|
Post by herosrest on Sept 2, 2017 14:04:40 GMT -6
Wild When you talk to AZ you are talking to one of the best practical archaeologists there is; his work on Benteen’s movements being stunning. I on the other hand, not so worthy. You reference the Bonifede map and I cannot be much help as it was already out of print before I began my analysis of the battle so I have never actually seen a copy, just extracts on line. Certainly I have literally not seen the anomaly you mention. I might have a couple of ideas but without the data there is no point to mentioning them. Your bigger point is the desire to dismiss all archaeology. That does not impact particularly on the evidence I have posted for my model of the Custer force action. Here is a brief example. Godfrey and Benteen are two sources that were present at the field and from whom we have no doubts over what they communicated. They both felt that Custer did not go to Ford B. The archaeology does not refute that opinion but so what? We have their observations of the field and hence their opinions. Henry Freeman arrived two days after the battle and records a point in the Ford D region where he observed that the cavalry had dismounted and made a stand. The archaeology supports this, but so what? We have his map and text. As I remember your view was always that Custer was forced away from the ford and gradually enveloped and defeated. I am simply saying that the evidence leads to that ford being Ford D. I am also asking for any evidence, not already addressed, that refutes this…..silence. I feel your archaeological pain mate but it is a Reno, Benteen sideline. Cheers It is strictly inaccurate to state that Freeman's information indicates that Cavalry progressed to western fords beyond LSH. The Deep Ravine Ford is Ford C. Ford B is not the Realbird ford which was an active crossing place and the best on the river in that part of the valley. The lower ford is Realbird ford. The upper ford is ford B. Benteen showed fords B and C on his map. He ommitted Realbird. Consideerable fisherman's tale has been applied to the Freeman sketch by Richard Fox who adopted a squiggle on the document as a '1' in his work. Fox's '1' is not a '1', 1t is a squiggle. Study the sketch and find the '1'. A further problem with interpretation of Freeman revolves around his item 4 which indicates NC Ridge. He accompanied Benteen to the Custer battleground on the 27th June and reached Keogh before Benteen. A forther problem exists with interpretation of Freeman's giving of distances. In getting some difficult to guage distances perfectly correct, easier distances such as from the upper ford to C and 5 are accurate and not open to criticism. Freeman does not tell what people expect and his data is therefore wrongly dismissed or fitted into prevailing theory or abused. It took 100 years for his journal to be published and oh my, what a read it it is. He was no fan of cavalry. He understood that the village was half the size of its footprint on the ground. Freeman was a CW Infantry veteran who later served at Fort Phil Kearny and Fort Fetterman, the Sioux War of 1876, and in Cuba and the Philippines during the Spanish-American War. He retired in 1901 as brigadier general to a ranch outside of Douglas, Wyoming. His daughter Julia was married to Robert D. Carey, a Wyoming governor and U.S. senator. When he stated distances covered, those were the accurate distances. His sketch poses some difficultiies with understanding what he saw on the ground, however, '4' is NC Ridge and he discovered evidence of cavalry skirmishing there. On 27th June, 1876. He rode with Benteen who followed Custer's trail made by shod cavalry horses to Ford B. It was two and a half years later and just before the RCoI that Benteen changed his mind about Custer going to Ford B. This info is a part of the testimony given and corroborated. Godfrey did not visit the battlefield on 27th June 1876. His theory of the battle developed from sign talk and playing cowboys and Indians with Gall at the 10th Anniversary of the battle. Gall was a Sioux participant who fought the battle and killed troops with a hatchet. There is absolutely nothing from Freeman to indicate or provide for Ford D theories. The Cheyennes crossed the Little Bighorn at Realbird Ford as shown in Big Beavers map.
|
|
|
Post by mac on Sept 2, 2017 19:21:43 GMT -6
Hi Mac Start with presenting open flank to enemy 3 minutes away and at negative odds 10 to 1 and it gets worse Wild You need to consider the geography of 1876 and most importantly read my entertaining piece so that you understand the importance of timing and the fact that Custer was unable to, as you suggest, carry out an assault. Hence he withdrew. I did not say the accounts are wrong just misplaced. Cheers
|
|
|
Post by mac on Sept 2, 2017 19:25:05 GMT -6
Wild When you talk to AZ you are talking to one of the best practical archaeologists there is; his work on Benteen’s movements being stunning. I on the other hand, not so worthy. You reference the Bonifede map and I cannot be much help as it was already out of print before I began my analysis of the battle so I have never actually seen a copy, just extracts on line. Certainly I have literally not seen the anomaly you mention. I might have a couple of ideas but without the data there is no point to mentioning them. Your bigger point is the desire to dismiss all archaeology. That does not impact particularly on the evidence I have posted for my model of the Custer force action. Here is a brief example. Godfrey and Benteen are two sources that were present at the field and from whom we have no doubts over what they communicated. They both felt that Custer did not go to Ford B. The archaeology does not refute that opinion but so what? We have their observations of the field and hence their opinions. Henry Freeman arrived two days after the battle and records a point in the Ford D region where he observed that the cavalry had dismounted and made a stand. The archaeology supports this, but so what? We have his map and text. As I remember your view was always that Custer was forced away from the ford and gradually enveloped and defeated. I am simply saying that the evidence leads to that ford being Ford D. I am also asking for any evidence, not already addressed, that refutes this…..silence. I feel your archaeological pain mate but it is a Reno, Benteen sideline. Cheers It is strictly inaccurate to state that Freeman's information indicates that Cavalry progressed to western fords beyond LSH. The Deep Ravine Ford is Ford C. Ford B is not the Realbird ford which was an active crossing place and the best on the river in that part of the valley. The lower ford is Realbird ford. The upper ford is ford B. Benteen showed fords B and C on his map. He ommitted Realbird. Consideerable fisherman's tale has been applied to the Freeman sketch by Richard Fox who adopted a squiggle on the document as a '1' in his work. Fox's '1' is not a '1', 1t is a squiggle. Study the sketch and find the '1'. A further problem with interpretation of Freeman revolves around his item 4 which indicates NC Ridge. He accompanied Benteen to the Custer battleground on the 27th June and reached Keogh before Benteen. A forther problem exists with interpretation of Freeman's giving of distances. In getting some difficult to guage distances perfectly correct, easier distances such as from the upper ford to C and 5 are accurate and not open to criticism. Freeman does not tell what people expect and his data is therefore wrongly dismissed or fitted into prevailing theory or abused. It took 100 years for his journal to be published and oh my, what a read it it is. He was no fan of cavalry. He understood that the village was half the size of its footprint on the ground. Freeman was a CW Infantry veteran who later served at Fort Phil Kearny and Fort Fetterman, the Sioux War of 1876, and in Cuba and the Philippines during the Spanish-American War. He retired in 1901 as brigadier general to a ranch outside of Douglas, Wyoming. His daughter Julia was married to Robert D. Carey, a Wyoming governor and U.S. senator. When he stated distances covered, those were the accurate distances. His sketch poses some difficultiies with understanding what he saw on the ground, however, '4' is NC Ridge and he discovered evidence of cavalry skirmishing there. On 27th June, 1876. He rode with Benteen who followed Custer's trail made by shod cavalry horses to Ford B. It was two and a half years later and just before the RCoI that Benteen changed his mind about Custer going to Ford B. This info is a part of the testimony given and corroborated. Godfrey did not visit the battlefield on 27th June 1876. His theory of the battle developed from sign talk and playing cowboys and Indians with Gall at the 10th Anniversary of the battle. Gall was a Sioux participant who fought the battle and killed troops with a hatchet. There is absolutely nothing from Freeman to indicate or provide for Ford D theories. The Cheyennes crossed the Little Bighorn at Realbird Ford as shown in Big Beavers map. The 1 is as plain as the beak on a duck! "Custer had followed the range of bluffs in column of 4's to the ford where he attempted to cross"......at the point labelled 1. Cheers
|
|
|
Post by wild on Sept 3, 2017 0:20:34 GMT -6
Mac there are no accounts only hear say and the natural geography of 1876 is unchanged.
|
|
|
Post by herosrest on Sept 3, 2017 2:09:05 GMT -6
It is strictly inaccurate to state that Freeman's information indicates that Cavalry progressed to western fords beyond LSH. The Deep Ravine Ford is Ford C. Ford B is not the Realbird ford which was an active crossing place and the best on the river in that part of the valley. The lower ford is Realbird ford. The upper ford is ford B. Benteen showed fords B and C on his map. He ommitted Realbird. Consideerable fisherman's tale has been applied to the Freeman sketch by Richard Fox who adopted a squiggle on the document as a '1' in his work. Fox's '1' is not a '1', 1t is a squiggle. Study the sketch and find the '1'. A further problem with interpretation of Freeman revolves around his item 4 which indicates NC Ridge. He accompanied Benteen to the Custer battleground on the 27th June and reached Keogh before Benteen. A forther problem exists with interpretation of Freeman's giving of distances. In getting some difficult to guage distances perfectly correct, easier distances such as from the upper ford to C and 5 are accurate and not open to criticism. Freeman does not tell what people expect and his data is therefore wrongly dismissed or fitted into prevailing theory or abused. It took 100 years for his journal to be published and oh my, what a read it it is. He was no fan of cavalry. He understood that the village was half the size of its footprint on the ground. Freeman was a CW Infantry veteran who later served at Fort Phil Kearny and Fort Fetterman, the Sioux War of 1876, and in Cuba and the Philippines during the Spanish-American War. He retired in 1901 as brigadier general to a ranch outside of Douglas, Wyoming. His daughter Julia was married to Robert D. Carey, a Wyoming governor and U.S. senator. When he stated distances covered, those were the accurate distances. His sketch poses some difficultiies with understanding what he saw on the ground, however, '4' is NC Ridge and he discovered evidence of cavalry skirmishing there. On 27th June, 1876. He rode with Benteen who followed Custer's trail made by shod cavalry horses to Ford B. It was two and a half years later and just before the RCoI that Benteen changed his mind about Custer going to Ford B. This info is a part of the testimony given and corroborated. Godfrey did not visit the battlefield on 27th June 1876. His theory of the battle developed from sign talk and playing cowboys and Indians with Gall at the 10th Anniversary of the battle. Gall was a Sioux participant who fought the battle and killed troops with a hatchet. There is absolutely nothing from Freeman to indicate or provide for Ford D theories. The Cheyennes crossed the Little Bighorn at Realbird Ford as shown in Big Beavers map. The 1 is as plain as the beak on a duck! "Custer had followed the range of bluffs in column of 4's to the ford where he attempted to cross"......at the point labelled 1. Cheers Oh no it isn't. That is a squiggle beside the Cardinal definition. Here's the JSiT evidence, AR212.pdf (266.63 KB) Here's ANJ 1507 Freeman was aware of the NC action and gave no information relative to or related to the Willy Bends imposition. Neither did any of Marquis' informants, or Godfrey's, or Benteen, Terry, Hughes. In fact none of the military present to assess events gave anything about fighting or movement on the terrain downriver of Custer's Hill or anything about those D fords being relevant until Gibbon returned on the 29th using what may have been that route. This is problematic since Gibbon's article and his RCoI evidence are at odds. He only visited the field once and was in the company of Terry. Benteen did show thirty dead buried on that terrain, thirty missing dead which didn't make sense then and does not now. Thirty were not missing and 28 were buried somewhere else. Fox's one (Fox One) is Freeman's squiggle, quite probably the result of moistening the charcoal tip of his pencil lead. Curley lived opposite Ford C as shown by Marquis and never said a word about the proposition. The Stone House dominates routes onto that terrain and was occupied continuously by residents who scoured the battleground for evidence of the foghting and created it themselves, for more than a hundred years now. I believe that 7th Cavalry fought a battle against the Crow Tribe on the terrain and the 7th Cavalry did march up from the western fords in the 1926 re-enactment - this is significant because it left the impression in minds in 1926 that 7th Cavalry marched up from the western fords. Because the Sioux and Cheyenne way relied upon memory to convey events - events were repeated verbatim and something told in 1876 after the battle was repeated verbatim as tradition in 1926 and 1956, etc.. So when a Cheyenne, 50 years on, was discussing cemetery, the cemetery was that which existed in 1876. Remember that Cheyennes and Sioux did return to the terrain after the battle and saw the graves and exposed remains. The cemetery of their experience and recall was that where the fallen were buried where they fell although remains were moved on the 28th. Now, it doesn't take a duck to work all that out but does take one to realise when a tale has been goosed up to tell the White Man what he wanted to hear. Tim McCoy (High Eagle obtained the Arapaho participants accounts of the fighting and absolutely no mention of movements beyond LSH. Gall did mention 14 troopers who escaped at the end but were killed after crossing the river and crossing the river again. All in all, the John Stands in Timber recollections are unreliable and considerably the result of work by Kuhlman who developed some pretty whacky theory and had Gall charging up Deep Ravine whilst Reno fought at the wrong river loop. Everyone who has any knowledge of the battle knows that Reno skirmished the Garryowen loop but not Kuhlman and his adviser Brinninstool. Oh no... they have to dream up complete muckty for whatever obscure reasons suit them. Did you know that W.A. Graham was aware of what they were doing and wouldnot sign off on it. The concept they developed was based on Benteen's annotation of the 1877 sketch made during Sheridan's visit where Benteen showed Reno's skirmish linr east of te retreat crossing. Oh yes - upriver of the retreat crossing. They were goosing it. Anysways, we do know from Freeman that Reno was the advance column.
|
|
|
Post by herosrest on Sept 3, 2017 3:34:33 GMT -6
Let's consider the latest incarnation of the 1926 re-enactment by, quote ' Through the creative pen of historian, author and presenter Steve Adelson, go back in time to that fateful day, June 25, 1876 when Lt. Colonel George Armstrong Custer and his vaunted 7th Cavalry Regiment attempt to bludgeon the Sioux and Cheyenne tribes back onto reservations. Desperate to defend the last vestiges of their existence, Warriors inspired by Sitting Bull, Crazy Horse, Two Moons, and others, fight back fiercely along a swollen river called Little Bighorn. The epic battle will become legendary and most commonly be known as Custer’s Last Stand. ' Technically incorrect since it was and is ' The Custer Massacre ' and that is respectfully historically correct. Creative pen of the author and presenter is key to understanding this historical fiction.for try as anyone might and particularly R.A. Fox, there is no physical evidence of what is claimed and not one participant account which indicates events occured as given by 'Distant Wind' or 'Contested Ground'.
The book and DVD are thoroughly entertaining and are entertainment but are not history. In the technical sense they tell the authors story and I reckon that Adelson could transform Braun and Hitler's last days in the bunker into an amazing epic best seller.
Voices from a Distant Wind is the compilation of bio-sketches on the primary characters of the Battle of the Little Bighorn. The lives of George Armstrong Custer, Crazy Horse, Sitting Bull, Reno and others are profiled, revealing the events that shaped their lives before, during, and after the battle. Emotionally powerful, this book is the first to paint a picture of the epic fight through riveting lyrical revelations. There is an accompanying DVD which is impossible to play because of the arrows shot into it.
A 1994 paper and map indicate that considerable numbers of relics were on the relevant terrain but the archaelogic investigation which would have verified this is absent and unknown. The previous year's inventory yielde some 150 artifacts on the Battle Ridge spur and entrance terrain but nothing of significance. There was fire in 1994 which burnt 150 acres on Last Stand Hill (Greene, 168)
Quoting Timmons 1994 - 1999 - Excavated NPS archeological survey outside battlefield boundaries; Reno’s Skirmish line, Spotted Tail Agency warrior village on east side of LBH River, & Luce Ridge. A metal detection survey of Custer’s June 23, 1876 7th Cavalry camp on Rosebud Creek was also done. (Doerner)
1997 - 3 acre sewer drain field, appurtenant dosing, septic tanks, sewer lines completed, pump house re-roofed and an addition constructed, visitor center rehabilitated, new restrooms in parking area added (Greene, 164)
1999 - Active management of invasive plants / noxious weeds in the grassland prairie began. Hand weeding would (over time) add significantly to the archaeologic record.
Efforts were made to restore gravel pit loop on bluffs at west corner of Custer unit
2002 Efforts began to replace the weathered Fort C.F. Smith marker and place the original in storage (determined to be infeasible); replace the cemetery street and curbing from the Stone Lodge gate to the flagpole, add accessible parking, and recondition the original war department iron gates (Greene, 166)
The terrain relevant to Ford D theory has been scoured by human activity for 140 years to reveal an artifact patterning of 2 (two) per acre...... OK, two possible battle related artifacts per acre and that is only the Battle Ridge spur and entrance.
There is no physical evidence to support the presence of cavalry on that terrain during the Custer fight. There is no participant record which supports there having been cavalry on that terrain during the Custer fight. There is no evidence which can scientifically support or condone R.A. Fox's Cemetery Ridge Episode or the Contested Ground historical fiction.
This is because it didn't happen that way in reality.
|
|
|
Post by herosrest on Sept 3, 2017 6:24:46 GMT -6
Later and modern day presentation of the history struggles under considerable and considerably poor opinion in virtually all consideration of what took place. Frederick W imparted the heroic romanticism of the forlon and dwindling band dourly clinging to their last stand longing for the succour whi h Benteen brought to Reno's command. That was not the way of it and Custer's troops were simply overwhelmed retreating from the river. They got whacked and done in rather quickly. Certainly, the organised resistance was over when Flanigan handed Weir his binoculars and offered sobering advice about advancing further. The issue with this is what time of the place, ie 7th Cavalry time, did Weir advance after Custer. That is the problem with understanding what happened. Kuhlman found the temerity to blame the disaster on Weir. Bad...... very, very, bad by Charles. Did you know that Iron Cedar was not at the battle. She left the camp on the day before the 7th Cavalry attacked. This is her own record given after the family settled Thjnder Butte. It must have been an incredibly large blanket which she waved at Gall. Nelson A. Miles officially investigated the bTtle in June 1878 as the clamours of blame against senior survivors grew and Terry threw Reno and Benteen to the wolves. Miles study learnt how large numbers of hostiles left Reno and rode north on the east side of the river to cross MTC, cutting of Custer's command from uniting the regiment and destroying the five companies down river. That is what happened and it is known since 1878. The five companies were attacked by a force wbom Benteen stated that they numbered up to 500 who left the high point Weir Peak and forced companies C E F I & L to retreat away from the river and support as it turned out. So, lets say that Keogh spots a half a thousand hostiles mo ing against him from Weir Peak. Would he expect Reno and Benteen to be behind that hill? Of course not. linkto Miles memoirs online. There are two chapters about the battle. 1876 and 1878.
|
|
|
Post by herosrest on Sept 3, 2017 7:20:00 GMT -6
Battle analysis time with Freeman's data. The legend explaining his sketch is numbered to 8 from 1 and includes 3-'C's and 2-'R's and indicates two fords. On Fox's version of the sketch (note = version) there is a cardinal arrow with 'N' which is oriented 'Z' at left with a squiggle near it which was presented as '1'. It isn't '1' it is a squiggle on theoriginal. The broken line from 'C' would be a shod trail as I call it of shod horses. The interesting thing besides his obviously discovering the NC ridge skirmish, is thehuge ommission from the sketch. What didn't he report?
|
|
|
Post by shan on Sept 3, 2017 8:56:50 GMT -6
Herosrest,
you make some good points that chime in with the way that my particular pendulum is swinging at the moment. I'm guessing here, but I think that like many of us who've read countless books, and have been involved with these boards for a number of years, I've tended to drift between 2 or 3 theories, ranging from the repulse at ford B, and the battle then being over before Custer knew what hit him, to a slightly more drawn out battle that involves a trip to fords D, not to mention that weird 30 minute hiatus on Cemetery ridge, plus several variations of the two just mentioned.
I try to have an open mind and listen to what others say, for instance. I've tried to take the Indian testimony which was traditionally thought to have been given by those who were located in and around ford B. and move down to ford D and see if it works, but for me, its been a bit like trying to fit a size 10 foot into a size 5 shoe. Yes, you can cut your toes off and just about get your foot in, but it hurts.
Likewise the theory, and lets face it: most of what we're talking about most of the time is theory, that it was company C that moved down off the southern end of the ridge to disperse encroaching Indians, rather than the older theory, that it had been E company coming down off the LSH area to do the same job ~~ and by the way I'm not referring to the flight by members of the same company to Deep Ravine. For a long time I held onto the idea that it was an E company charge that began the final disintegration. Everything seemed to fit, those who posed it seemed to have the facts to hand and argued a good case, but when I look back now and read over those same facts, I find it hard to believe that I believed it.
Oh I don't doubt that some mounted soldiers came down off the ridge at some point, and from somewhere, there are enough Indian witness statements for me to believe that its true. And not only that, if we then add in the fact that this charge seems to be tied in with the accounts that Lame White Man, who, after having witnessed that the charge seemed to stutter, and then halt, initiated a counter attack that may well have been the pivot that started the dice to tumble, ~~ sorry about all those floating metaphors ~~ then it seems to me that it is far more likely that it must have been C that fell apart, than E company. But that's today. Who knows what will come up tomorrow?
Over the years, I've read, and re-read the indian accounts and tried to see if there were any patterns that one can make out. And I remember being struck that if one took all the accounts that seem to deal with what seemed to be Custer's withdrawal from ford B, and you stripped away any personal aggrandisement, or indeed personal stories, then what you found was a sense of it all happening very quickly, of men surprised to find themselves involved in a buffalo hunt, of them chasing and harrying a fleeing enemy who never got time to settle and do something about it.
Now many of the books I've read over the years have insisted that no; it wasn't like that at all, they say that there was a period of quiet, a lull if you like, when both sides were involved in some long distance sniping. They talk about the sheer amount of spent cartridge cases found in and around the area where L company formed a skirmish line, saying that this is testimony to the fact that the soldiers held the Indians off for some considerable time. But I've always had a sneaking suspicion that this has more to do with wishful thinking on the part of both the witnesses, and the authors,, with one side wanting, and wishing to show that their side: their race, put up a better fight than the evidence on the ground seems to indicate.
The trouble is, for me at least, is that this battle has so much glamour wrapped around it, it's so visual, so mythological, that I don't ever want it to be solved, for if it was, then maybe I'd lose interest in in it. And maybe that is why, whenever a new theory comes up: like the episode around ford D for instance, { I know its no longer new, } I embrace it because it means that I can start wondering how the battle unfolded all over again. Help, Shan
|
|
|
Post by herosrest on Sept 3, 2017 9:54:10 GMT -6
Hi, long time. It's a spiders web in a can of worms and the Ford D concept was what I accepted and believed for about 25 years. It was quite a day when I fully appreciated the significance of where the Cheyenne camp sat when Custer's command came into view of White Shield as John Two Moon tore back into the valley across the river on foot to get his pony and Big Beaver arrived with his family's herd. Two Moon himself had just galloped off towards Reno and the camps were emptying noncobatants onto the western hills. It was time for a quite serious reassessment and junk absolutely everything which I ever thought I understood about that fight and then consider all previous work by any and all in new light. For example, Walter Camp produced an immense amount of incredibly useful research and within the bounds of deft respect, completely blew Godfrey's idea of no approach to the river at B - into the water rather than out of it. Curtis learned similar stuff about cavalry at Greasy Grass Hill and all in all the Benteen - Godfrey axis just falls apart and particularly because Benteen changed his opinion and 'sold' it to fellow officer participants immediately prior to RCoI (see Varnum's testimony). Unfortunately, Camps thinking evolved and his maps and Godfrey's had/have the village sprwling along the valley below Deep Ravine. It simply was not like that and so his thinking was flawed when he was getting his interview data. It's difficult to discern if and when he got the village size and location correct. The location is vital in critical sense to any worthwhile understanding so i'm smiling and quacking with mac at the moment. Been there and got the t-shirt. That's an idea actually. I do Ford D theory t-shirts and caps. Immediately post battle, terry's staff assessed the ground and there is a wealth of information left for us. There were 1800 tipi sites counted and therfore whatever other ways it is assessed - there were 900 tipis. Fact of military record and fact et al. There were some 400 wiki-ups which were mainly sweat lodges and not valid accommodatiom. Two Moons lodge held seven othe fighting men beside himself but all there really is to work with is the 900. Ford D theory is problematic thus. If companies went there early disguised (hidden) behind the Battle Ridge route then no-one in the valley knew they were present and any contact at the river when cavalry arrived at the western fords was with pony hersers such as Big Beaver. Didn't happen. Also, this would mean that Custer sensibly instituted his Washita tactics and then stalled when word came that Reno had halted and isolated himself. Benteen then should have been to the west and left flank of Reno where his battalion belonged. No-one involved with the history would or will wear that. It's easier to hang Weir out to dry. If companies went later with Calhoun rearguarding and waiting for Benteen, then the movement sucked a horde of charging hostiles after it and that happened. Calhoun was isolated or held up late because the move along Battle Ridge was pursued all the way to LSH with the hostiles being brought up sharply by deployed troopers opening heavy fire upon them. There was no time to progress further than LSH and hostiles of Cheyenne persuasion were then also swarming along the lower or Greasy Grass Ridge in pursuit of the cavalry. This is clearly shown by Big Beaver who although not a fronter, followed behind the tribes heavy hitting head bangers and they banged some heads that day. Ford D thinking is a lovely challenge to unravel and is simply a blind alley to and for those developing it. Custer delayed at Deep Coulee and not the flats. The toughest part of trying to work anything out is all those death sites below LSH along DR trail. Amongst stuff tat emerges from continuing interest is Rain in the Face and Big Beaver. Both followed the same route into battle over GGR. That was one bad-ass battle group with RiF and Moving Robe and do not doubt that he came to grips with TWC at some point. I believe it went down quickly and this isn't popular for many reasons and I also have little time for those who would have it that Weir andEdgerley sat in full view watching without telling Benteen & Reno, or doing anything themselves. Nelson Miles pretty much found out all that anyone with empirical interest needs to know and he should have been called to testify at the Inquiry. That would have been amazing with him and Benteen facing off.... The period of quiet, like the static wait at CR simply is peoples imagination wrestling with the supposed idea that many had that Custer did not appear - was not present or detected east of the river until Reno arrived on his hill. I reject that out of hand and broadly accept what E.S. Curtis left for us. There will always be quicksand under this stuff because of the reputations being defended and there is an awful lot of murky water swrling around LSH. Reno should have held the valley. Benteen was there and would have commited. Custer probably was down early at Deep Coulee or on NC and it went to hell in a handbasket because Reno did not place guidons on Weir Peak to let Custer know he was there. You can imagine the messaging, can't you. Marcus, come here. Benteen responds... No, George! You come here!! There were no bodies or dead horses at the western fords therefore I can safely defer to Benteen on this. Nothing happened there and no cavalry were there. This is Charles King's take on the battle which has been teased and thumped around here quite some but it is basically correct at all levels, reflects sound cavalry tactics and being 5th Cavalry and out there in 1876, and with the former C Company commander leading the 5th Cavalry battalion that was active along the Big Horn and visiting the little Bighorn Battleground, he knew enough to form valid and worthwhile opinion. He was as involved with later history as was Godfrey and his major (if you like) was tactics. I tangled some with Gordon Richards on this stuff, bless his cotton socks. He's missed. Virling K. Hart was promoted Major in 5th Cavalry at end of 1875 (I think) and transferred from Company C, 7th Cavalry who then got T.W. Custer as CO. Not sure if or how many strings the brother pulled to get that.
|
|
|
Post by herosrest on Sept 3, 2017 10:48:49 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by herosrest on Sept 3, 2017 11:21:34 GMT -6
OK - Here's macs theory which is a valid theory and one which early observation, opinion and record can support. This was in various combobulations a theory ehich existed as early as 1877 and in fact, for those who utilise tribal record, was in existence by Sept 1876.
Custer intended to hit both ends or repeat Washakie and was repulsed at western fords in the Willy Bends and road entrance saga. A rearguard action saw the command fall back in contact towards the increasing threat released from Reno's disengagement and after an aggressive push towards Ford B by Company C (yes, it rhymes) things went popeye rather swiftly. A number of variations are possible and of course the embattled companies already have CP'd Custer's Hill with hospital as the shattered remnants of the attempt to return to Reno & Benteen; or thrust across Ford B falters and is ...... whacked. The unlucky survivors who were not overwhemed hurried and struggled back through the gunsmoke and dust guided by the bugler on the hill who Two Moons recorded as bravely blowing until the end. Rally on me or some such, I guess. Then it was over and the few remaining able bodies lit out on escape and evade for the river and timber. William A. Allen proposed this form of events after his August 1877 visit and numerous trips up the valley driving the stagecoach before he bacame a dentist and founded Allentown. A similar but more detailed and more obscure account of the battle emerged early on from Cheyennes returning to Indian Territory after the battle and remember that Custer's scalp is there.
So its, hidden movement on Ford D, return towards Ford B and retreat along Battle Ridge and into Deep Ravine.
This is Bordeaux/Kuhlman theory.
|
|
|
Post by mac on Sept 3, 2017 16:14:04 GMT -6
OK - Here's macs theory which is a valid theory and one which early observation, opinion and record can support. This was in various combobulations a theory ehich existed as early as 1877 and in fact, for those who utilise tribal record, was in existence by Sept 1876. Custer intended to hit both ends or repeat Washakie and was repulsed at western fords in the Willy Bends and road entrance saga. A rearguard action saw the command fall back in contact towards the increasing threat released from Reno's disengagement and after an aggressive push towards Ford B by Company C (yes, it rhymes) things went popeye rather swiftly. A number of variations are possible and of course the embattled companies already have CP'd Custer's Hill with hospital as the shattered remnants of the attempt to return to Reno & Benteen; or thrust across Ford B falters and is ...... whacked. The unlucky survivors who were not overwhemed hurried and struggled back through the gunsmoke and dust guided by the bugler on the hill who Two Moons recorded as bravely blowing until the end. Rally on me or some such, I guess. Then it was over and the few remaining able bodies lit out on escape and evade for the river and timber. William A. Allen proposed this form of events after his August 1877 visit and numerous trips up the valley driving the stagecoach before he bacame a dentist and founded Allentown. A similar but more detailed and more obscure account of the battle emerged early on from Cheyennes returning to Indian Territory after the battle and remember that Custer's scalp is there. So its, hidden movement on Ford D, return towards Ford B and retreat along Battle Ridge and into Deep Ravine. This is Bordeaux/Kuhlman theory. Took a while but we got there . Incidentally he was spotted in MTC and the Cheyenne's knew he was heading to Ford D, so the approach was not fully hidden. Woftooth et al already knew too. Company C went to FF Ridge Shan. That is why pretty much all the Ford B archaeology is around that ridge and the accompanying ravine. Cheers
|
|
|
Post by herosrest on Sept 3, 2017 18:20:32 GMT -6
As I have said, eloquently, the Cheyennes were camped opposite the mouth of MTC and MTC north or Deep Coulee or Custer's Creek as it was also known. That was where the delay occurred and is what caused E.S. Curtis his grief when he learnt about it from the Crows. Benteen was CYA with matters and especially after Whittaker published for Xmas 1876. I believe that it was four times that he was recalled at the Inquiry to clarify odds and ends and to bring the spotlight onto Wallace's times of somewhere else. It certainly seems that the Brule lodges could see LSH from their location in the valley but it is beyond doubtful that anyone at the Cheyenne Hat Lodge could see anything up that way. The Cheyennes only visited LBH and never settled it. The Crows lived there from 1878 when Nelson A. Miles attended the ceremonies inaugorating the new reservation whilst he investigated the events of the battle. There was nothing from him about the western fords playing any part in the fighting and maneuvre. It is not shown on Clark's map. It is not shown on any participant map and is not discussed anywhere by any participant because it didn't happen. William A. Allen's observations in 1877 are valuable but his interpretations are just that although interesting because he lived at Billings and was frequently on the battleground during the rest of his life and collecting relics which may be lying around somewhere today. Maj. John D. Miles account gleaned from Cheyennes returning to his reservation, is a hugely difficult take on things to work witth but is broadly accurate in quite surprising fashion. The usual difficulties with translation and sign apply and obvious mistakes require application to correct. For example where river is interpretted and the papers are newly full of sensational reports of repulse at the river, then ravine or coulee as meant by Cheyenne informants must be seen to have been wrongly grasped by Miles. When Cheyennes gave colors or terrain features then things often went wrong. There is a simple example with Two Moons in Vanishing race where yellow or sundance gold, is easily mistaken for red. The terms sound very similar. Red and white can also present difficulties relevant to the battle. Since we know that Custer's command did not cross the river then Cheyennes saying they did were misinterpretted. Custer's company did cross a ravine or coulees. Cheyennes did not loop miles down the valley to hook across to LSH from Willy Bends place and neither did the Sioux. If you are saying that cavalry travelled the length of Greasy Grass Ridge in full view of the valley then that is a different thing and something which was on the early John Stands in Timber map. Interesting foray for me. Many here know where you're coming from with this and have talked it over to their satisfaction. Enjoyed the chat. TVM.
|
|
|
Post by herosrest on Sept 4, 2017 17:22:39 GMT -6
1902 Terrain view.FreemanMarquis T.B. Marquis with his Cheyenne informants at the 50th Anniversary at which, 7th Cavalry rode from the western fords via the Cemetery Ridge onto Battle Ridge in a RE-ENACTMENT of the battle. Anyone want some lessons in Cheyenne language? 'cos not one of those battle participants knew a thing about cavalry or fighting at the western fords. We know this from Marquis's book about the battle. So, who was telling stuff about it to John Stands in Timber? The truth of events was shielded from Custer's wife and since then has really suited no-one involved with the battle's difficulties. There was a survivor and the story has been told and left to mould. Here ya go mac, Published 1936 the record of the survivor who really was there. Two Feathers with his Springfield carbine. Stump Horn Likewise. Stump Horn signing to Willis Rowland. Bit special, this one - John, Josie and Burton Stands in Timber at the battle's 50th Anniversary. Photographer Marquis, Thomas Bailey. Now then John, do tell me all about the battle. Stumpy and his wife, who was wounded in the chest during the battle. There is a photo of him in the Wooden Leg book at the ford. Erm.......... Indians who fought Custer. Little known accounts of the fighting including witness of Black Moons killing. Little Wolf and Big Beaver. One of the guys who fought, fighting at the ford, linkHere's Curley with his wife and stood outside his tipi on his land which was in the valley, immediately opposite the river mouth of Deep Ravine.
|
|