watch as the divide was crossed and the other claims supporting him are quite credible. We cannot, however, summarily or arbitrarily dismiss those who alluded to 11 AM. Having looked at the circumstances, the positioning, and the context of all these accounts, it became clear to me, "noon" was the correct choice. We then fast-forward to Benteen's arrival on Reno Hill. By saying Custer crossed the divide at 11 AM, we conveniently slow down Benteen's pace. Sopping this off, however, by saying Benteen arrived on Reno Hill at 2:30 PM, we increase Benteen's speed-- somewhat-- but can then use that arrival to increase the delaying time atop Reno Hill, the more "egregious" of the two charges against Benteen, i. e., dawdling along Reno Creek and/or idling away on a hilltop an afternoon while hay was being made farther downstream. Yet even the 2:30 time is suspect because the man who made that claim-- Ed Godfrey-- also said at another time, that the arrival was around 3 PM. Even more reliable than specific clock times, however, are the relative times given us by multiple sources, times that tie a multitude of "contexts" together, e. g., the beginning of Reno's retreat, the duration of the valley fight, the arrival on Reno Hill of Reno and some of his troops, etc. This is similar to the technique used by John Gray in skewing his timeline to support his beliefs. So all these issues are valid for discussion, and like the JSIT comments, need to be compared and placed next to other accounts that seem to or do differ. OK... hopefully, that is my preaching for 2016. Now please, continue a great discussion. Best wishes, Fred.
|
|
|
Post by fred on Jan 2, 2016 10:56:50 GMT -6
What I was trying to say is that GAC when attempting to retreat from the area of Ford D and was cut off from returning to any support that was in the south. He was moving north to south, and I will just bet I am not the only one who thinks he was attempting to fight. Hence north to south! Now is that battle flow? I find this a brilliant observation, and like "montrose" said, one I had not considered in thinking about any sort of north-south movement. Very, very clever observation!!! I would not need to re-think anything; I would simply agree with your depiction of this as a north-to-south battle flow and it would fit in with what Colt was bringing up. Man, oh man, what a great pick-up!!!Best wishes, Fred.
|
|
|
Post by tubman13 on Jan 2, 2016 14:27:16 GMT -6
True battle flow is generally considered the line of march, which was originally south to north. Battle flow for the Cheyenne could be looked at another way, they had no true military doctrine as we know it and describe only what they would have seen at a given time, maybe their own personal approach to the battle or how they joined it. Example could be a hunting party approaching GAC from the northeast or a rather large blocking force in Ford D area that then became an attack force.
Colt's breakdown of the split in GAC's force makes sense from a tactical perspective and might cause me to give more credit than in the past. Outcome and time wise it makes little to no difference. The troopers died whether running north or south. They were struck down as in a buffalo stampede or hunt, as recently discussed elsewhere.
Dr. Thomas Marquis talked to many of the same Cheyenne as did JSIT and is a good source. Edward Curtis garnered much from Crow participants, but was dissuaded from publishing his work by Teddy Roosevelt. Those writings now reside at the Smithsonian, also interesting stuff.
Regards, Tom
|
|
|
Post by tubman13 on Jan 2, 2016 14:30:32 GMT -6
I might also add George Bird Grinnell put out some interesting stuff from the Cheyenne perspective.
|
|
|
Post by AZ Ranger on Jan 3, 2016 7:43:21 GMT -6
Sounds like what Weibert wrote about on flow. What Tom said is consistent with what Donahue and Scott presented 3 years ago. It is a matter of what time frame and location you are looking at or from. It does fit in part with Gordie's theory which Donahue brought up at the walking discussion.
It doesn't change Fred's work since his is the whole picture.
Easy evidence of this phenomena would be for example the whole picture of Reno in the valley as compared to a late comer such as CH and descriptions of what they observed. Since Reno lived we get the what his thinking was for the command and his movements prior to CH arrival.
There is very little hope that Indian accounts alone could fix events in a time relationship. You must attempt to match their locations with the cavalry location. If you don't have Custer near Ford D s than JSIT doesn't make sense or it is another ford. Likewise if JSIT is correct and the location is near Ford Ds than Custer must have been somewhere around there.
That's the beauty of Fred's work. It give a whole picture.
Regards
Steve
|
|
|
Post by Yan Taylor on Jan 3, 2016 7:59:45 GMT -6
Steve, what if Custer was thwarted at ford D and Smith was wounded, and this caused him to pull back and regroup, but this move south was also drawing fire from the brush along the river, resulting in Kellogg being shot and killed.
Then we have Crazy Horse entering the fray which cause a halt on cemetery hill, this halt was too late for C company who carried on towards FFR and finally on to Calhoun.
I am not sure if the sudden appearance of these C company men would look like a charge to the Indians attacking Calhoun as I don’t think they would have a clear LOS on what was going on further north.
Ian.
|
|
|
Post by AZ Ranger on Jan 4, 2016 5:48:28 GMT -6
Ian
I think we need to take the snapshot accounts such as what JSIT and see where it fits in the whole picture which is what Fred's work contains. My problem is I am a visual learner and its harder to put all these things in context with what ifs in my mind without going to a map or better yet the battlefield. I think it is possible that JSIT is describing action at Ford D and if others think the only ford that Custer came close to then they would transfer his account to ford B.
Steve
|
|
|
Post by fred on Jan 4, 2016 8:16:25 GMT -6
I think it is possible that JSIT is describing action at Ford D and if others think the only ford that Custer came close to then they would transfer his account to ford B. I think the Ford D scenario is the only one possible. It is difficult for me to understand the intransigence of people with this Ford B business. To me, the evidence of a military presence at "B" is overwhelming. The fact it was not always recognized that way, i. e., a few days after the battle or even well into the late-20th century, is understandable because of the lack of access to Indian accounts, but now that all this has become so transparent, the clinging to these "old wive's tales" of no troops at Ford B seems ridiculous to me. What is even worse then, is the rout from that ford. Those are two conflicting scenarios, which again are disposed of by Indian accounts. I really like Tom's depiction of a north-south battle as one beginning at Ford D and extending to Last Stand Hill. I can buy that easily, even though I, personally, believe the real fighting did not begin until Custer reached Cemetery Ridge. That is incidental, however, and does nothing to denigrate or mitigate Tom's idea. Best wishes, Fred.
|
|
|
Post by benteen on Jan 9, 2016 14:52:02 GMT -6
Colt, Steve/AZ had a conversation with some well placed rangers at the park, after I left. They seem to indicate that a new book is coming that may shake or alter some long held theories. Maybe your considerations will be a part of this, I don't know. I would like to know what students like Jerry Green would opine regarding what your above thoughts. Fred has some strongly held opinions on the battle flow and may contend differently, but who am I to put words in his mouth. I think, former long time poster on this board, QC, may agree tactically. I don't want to put words in his mouth either. I would also like to hear from logical, level headed posters like Benteen and a theory buster like Wild. Regards, Tom Hi Tom, Sorry I didnt get back to you sooner. This ford B theory is one of the few times I disagree with Capt Fred and "Strategy" It may be for a flimsy reason, but the best way I can explain my point of view is the following. You will remember in the movie "Patton" Rommell asks one of his staff Officers to tell him about Patton. The Officer starts to tell him about Pattons tactics etc, but Rommell says no, tell me about the man. I used the same standard to look at Custer. Who was Custer. He was brave,he was someone who cared only about himself. the Army was just a tool for him to gain his own fame and glory, he was one of the most aggressive Officers in the US Army, and recon was never his strong suit. Custer attacked. Look at the Washita, Yellowstone, and the LBH. The only orders he gave was "Reno attack" Benteeen "Pitch into anything (attack)" He even sent Reno to attack before he looked at what Reno was up against (Another words before he got to hill 3411 to have a look. My opinion is that if Custer was going to ford B, it was not to have a "Look See" or recon, but was going there to attack, Why do I believe this.....Because it is what he always did. Be Well Dan
|
|
|
Post by montrose on Jan 9, 2016 21:37:35 GMT -6
Dan,
The classic Custer would have attacked in the valley with everything he had. The larger problem is why did he not go in with Reno, where he could best see when and where to deploy the trailing battalions.
There is something un Custer like in LBH.
About 1873 Custer bought a book on Napoleon's campaigns. I wonder if he became inspired to try this tactic thing, involving maneuver. This would be a change of GAC's patented hey diddle diddle right up the middle tactic. A playbook with one play. Unfortunately, that play was his best chance on 25 Jun 76.
William
|
|
|
Post by benteen on Jan 10, 2016 15:09:17 GMT -6
Dan, The classic Custer would have attacked in the valley with everything he had. The larger problem is why did he not go in with Reno, where he could best see when and where to deploy the trailing battalions. There is something un Custer like in LBH. About 1873 Custer bought a book on Napoleon's campaigns. I wonder if he became inspired to try this tactic thing, involving maneuver. This would be a change of GAC's patented hey diddle diddle right up the middle tactic. A playbook with one play. Unfortunately, that play was his best chance on 25 Jun 76. William Colonel Montrose, Yes sir, Santa Anna and Custer, the Napoleons of the West with something in common.....They both got their clocks cleaned. Be Well Dan
|
|