|
Post by wild on Aug 8, 2016 0:27:59 GMT -6
Further Posters may recall the great inch by inch motivational speech given by Al Pacino where he says that it is the hard gained inches on which games are turned . I'v seen this phenomena occur in games...a last despairing dive by a player gets a finger tip to a ball and turns its flight into the path of a team mate to score. Battles are the same ...a handful of men holding fast to an insignificant hill on the exposed left flank of the Union army change the course of history. What is the one thing that sooner or later was going to happen to Custer ? He was going to get his stupid ass shot out from under him . And so a snapsot from a young buck at a river crossing turns a US victory into a massacre. It is not the big tactical maneuvers that was the cause of Custers demise but a lucky shot from an Indian David and his sling shot. Go sand table it . Place Custer mid stream with his second battalion further back ; follow my leader is the call and then BANG.
|
|
|
Post by tubman13 on Aug 8, 2016 4:28:20 GMT -6
Further Posters may recall the great inch by inch motivational speech given by Al Pacino where he says that it is the hard gained inches on which games are turned . I'v seen this phenomena occur in games...a last despairing dive by a player gets a finger tip to a ball and turns its flight into the path of a team mate to score. Battles are the same ...a handful of men holding fast to an insignificant hill on the exposed left flank of the Union army change the course of history. What is the one thing that sooner or later was going to happen to Custer ? He was going to get his stupid ass shot out from under him . And so a snapsot from a young buck at a river crossing turns a US victory into a massacre. It is not the big tactical maneuvers that was the cause of Custers demise but a lucky shot from an Indian David and his sling shot. Go sand table it . Place Custer mid stream with his second battalion further back ; follow my leader is the call and then BANG. Richard,
Excellent post and thought process. While I think CIL may have followed HQ, E and F to the Ford D area and may have been cut up during a retreat. While this is opinion only, I use as a crutch, the Godfrey theory, that the only reason there were shod hoof prints at B was because the NA's took most of their plunder back to the encampment that way. So maybe, just maybe, all that is said to have happened at B actually happened at D. So the wounded officer may have happened there. As I understand it, there are two officers bodies missing. What were they wearing, what were they riding? If my opinion has the any basis and I think it does, this scenario makes Custer's plan look a lot better than splitting as generally thought. The time lines don't falter, and the body placements still work, heading north or south. This scenario also makes Keogh's placement seem more sensible.
Random thoughts.
Regards, Tom
|
|
|
Post by wild on Aug 8, 2016 5:53:42 GMT -6
Hi Tom Thank you. I had a follow up to my last effort but lost it to a time out .I will redo it and then have a look at yours ok. Best Regards Richard
|
|
|
Post by wild on Aug 8, 2016 6:22:44 GMT -6
The last we see of our hero is him shouting something to the effect "let us finish up here and go back to our station . This is not an officers call this is a rallying call ,Custer is attacking .Benteen's note suggests that action is immenent . Is it possible that Custer could have balked at MTCF, him of the "if you could have seen but some of the charges made ,when I think of them now I can but exclaim glorious war."This man did not do a Reno "oops form a skirmish line." Is there a worse place for a commander to be incapacitated than in mid stream and committed to an action? The HQ group ,clan dominated would have attempted to save George . They were possibly not too keen on crossing into the village anyway. The markers suggest that the HQ group withdrew towards LSH while Keogh's battalion withdrew towards Calhoun hill swinging around it and then attempting to fight it's way North towards LSH. It is possible that the ridge was now in possession of the Indians forcing Keogh to take a lower contour where he was stopped and destroyed. His final position was not due to incompetence as some of our friends would suggest but to the Indians denying him the Ridge.
I must admit here that this scenario has been cobbled together without Fred's timings . A nogood son of mine pilfers everything I have on Custer. And much of it is a reheated version of the great late lamented. Cheers
|
|
|
Post by jodak on Aug 8, 2016 7:12:47 GMT -6
When the commander is incapacitated, it falls to the next senior officer to execute "the plan". However, just as Reno and Benteen had no understanding of Custer's plan, it seems likely that neither did the officers actually accompanying Custer, so, if true that Custer fell at the river, they probably had no idea as to how to proceed in regard to Custer's intent. That would have been especially true if Keogh, the next senior, was some distance behind and those in the van felt the need to consult with him prior to proceeding further. Couple that with the shock of seeing Custer fall, and it is understandable that they would have pulled back. We always hear that Custer had two wounds, either of which was likely fatal, but that was based upon a cursory examination of his body after the battle. I wonder if it is possible that he had another wound, received at the river, that was not noticed during the later examination. If, for example, he received a glancing blow to the head, it may have been sufficient to knock him from his horse and temporarily incapacitate him but not such that it would have been noticed in the later quick examination. If something like that occurred, it would help to explain subsequent actions after a pull back from the river after a Custer wounding.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Aug 8, 2016 10:03:34 GMT -6
Correct in all respects jodak.
There is a circumstantial case that can be built around Custer being wounded at the ford. No question about it, and since you have made that case very well, there is no requirement to repeat it.
There is also a circumstantial case to be made that while someone was most probably wounded there (there is no reason to doubt the Indian account), strong evidence points to another leader (Smith)being the one wounded. Five things give weight to this.
First - That same Indian testimony point to Company E having been the closest to the river, as denoted by the gray horses.
Second - The Indian tales tell of the person wounded wearing a buckskin jacket, and there is contradicting testimony from fairly reliable survivor sources that say he (Custer) had removed that jacket earlier in the day.
Third - I do not know if Smith had or wore a buckskin jacket, but what I do know is that he was severely wounded in the Civil War, and because of that he had some great difficulty raising his arms, and that translated into difficulty getting dressed and undressed.
Fourth - The Indian tales also tell of this wounded leader being accompanied by a guidon bearer. The guidon denotes the presence and location of a leader. Unless the Indian tales describe the guidon and I do not believe they do, there is no way to differentiate between the five present that were identical (gridiron type) and the swallow tailed blue and red somewhat larger guidon, that noted the presence of a divisional commander (Custer's Civil War rank and assignment).
Fifth - Smith was found well away from his company after the battle. There could well be reason for this other than being wounded earlier, but being wounded earlier and being carried to a place of relative safety must be one considered, and probably given more weight than at least some of the other possibilities.
Nothing about this will ever be decided by criminal court standards, but must be decided in the same manner as a civil case, by the preponderance of the evidence, with each reaching their own conclusions.
Excellent post.
|
|
|
Post by wild on Aug 8, 2016 10:41:34 GMT -6
There is also a circumstantial case to be made that while someone was most probably wounded there (there is no reason to doubt the Indian account), strong evidence points to another leader (Smith)being the one wounded. Five things give weight to this. As the death/wounding of no other officer [including Tom] had the potential for disaster the point is irrevelent.
|
|
|
Post by fred on Aug 8, 2016 11:03:10 GMT -6
The officer wounded at Ford B was, in all likelihood, Algernon Smith. There is an entire panoply of events and situations screaming his name, and it is a lot more than four Indian youngsters-- who, by name?-- who may or may not have witnessed... anything. There are movements, formations, tactics, clothes, horses, objectives, body placements, command divisions, heat, battle flow, common sense, and the "fog of war" involved. It is called "context." There are also at least a half-dozen other witnesses who admitted seeing the specific and attendant events. To throw all one's weight on what four youngsters had to say is hardly addressing the issue.
Best wishes, Fred.
|
|
|
Post by crzhrs on Aug 8, 2016 11:53:45 GMT -6
Fred once again puts it all into perspective . . . which is sorely lacking from most Custer/LBH debates. When Fred states something it's from research, not personal agenda or trying to prove Custer was God and Benteen/Reno the Devil or vice-versa.
Sane thought, reasoning and research "trumps" vendettas, bigotry, foul-mouthed language and bullying any time!
Viva Fred!
|
|
|
Post by Diane Merkel on Aug 8, 2016 12:30:57 GMT -6
Well said, Crazy.
I just banned Quincannon. I thought he was gone, but he has apparently been back a few times in recent months and is once again being his old nasty self.
ProBoards has shut these boards down twice, and both times were because of QC. I had to waste many hours getting rid of his BS and begging ProBoards to reinstate us. I'm not going to go through that again. He left here to start his own message boards, so let him be nasty there. If I want nasty, I'll turn on the news.
I hope everyone is doing well!
Diane
|
|
|
Post by fred on Aug 8, 2016 13:33:34 GMT -6
Diane and Horse... thank you both. You are both kind and generous in your praise and I appreciate it more than either of you know. It is also a delight to see both of you here, both people of very high value and both going back even farther than I do... Diane, obviously, but Horse, one of the very first, many, many years ago.
I am also rather delighted to see the acrimony, once again, dismissed out of hand. No one needs that garbage here. Will Bender has his finger on the pulse.
I am also interested to see what Mr. Hoffman has to say about his original post. It was interesting.
Best wishes, Fred.
|
|
|
Post by wild on Aug 8, 2016 16:41:34 GMT -6
The purpose of the exercise was to show that the incapacitation of Custer at MTCF could have triggered the withdrawal and confusion leading to the destruction of the command. The hypothesis does not require witnesses.
LT Smith was found on LSH. If he was wounded at the ford how did he get to LSH ? Not borne there by his company as they were not on LSH. Cheers
|
|
|
Post by fred on Aug 8, 2016 19:03:10 GMT -6
If he was wounded at the ford how did he get to LSH ? Not borne there by his company as they were not on LSH. I beg to differ. Best wishes, Fred.
|
|
|
Post by fred on Aug 8, 2016 19:08:05 GMT -6
If I provoked him, my apologies, but I cannot sit by and watch a bully attempt to take over the discussion. You didn't; he doesn't need provocation. This is standard fare for someone like him. Res ipsa. Best wishes, Fred.
|
|
|
Post by Colt45 on Aug 8, 2016 20:44:33 GMT -6
I am of the opinion that the river crossing action and officer wounding was at ford D, not ford B. I base this on the JSIT account of Custer's movements, plus the lack of need to actually approach ford B. From the LNC area, the village could be seen across ford B, so no need to send more than a small patrol there, rather than two companies as the conventional theory posits. The ford D area offers the best terrain for a crossing en masse and if Smith was the officer wounded at the ford, action at ford D explains his presence on LSH much better than a wounding at ford B.
Fred, my scenario fits with your timelines pretty well, as the conventional theory has 2 companies moving down MTC and 3 up on LNC moving north. The only change is we have 5 companies up LNC moving north as opposed to 3, with 2 having to leave ford B and move up deep coulee to Calhoun Hill.
The finds on Battle Ridge extension also help support the theory of cavalry action there. If you take a birds-eye view of the terrain, looking from the south part of battle ridge toward the trading post, you can see the key terrain of cemetery ridge and battle ridge extension, which runs down the 212 highway to the trading post. I can easily imagine all 5 companies being there with the intent of crossing, but due to either way too many bad folks on the other side, or Custer being the wounded officer, or just a bad feeling, they abort the crossing and move back to higher terrain. E and F would have covered the cemetery ridge area, while C, I, and L take up positions along the extension, probably from LSH to the trading post. They could have spent close to 15 minutes in the CR area, tending the wounded and deciding what to do next, all the while engaging the buildup coming from ford D and deep ravine. The units on BRE would have been dealing with the action coming across the river near the area of the trading post, as if they didn't the Indians would have been able to flank the companies on CR.
I also think that once Custer was stopped from crossing, initiative went to the Indians and the battle flow shifted from south to north over to north to south, with a retrograde operation conducted by Keogh. He could have sent L company back the way they came to reach LNC and secure the route for the rest of the unit. As the second part of the move, C company gets sent a couple of minutes later, leaving I company as the detachment left in contact. Once I company begins to leave, they are up to their eyeballs in hostiles and they take casualties on the way to their final location. At that location, they find they are in a box canyon composed of Indians, with no way out and they die in the bunches indicated by the markers. At the same time, L and C are falling or have already fallen.
E and F company never get the chance to retreat, as the loss of E's horses leaves them stuck along the SSL area, and F company has no where to go but back toward LSH as the north route is now flooded with hostiles, their front is also flooded, and the south area from deep ravine is also a non-option. Once F gets to LSH, they also see the east is a no-go as well, so nothing to do but make breastworks and die in place.
The time involved would match what Fred has computed. The only possible differences would be the ford where action occurred and how the 5 companies maneuvered. I like this scenario better because it shows some reasonable military decision-making as opposed to the conventional theory which really makes Custer and his senior officers look like complete idiots. Custer gets all the blame for the disaster, but you can see some logical actions on the part of the soldiers from the aborted crossing onward if ford D is where the crossing was attempted. This just seems to make sense if you assume the officers made the best decisions they could once the worst decision of going north of ford B was made. My scenario fits with officers making the best of a bad situation, even though it all came to no avail.
|
|