|
Post by curious on Oct 27, 2017 6:05:14 GMT -6
I would appreciate comment on some propositions and thoughts.
1. Why does so much discussion of the conflict between NAs and Whites, especially military conflict, assume lack of cultural knowledge and intelligence (in the military sense and on both sides). These protagonists were in struggle for decades, same groups, same individuals, leaders, terrain etc. They would have talked constantly about each other, comparing notes, exchanging information about characters, looks, gear, likes dislikes, war fighting tactics etc. They shared interests in arms, fighting, horses, hunting, killing, drinking, women, gambling and in some cases shared religion etc. They would have been encountering each other at forts, trading posts, religious settings, NA villages etc for many years. They knew names and nicknames. At LBH Rain in the Face was after Tom Custer, they had a history. He would also have liked to find and protect a trooper friend he knew from confinement.
2. Why was Keogh's body not defiled? There were good political reasons for describing Custer's remains as "serene" and unmolested, but no reason to invent that for Keogh. Therefore, why? The usual story is that this was due to his "magic" pouch of papal medals. Not credible. Some NAs present knew he was a "Black Robe man". Obviously, he was not a Jesuit. He was a devout Catholic. He may have known de Smet, a good friend of the Sioux. NAs left his scapular on a gold chain on his neck (removed by Benteen), because some of them knew what it was? Many troopers were Catholics, and many would have worn protective scapulars and other religious medals. All but Keogh were mutiliated. Was it then down to bravery? It must have been a very distinctive performance.There are multiple NA accounts of a particularly active officer on his horse on the left US flank.
3.The US force tactics at LBH are much more Keogh than Custer from the point of stalling at MTC ford. Military leadership and character is only usually superficially addressed in LBH accounts and focused on Custer - rash bravery, martinet arrogance, genocidal hatred of NAs and corresponding tactics. If we accept that Custer's force was intact at MTC. If we accept that, in accord with his temperament and prior behaviour, he dashed ahead to reconnaitre and was chest wounded. That meant Custer was incapacitated, probably semi-conscious. Then Keogh as second in command assumes command. This does not mean instantaneous panic. I could imagine many troopers glad to have Keogh in command instead of Custer. The next actions speak to a Keogh command. The obvious route out of MTC amid a developing NA attack was a speedy move to the high ground. Keogh had previous experience of defending high ground against superior forces, at Ancona, and Gettysburg. The disposition of US forces along the ridge is logical even assuming a very short time frame, with a left to right deployment with Keogh in command in the centre. There was time to deploy two companies as skirmishers to block NA movement from MTC and from the south. The remaining companies, with the wounded Custer were to deploy toward the right toward LSH. We should assume from his previous military experience that Keogh was actively riding along the skirmish lines motivating to sustain the rate of fire. He had some veteran officers and ncos to call on. We are counting in minutes here. The expectation is to hold for a short time as relief is near. It is the NA charge from the ridge behind battle ridge, led by Crazy Horse, that breaks the command and control of US forces, and that charge is directed at Keogh. Most of the action and deaths are around Keogh as the left collapses. Keogh must have led and fought bravely to be honoured in such a rare way for a White officer by the NAs. US coherence for a time is around Keogh.
LSH is more of a mopping up operation for the NAs and not much coherence to the US defense. Here is where there is evidence of a quick rout and overrun.
|
|
thegraylensman
New Member
Given a do-over, how could the 7th have won the battle of the LittleBighorn?
Posts: 3
|
Post by thegraylensman on Sept 21, 2018 2:44:25 GMT -6
To Curious: your theory is interesting. However, it fails to account for the push to the north to ford D by companies E and F. Also it does not fit in with the final fighting in and near Deep Ravine. Keogh and C,I,&L were very likely already gone quickly while Custer pushed to ford D.
sincerely, The Gray Lensman
|
|
|
Post by fred on Sept 29, 2018 11:34:47 GMT -6
I would appreciate comment on some propositions and thoughts. 1. Why does so much discussion of the conflict between NAs and Whites, especially military conflict, assume lack of cultural knowledge and intelligence (in the military sense and on both sides). These protagonists were in struggle for decades, same groups, same individuals, leaders, terrain etc. They would have talked constantly about each other, comparing notes, exchanging information about characters, looks, gear, likes dislikes, war fighting tactics etc. They shared interests in arms, fighting, horses, hunting, killing, drinking, women, gambling and in some cases shared religion etc. They would have been encountering each other at forts, trading posts, religious settings, NA villages etc for many years. They knew names and nicknames. At LBH Rain in the Face was after Tom Custer, they had a history. He would also have liked to find and protect a trooper friend he knew from confinement. 2. Why was Keogh's body not defiled? There were good political reasons for describing Custer's remains as "serene" and unmolested, but no reason to invent that for Keogh. Therefore, why? The usual story is that this was due to his "magic" pouch of papal medals. Not credible. Some NAs present knew he was a "Black Robe man". Obviously, he was not a Jesuit. He was a devout Catholic. He may have known de Smet, a good friend of the Sioux. NAs left his scapular on a gold chain on his neck (removed by Benteen), because some of them knew what it was? Many troopers were Catholics, and many would have worn protective scapulars and other religious medals. All but Keogh were mutiliated. Was it then down to bravery? It must have been a very distinctive performance.There are multiple NA accounts of a particularly active officer on his horse on the left US flank. 3.The US force tactics at LBH are much more Keogh than Custer from the point of stalling at MTC ford. Military leadership and character is only usually superficially addressed in LBH accounts and focused on Custer - rash bravery, martinet arrogance, genocidal hatred of NAs and corresponding tactics. If we accept that Custer's force was intact at MTC. If we accept that, in accord with his temperament and prior behaviour, he dashed ahead to reconnaitre and was chest wounded. That meant Custer was incapacitated, probably semi-conscious. Then Keogh as second in command assumes command. This does not mean instantaneous panic. I could imagine many troopers glad to have Keogh in command instead of Custer. The next actions speak to a Keogh command. The obvious route out of MTC amid a developing NA attack was a speedy move to the high ground. Keogh had previous experience of defending high ground against superior forces, at Ancona, and Gettysburg. The disposition of US forces along the ridge is logical even assuming a very short time frame, with a left to right deployment with Keogh in command in the centre. There was time to deploy two companies as skirmishers to block NA movement from MTC and from the south. The remaining companies, with the wounded Custer were to deploy toward the right toward LSH. We should assume from his previous military experience that Keogh was actively riding along the skirmish lines motivating to sustain the rate of fire. He had some veteran officers and ncos to call on. We are counting in minutes here. The expectation is to hold for a short time as relief is near. It is the NA charge from the ridge behind battle ridge, led by Crazy Horse, that breaks the command and control of US forces, and that charge is directed at Keogh. Most of the action and deaths are around Keogh as the left collapses. Keogh must have led and fought bravely to be honoured in such a rare way for a White officer by the NAs. US coherence for a time is around Keogh. LSH is more of a mopping up operation for the NAs and not much coherence to the US defense. Here is where there is evidence of a quick rout and overrun. You are making too many assumptions here, the crucial one being giving too much credit to the organizational and tactical abilities of the Indians. Yes, they had fought the whites for years, but their culture was such that they operated and lived in small bands, a method hardly conducive to systematic, organized warfare. In essence, the only tactical subterfuges they ever used were in swarming and ambushing. The Beecher’s Island, Wagon Box, and Hayfield fights are probably the best examples of swarming, when great masses of Indians attacked small groupings of whites. And in each of those three cases, the Indian tactics failed, and failed at pretty sharp losses. We have only a couple examples of the ambush ruse, where they suckered whites into a trap. The most memorable was the Fetterman fight—which was successful in its tactical planning—and the Crook-Rosebud fight—which was considerably less successful, depending on who you want to believe. The only other example of that type of ambuscade ruse may have been with the killing of Stocker, Rahmeir, and Quinn, and that was simply a three-man show, the “tactics” surmised by those who found the bodies. As for the troops, the basic tactic was just about as simple because it was the only successful way the army was able to bring its numbers, superior arms, and discipline to the field, and that was a multi-pronged surprise attack, generally in the early morning hours and against a village with women and children. That tactic forced warriors to protect families, ruining any chance of a possibly coalescing force. This type of warfare proved best—and most effective—because any time warriors were faced, en masse, with a disciplined cavalry command, they scattered. Scattering was the biggest overhanging fear for Custer at the Little Big Horn. Your assumption that Indians would have discussed other methods of confronting organized troops is incorrect, especially since there are no other examples of organized attacks. As for Rain-In-The-Face and Tom Custer, I doubt seriously Rain recognized TWC at the LBH, not with all the smoke, dust, mayhem, and adrenaline on both sides. In my opinion, it is too much of a stretch. Rain had bragged—publicly—he was the one who killed the regimental veterinarian, Dr. John Honsinger and the sutler, Augustus Baliran during the 1873 Yellowstone Expedition, so that is why Tom arrested him and Rain vowed the vendetta. Vowing and doing, however, are two different things and the chances of Rain-In-The-Face recognizing Tom Custer at the Little Big Horn are minuscule. No one had the slightest idea this was Custer and the 7th Cavalry. Your question about Keogh is essentially unanswerable and the only known reason is the Papal medals business. So you have a legitimate question here with only opinions as answers. Your last point—number three—is also full of assumptions and in this case erroneous ones at that. (The difference between these assumptions and the ones you outline in your number one, is that you portray these as facts, while in the first instance you are simply referring to them as opinions.) First off, there was no “stalling” at Medicine Tail Ford. How you arrive at that conclusion is beyond me. Second, your depiction of the usual scenarios regarding Custer and his tactics is pretty much what we see, even if that depiction is incorrect. Third, we do not accept Custer’s command was intact at Ford B—it was uncommitted, but not intact. In fact, Custer was at the ford with HQ and companies E and F, while he maintained the Keogh battalion—companies C, I, and L—about a mile behind on the high points along the ridges. Fourth, Custer was not shot, killed, or wounded at that ford. Any acceptance of such is fallacious. That negates any assumption of command by Keogh, though you are correct in choosing Keogh as commander if that were the scenario. Fifth, there was no developing attack by Indians as Custer withdrew from the vicinity of the ford. The movement of Indians was fairly slow and at a distance. Sixth, I defer to your knowledge of Keogh’s Civil War experiences. Seventh, your description of Keogh’s dispositions along Battle Ridge is accurate. Good job there. Eighth, since Custer was not wounded, any further suppositions of actions using that as a syllogism is incorrect. Ninth, I would—based on body placement—agree with your inference troops coalesced around Keogh as commander. Your claim of his bravery is supposition, but I would never dispute it. Tenth, while your last comment is fairly accurate, it is drawn in an inaccurate depiction of the battle and would resonate more fully—and correctly—were your scenario more accurate. Best wishes, Fred.
|
|
|
Post by fred on Sept 29, 2018 11:38:05 GMT -6
... your theory is interesting. However, it fails to account for the push to the north to ford D by companies E and F. Also it does not fit in with the final fighting in and near Deep Ravine. Keogh and C,I,&L were very likely already gone quickly while Custer pushed to ford D. You are absolutely correct. The Custer wounding at Ford B has caused more confusion and irrelevant speculation than any other misconception of the battle I have ever seen. Best wishes, Fred.
|
|
|
Post by alquedahunter on Nov 1, 2018 11:07:26 GMT -6
May I add,newbie thought. As I recall a couple of NA's stated though that LSH was where the soldiers fought hardest I think was their term. And, seems like one NA stated CH was a very hard fight also. Ah, the unknown we will never be positive of. I guess if someone is looking for positives, they may best find another subject. Would anyone give $ to have been there? If we could watch from above maybe?
|
|
|
Post by noggy on Nov 2, 2018 1:37:15 GMT -6
May I add,newbie thought. As I recall a couple of NA's stated though that LSH was where the soldiers fought hardest I think was their term. And, seems like one NA stated CH was a very hard fight also. Ah, the unknown we will never be positive of. I guess if someone is looking for positives, they may best find another subject. Would anyone give $ to have been there? If we could watch from above maybe? A warrior fighting at LSH would probably say it was harder there than in the Keogh sector, and vice versa If one can place NA casualties correctly on the battlefield, which often leads to debate (Lame White Man, anyone?), it sheds more light on things. I think I`d feel too much like a creep paying to see how men killed each other All the best, Noggy
|
|
|
Post by AZ Ranger on Nov 3, 2018 6:09:56 GMT -6
They also fight hardest where you are fighting them.
Regards
AZ Ranger
|
|
|
Post by noggy on Nov 3, 2018 6:24:49 GMT -6
They also fight hardest where you are fighting them. Regards AZ Ranger Of course. You`re always up against their elite. Unlike the other guys who had it easy. I know this from playing FIFA online. All the best, Noggy
|
|
|
Post by tubman13 on Nov 3, 2018 7:55:31 GMT -6
Thanks, noggy, I got a kick out of that. Maybe you a card, of some color'
Regards, Tom
|
|
|
Post by noggy on Nov 4, 2018 6:46:31 GMT -6
Thanks, noggy, I got a kick out of that. Maybe you a card, of some color' Regards, Tom In my very much younger the days, I played (soccer/football) for my local team and achieved notoriety for being the first and hopefully last youth player to get a red card for foul language to towards the referee. So I`m no stranger to colorful cards, tom. All the best, Geir
|
|
|
Post by Yan Taylor on Nov 4, 2018 13:14:12 GMT -6
Yeah, I too played football when I was young, in fact I would have been a school boy international but I didn't go school. I did prefer rugby though, getting stuck in!
|
|
|
Post by noggy on Nov 5, 2018 1:56:12 GMT -6
Yeah, I too played football when I was young, in fact I would have been a school boy international but I didn't go school. I did prefer rugby though, getting stuck in! I watch a lot of rugby when in the UK, which is as often as my account lets me. A rugby match and a pint at some old pub is about as good as it gets. My own, few experiences of playing the sport myself are rather blurry, due to a combination of alcohol and blows to the head. I recall it as something almost taken out of Braveheart. All the best, Noggy
|
|
|
Post by Yan Taylor on Nov 5, 2018 13:40:04 GMT -6
It has gone better now in regards to violence on the pitch, I played it when I was a young teenager so most of the opponents I face were okay and wanted to play an open game, not like it is when you reach the over 21s and open age league, then you would get you block knocked off, probably by some ex-pro who was too old to play top class rugby league and doesn't take to kindly to some young whipper snapper running him all over the field.
I must admit the game I saw yesterday between England and New Zealand [played at Anfield of all places] was superb.
|
|
|
Post by noggy on Nov 6, 2018 3:30:49 GMT -6
It has gone better now in regards to violence on the pitch, I played it when I was a young teenager so most of the opponents I face were okay and wanted to play an open game, not like it is when you reach the over 21s and open age league, then you would get you block knocked off, probably by some ex-pro who was too old to play top class rugby league and doesn't take to kindly to some young whipper snapper running him all over the field. I must admit the game I saw yesterday between England and New Zealand [played at Anfield of all places] was superb. We have somewhat of the same issue here regarding football. Many workplaces and such have their own "company teams" who play each other in regional leagues for fun. You`ll regurlary come across people in heir 40s or 50s who used to play in lower leagues some decades ago, and they are often crazy, playing like the Champion`s League was at stake and going in with a Roy Keane mentality. Anfield delenda est .
All the best, Noggy the Elder
|
|
|
Post by tubman13 on Nov 6, 2018 6:01:58 GMT -6
|
|