|
Post by AZ Ranger on Jan 16, 2018 12:08:16 GMT -6
Fred
I got to experience that loss of mindset and resort to flight. There was a report of a sacrifice on Goat's Head Peak in the Black Hills. Several officers from multi-agencies went close to Goat's Head Peak and parked. In my head this was a bogus call and we were on a hike to find that nothing happened. Close to the top all of sudden there was a great crashing sound in the chaparral coming toward us. In an instant the thought went through my head that it was real and we were about to be attacked by the persons conducting the sacrifice. It was a retrograde to beat all retrogrades. Officer running so fast they were on top of the chaparral. By the time I got up to speed I stopped and drew my colt python and yelled for the others to stop. They did. Just then a big bull came running past us thinking he needed to retrograde also.
From the time I started to retrograde until stopping to confront our pursuers the warrior mindset was not present. It came back maybe because I could not run as fast as the others.
During that retrograde time we could have been killed like running buffalo from behind. The good thing about experience is that if it doesn't kill you can learn to never to do that again.
There is a saying:
What doesn't kill you it makes you stronger - except for Marines - Marines will kill you and sing songs about it
Regards
Steve
|
|
|
Post by benteen on Jan 16, 2018 15:30:53 GMT -6
Gentlemen,
It wouldn't be fair to address this to any one individual, so I am asking to anyone. I have accepted, as I believe we all have, that E company was the unit that broke out, but how do we know this for sure. These bodies were bloated and mutilated stench must have been horrible, there were flies and maggots all over them how could there be a positive ID on many or most of them. Tom Custer other than his brother George was probably the most known to the regiment and no one could ID him. He was ID by a tattoo that he had. Is it possible that perhaps one or two troopers were ID from a certain company and it was assumed that the other bodies found with them were from the same company?
Be Well Dan
|
|
|
Post by fred on Jan 16, 2018 16:27:44 GMT -6
Initial burials occurred on June 28, 1876. The battlefield was divided into five sectors: 1. The company commanders went over the whole field to try to identify the officers. 2. The first sergeants led the men over the sectors to try to identify the men and bury them. Company B was on the extreme left, closest to the river. Company A was to their right. Companies G, M, and K took the central area, and companies D and H covered the right farthest back from the river. They moved north, burying and counting as they moved. 3. There were numerous accounts of bodies seen in a deep gully/ravine (Deep Ravine): • 1SG Ryan (M): 18 or 20 men of E Company. He said 28 bodies at a later date. • CPT Benteen (H): 22 bodies. • CPT Moylan (A): 20-odd bodies of E Company. • LT Godfrey (K): 28 men of Smith’s troop. • LT Hare (K): 28 bodies of Smith’s troop in a coulee in skirmish order. • SGT Kanipe (C): rode along the edge of a deep gully and counted 28 bodies in the ravine [Camp]. • LT Richard Thompson (6th Infantry): maybe 34 bodies in a gully [Camp]. • LT Edward Maguire (Engineers): drew a map showing 28 bodies in one particular ravine. • LT Edward McClernand (2nd Cavalry): 28 bodies of Smith’s troop were found at the lower end of the line in a deep coulee. • COL John Gibbon (7th Infantry): 40 or 50 bodies were found in a valley running perpendicular to the river. • LT/Dr. Holmes Paulding: 28 bodies found in a deep ravine by the scouts. • Walter Camp interviewed two Sioux warriors, Good Voiced Elk (Hunkpapa), who claimed 25 to 30 died in a gully; and He Dog (Oglala) who corroborated the number of 28. Of course, one would like to know how he arrived at this precise figure.
In a November 6, 1920, letter from Walter Camp to Edward Godfrey, Camp discussed the marker placements. “There are seventeen or eighteen too many markers in the group at the monument, too many in the group around Keogh’s marker, too many between the monument and the river, and none in the big gully where about twenty-eight ought to be. I discovered these dead in the gully with Capt. McDougall… and he was clear that there were only nine dead between the end of the ridge and the gully, and twenty-eight in the gully (not counting the group that lay around the body of Gen. Custer)…. As the markers now stand, there are more than fifty where there should be only nine, on that side hill, and not enough at or in the gully.”
Last Stand Hill and the South Skirmish Line—Archaeologist Douglas Scott estimated 27 to 44 men were killed in the area between Custer Hill and Deep Ravine. This includes the SSL. Scott claimed Custer, 5 officers, and perhaps 40 EM lay on Custer/Last Stand Hill. • 28 names are documented: 14 PVTs PVT Ygnatz Stungewitz (C) PVT Willis B. Wright (C) PVT Anton Dohman (F) PVT Gustav Klein (F) PVT William H. Lerock (F) PVT Werner L. Liemann (F) PVT Edward C. Driscoll (I) PVT Archibald McIlhargey (I) PVT John E. Mitchell (I) PVT John Parker (I) PVT Francis T. Hughes (L) PVT Charles McCarthy (L) PVT Oscar F. Pardee (aka, John Burke) (L) PVT Thomas S. Tweed (L) • 2 civilians—Boston Custer (QM) and Autie Reed • 1 surgeon—Dr. George Lord (HQ) (Marker 17 for Lord is on the SSL; this is probably an incorrect placement.) • 1 trumpeter—Henry Voss (HQ) • 4 NCOs—SGM William Sharrow (HQ); 1SG Michael Kenney (F); SGT John H. Groesbeck (F); CPL William Teeman (F). NOTE—CPL John J. Callahan (K) was identified on Last Stand Hill by others. The exhumation in 1877 of a body with corporal’s stripes could have been Callahan’s. Less likely in this location would be CPL William Teeman (F), probably found a little lower on the ridgeline. This would make the identifications total 29. • SGT Robert Hughes’ (K) body was most likely the one found at the head of Deep Ravine, though there is a remote chance he was killed on Custer Hill. Supposedly identified by CPT McDougall. • Six officers—GAC (HQ); William Cooke (HQ); Tom Custer (C/HQ); Algernon Smith (E); George Yates (F); and William Van W. Reily (F). • Presently, 52 markers are located on Custer Hill; 42 bodies had been buried there initially. • Deep Ravine (8 men identified, all from Company E)—1SG Frederick Hohmeyer; SGT John S. Ogden; CPL George C. Brown; CPL Albert H. Meyer; PVT Richard Farrell; PVT William Huber; PVT Andy Knecht; and PVT William H. Rees.
I think it is reasonably safe to say enough men were identified-- despite putrefaction-- to give the survivors a fairly good idea of what companies were scattered where, especially when it came to E Company. There are five eye-witnesses who claim the men in Deep Ravine were from E. I would take their word for it, especially since there was no contradiction from anyone or comments claiming others were found there as well.
When you take the 28 in the ravine and add to that the six markers found on Cemetery Ridge (and removed in the early 1950s when the visitors center was built), it is a reasonable assumption we can account for 34 of the 36 enlisted men of Company E. We can also make a fairly valid assumption two of the nine men found on the SSL would also be from "E," thus completing the whereabouts of that entire unit.
Best wishes, Fred.
|
|
|
Post by AZ Ranger on Jan 18, 2018 6:05:17 GMT -6
AZ Ranger, "What doesn't kill you makes you stronger", is from Nietzsche, author of..."Beyond Good and Evil", among his many works attacking Western morality. Find a copy and...learn. Regards, Pequod I don't think you will find how it was modified to include except Marines they will kill you and sing songs about it in Nietzsche. You must keep up with the times and look for T-shirts and posters with the Marine version. There are also T-Shirts with " except Grizzly Bears they will kill you". I think the facts are that Nietzsche words were "That which does not kill us makes us stronger" according to my fact check. I don't think Nietzsche should be taken serious on lecturing us on morality. Relationships and sexuality[edit]
Nietzsche never married. Nietzsche proposed to Lou Salomé three times, but his proposal was rejected each time.[108][full citation needed] The Nietzsche scholar Joachim Köhler has attempted to explain Nietzsche's life history and philosophy by claiming that Nietzsche was homosexual. Köhler argues that Nietzsche's syphilis, which is "...usually considered to be the product of his encounter with a prostitute in a brothel in Cologne or Leipzig, is equally likely, it is now held, to have been contracted in a male brothel in Genoa."[109] Köhler also suggests Nietzsche may have had a romantic relationship as well as a friendship with Paul Rée.[110]
Köhler's views have not found wide acceptance among Nietzsche scholars and commentators. Allan Megill argues that, while Köhler's claim that Nietzsche was in confrontation with homosexual desire cannot simply be dismissed, "the evidence is very weak," and Köhler may be projecting twentieth-century understandings of sexuality on nineteenth-century notions of friendship.[110] Other scholars have argued that Köhler's sexuality-based interpretation is not helpful in understanding Nietzsche's philosophy.[111][112] Some like Nigel Rodgers and Mel Thompson have argued that continuous sickness and headaches hindered Nietzsche from engaging much with women. Yet, they bring other examples in which Nietzsche expressed his affections to other women, including Wagner's wife Cosima Wagner.[113]
I would not waste my time reading anything by Nietzsche. Regards AZ Ranger
|
|
|
Post by AZ Ranger on Jan 18, 2018 6:23:02 GMT -6
Robb
I think the exact words can be found in Kelly Clarkson Lyrics
"What doesn't kill you makes you stronger Stand a little taller"
Whether it was influenced by Nietzsche or not is irrelevant. In fact the words are not the same. Close but no cigar.
Just in case you have a suggestion for close but no cigar.
"The Oxford English Dictionary states that the first such instance was from March 6, 1930 from the Cleveland Ohio Plain Dealer, where a bowling match was described:
Peters..toppled the maples for 120, 100 and 100. Scott was right behind him with 113, 115 and 117. Close—but no cigar."
Regards
Steve
|
|
|
Post by AZ Ranger on Jan 19, 2018 7:52:33 GMT -6
AZ Ranger, You can lead a horse to water but,....it isn't easy educating a horse if it refuses to drink from the fountain of knowledge. Again, your attributions are off center, but sadly, we're becoming used to it. Pequod Robb You must think you are on the other board. I am among friends here in regards to formed opinions just ask Bill if you don't believe me. I am unmoved by your ad hominem attacks. In fact you should be smart enough to figure out that part of a law enforcement officers training is to be unmoved by ad hominem attacks. Responding to them with facts without letting them effect you is an everyday occurrence. For all your educational comments just a little common sense should allow you to figure this out. If you know someone's occupation then it should give you insight to their mindset formed through their training and experience. Since I know your training and experience includes academics I give you an A+ in spelling and grammar but fail you in common sense when it comes to understanding what someone's mindset might be when given their occupation and what training and experience they may have. I think there is definition for doing something over and over again such as making ad hominem comments and expecting different results. There is a difference regarding formed opinions on the LBH and I try to stick to the presentation of data, accounts, and information and how I can use it to make an informed opinion. As new facts are discovered I could change my opinion. You would rather argue on the definition of facts and make comments about posters. My expectation is that those with strong opinions regarding the LBH would defend them over and over on a board that focuses on the topic of the LBH. Of course there is diversion for we all do different things and have other interests. My belief is that you think there is only one way to view things ---your way. I think there are many ways and they are called opinions. We all can have different opinions. What I am interested in is information others use to form their opinion. We see little of that presented by you. I know you must have facts to support your opinions. How about sharing them? Let's consider the water as information then we can say a horse can't drink if they don't have access to water. Provide the water (information) to help others make informed opinions regarding the LBH. Since this is the Little Bighorn History Alliance that should be a clue to you on the information persons visiting this board are interested in. I don't think Nietzsche is on anyone's list for those interested on having a informed opinion about the LBH. I spent 8 hours learning new ground fighting techniques on Wednesday. I have increased my skillset to survive a confrontation. That is what is important to me to learn. I believe that if I had an academic background like yourself then I might read the stuff you think is important. The LBH battle is recreational time for me and something to do when not working. I have made lots of friends and looking forward to seeing them every June in Montana and this year also in Gettysburg. Maybe you should come to the battlefield in June and meet with many of the participants of these LBH boards. Regards Steve
|
|
|
Post by AZ Ranger on Jan 19, 2018 8:31:07 GMT -6
AZ Ranger, You can lead a horse to water but,....it isn't easy educating a horse if it refuses to drink from the fountain of knowledge. Again, your attributions are off center, but sadly, we're becoming used to it. Pequod Robb Do you own a horse? I have never had a problem with my horses drinking when they are thirsty. I have five horse right now and when we ride out and allow then to drink they all drink. Who ever made that statement is using it for an academic visualization but it is in fact not true. We know that you provide access to water and the horse decides to drink. So here is an example of riding the Benteen Scott area an coming to water at the end of Noname where we led the horses to water and let them make the best available decision. You can make a horse drink with a stomach tube. So lead it to a horse stall with water and then force it to drink for medical reasons is possible. Regards Steve
|
|
|
Post by Yan Taylor on Jan 19, 2018 14:38:54 GMT -6
That's why I don't post here as much I used to, I can't be doing with rubbing shoulders with a fake!
|
|
|
Post by AZ Ranger on Jan 19, 2018 15:31:58 GMT -6
AZ Ranger, Wonderful, you have five horses, and that's your hobby...horse...! I'm sure they get plenty to drink... Pequod Robb What makes you state that. Your facts are all wrong. Still use them for patrol and surveying. May start packing fish for the fisheries branch. They will supply the pack saddle , tack, and the panniers. I have one horse that is user friendly Custer who is retired after 20 years of service. The horses I ride in Montana are from a ranch in Wyola Montana. They are working horses also. My favorite Roman broke his leg working and had to be put down. I would never intentionally deny my horses water. Regards Steve
|
|
|
Post by AZ Ranger on Jan 20, 2018 9:55:30 GMT -6
AZ Ranger, "Your "facts" are all wrong....Count; one fact, two opinions...simple math... Pequod Quite obviously you have not spent much time in either Criminal or Civil courts. Both sides have the same facts to work with and yet quite often present expert witnesses to look at the same facts yet come up with different opinions. In the end either a judge or a jury decides which is fact. If the glove doesn't fit you must acquit. There was a glove in evidence which is a fact. Two opinions same glove. Regards AZ Ranger
|
|
|
Post by benteen on Jan 20, 2018 15:13:11 GMT -6
AZ Ranger, Really? And you're in law enforcement? A fact is a fact, as a glove is a glove, and no amount of opinion will change that...fact... Pequod Robb, Steve can correct me if I am wrong, but I don't believe he is saying that a fact is not a fact, but rather the same fact can be interpreted differently. For example, a cartridge case is found on LSH that was fired from a carbine that belonged to a trooper from C company. To some that may prove that C company was at LSH, but to others it proves nothing unless we know that a C company trooper fired it. It may have just as well been fired by a warrior that took it off a dead C company trooper. The fact remains the same, a cartridge was found on LSH but its meaning was interpreted differently. Be Well Dan
|
|
|
Post by noggy on May 26, 2018 11:32:09 GMT -6
However, having said that, I have to say that I thought that Lakota Noon was a much better book, although I too disagree with his notion of a two hour battle, I am reading it now, and must admit to never thinking about Benteens BN being seen as it approached by GAC. Is there any form of consensus about this? It would make sense to me, regarding GAC pushing further North. Those of you who have been there, what do you think? Hope you all are having good summer. Noggy
|
|
|
Post by herosrest on May 27, 2018 3:54:42 GMT -6
However, having said that, I have to say that I thought that Lakota Noon was a much better book, although I too disagree with his notion of a two hour battle, I am reading it now, and must admit to never thinking about Benteens BN being seen as it approached by GAC. Is there any form of consensus about this? It would make sense to me, regarding GAC pushing further North. Those of you who have been there, what do you think? Hope you all are having good summer. Noggy Legend into History - Chapter 10, p175. This was the thrust of Kuhlman's take on the Custer fight but revolving around Weir's advance being seen from Custer's Hill and Battle Ridge Extension and the movement by the five companies towards Weir, being confronted and demolished in plain view of Company D. Obviously, Custer, Keogh, Yates, et al.... assumed that Weir was the advance of the seven companies and pack train in total. The battle flow is therefore, south to north to south which kinda covers all the angles of modern contemplation but ignores the far fetched and unproven western (northern) D Fords poppycock which has become so popular with the modernists trying to impose 'themselves' on the battle, history and posterity. Donahues psychological analysis of Custer's tactical inanity is just published and going faster than Custer's command on Battle Ridge. Only 93 copies of the first run left at this Datim. linkWith regards to the latest thinking by Donahue, I sum it thus. Custer was infatuated with and hunting for, Elk Tooth dresses. Bethany Yellowtail Link to article. It is possible to understand such an obsession and this may really have been the cause of defeat. Ice, Two Moon, etc.... were not going to let him (Custer) have it and they let him have it.
|
|
|
Post by herosrest on May 28, 2018 2:52:02 GMT -6
I am reading it now, and must admit to never thinking about Benteens BN being seen as it approached by GAC. Is there any form of consensus about this? It would make sense to me, regarding GAC pushing further North. Those of you who have been there, what do you think? Hope you all are having good summer. Noggy Legend into History - Chapter 10, p175. This was the thrust of Kuhlman's take on the Custer fight but revolving around Weir's advance being seen from Custer's Hill and Battle Ridge Extension and the movement by the five companies towards Weir, being confronted and demolished in plain view of Company D. Obviously, Custer, Keogh, Yates, et al.... assumed that Weir was the advance of the seven companies and pack train in total. The battle flow is therefore, south to north to south which kinda covers all the angles of modern contemplation but ignores the far fetched and unproven western (northern) D Fords poppycock which has become so popular with the modernists trying to impose 'themselves' on the battle, history and posterity. Donahues psychological analysis of Custer's tactical inanity is just published and going faster than Custer's command on Battle Ridge. Only 93 copies of the first run left at this Datim. linkWith regards to the latest thinking by Donahue, I sum it thus. Custer was infatuated with and hunting for, Elk Tooth dresses. Bethany Yellowtail Link to article. It is possible to understand such an obsession and this may really have been the cause of defeat. Ice, Two Moon, etc.... were not going to let him (Custer) have it and they let him have it. Kuhlman's main body of work is excused and approved (lauded) by his appendixed reasoning in the form of notes. A perusal in the general area of page 188 within his main body of work, prosaically examples the practical method and intellectual prowess employed to unravel the tactical fighting on Custer Field. Grasping the nut of his infatuations can only fully be undertaken after a fully thorough assessment of the basis of his rambling adventures over ridges and through ravines which yielded the terror of carnage which mocked. That basis was the work undertaken on the field in May 1890, and reported Thus Battle Report, May 15, 1890. You will find that, as far as Kuhlman is concerned, the mystery of E Troop's demise was straight (as an arrow) forwardly simple and he gave it perfectly, marker by marker stretching east from SSL. He did not manage though to ascribe company members to their markers. Damn shame, that. God only knows why Michno thought he could do better. Of course he totally revised his thinking and theories - subsequently. A critical review of work undertaken by Sweet, that of Roe, and the accumulated clean ups of the battleground up to 1890, should indicate a modicum of succesive chaos related to soldier body positions. Kuhlman addressed this inquite brilliant fashion. Elk Tooth fashion?
|
|