|
Post by shan on Apr 22, 2023 9:30:28 GMT -6
I'm not sure if this is the right place to put this, but on reading through some of the older posts I was reminded of a time when I was having some difficulties with knowing how to respond to some of Freds posts. Don't get me wrong, I know he was abrasive and could be downright rude at times, but I got on well with him for the most part.
My trouble was simple, I'm not American and I'm not a miltary man, and so I couldn't understand why he insisted on approaching most of the problems one raised by answering them from the miltary manuial ~~ todays military manual, as if everything that happened during the battle was by the book. Until that is the last twnty minutes or so. And so, feeling that I didn't have the right to challenge his expertise, I never asked why one would expect those people back then to be operating with the same kind of mind set that a miltary man like himself would be applying today. Maybe it was just as well because I'm sure I'd have got a lecture.
But anyhow, I can't speak for the military back then, no more than I can for the miliray today, but years of reading posts on these boards tells me that that many of those present, on finding themselves caught up in the heat of battle, and seeing that things weren't going according to plan, resorted to acting on the hoof. There have been a number of good posts on this board recently which have made me look at things again and maybe think about them in human terms rather than miltarily, and human terms can often mean simply being aware that most people, just like ourselves, can often act illogically.
With regards to that, as I've found out to my cost, ironic posts, or lets say tongue in cheek observations don't work down on the page, and whilst I'm somewha addicted to using them, if I want to get my points across, I've found its best to keep things simple.
Shan
|
|
Jenny
Full Member
Posts: 200
|
Post by Jenny on Apr 22, 2023 9:38:48 GMT -6
Agree, Shan. And well said. I don't expect to get along with everyone in life, but I do think we all need to be mindful of how things SOUND in written form. I want a continued online relationship with all of you experts because I want to know what you think, and why you think it. It's gold to me. Onward!
J
|
|
|
Post by herosrest on May 4, 2023 5:51:51 GMT -6
The Little Big Horn or Little Bighorn, was called Little Horn and this can be seen on old maps. The Bighorn was called the Bighorn or Big Horn. I understand and believe that THIS was the reason among 'some' of the tribal population roaming the land. This brings up the Little Horn, and my feeling is that amongst the Cheyennes it was by some degree known as Little Horn, for THIS reason. Obviously, amongst Teton Sioux it was named Greasy Grass but there is as far as I can discover, no dating of this innovation. Until 1876, the land was not settled for farming and was essentially a wilderness of blissful nightmares for the nomadic warring Native American populace who did not have a general geographical naming system. Different tribes and differnt bands with different tribes mixing, mingling, robbing and murdering each other as has taken place across the Planet for..... a very long time. I hope this helps, although it probably wont unless the entire Planet logs on here and then accepts what I have laid out. If and when, I can, I'll dig out links to old maps of the territory. I think that the 1859 Maynardier expedition map shows Little Horn and Big Horn, etc together with old French river names. You can of course always tap into the Duck, Google, or any other erstwhile engine of search but may not hit what you want or may, or you could try out the new AI implementations taking the rage and hopefully about to be knee-capped by Biden. Regards All. So, it should really be thought of and called, the Little Goat river flowing into the Big Sheep, which flows into the Yellowstone which river's Indian name escapes me, for now. I'm sure that in some quarters the use of horn proved troubling and indecent. Something to do with Elks.... Elk River.....
|
|
Jenny
Full Member
Posts: 200
|
Post by Jenny on May 8, 2023 9:36:08 GMT -6
Hmm. I have to disagree about the presence of mountain goats, as they are found in higher elevations. Much higher. I think it's simply about the size of the river(s). Bighorn sheep are definitely native to that area, thus the name Bighorn River. The Little Bighorn River ("Little Horn" being a shorthand name) was the smaller river. Now I could be talked out of this, but I doubt it. 😉
J
|
|
|
Post by Bruce Robert on May 8, 2023 13:46:38 GMT -6
I had an interesting experience today that left me remembering the words of my late friend, Fred Wagner III: "To hell with them."
That is sad to hear. I never met Fred, but enjoyed his discussions greatly. I'm happy he got to see the movie come to fruition. I think of him when someone asks, "how did Custer lose?" Or, "what really happened?" We know the narrative. Damn little left to suss out. And after all the years and credible research, still the myths won't die. Unfortunately, Fred, as we all, do.
For those interested...link:https://7thtroopers.blogspot.com/2022/12/farewell-fred.html#comment-form
|
|
|
Post by herosrest on May 9, 2023 12:34:59 GMT -6
Fred used that expression and attitude because he didn't give a damn, maybe. The consequence is that many who mingled with him, didn't for very long. I know a bit about the fighting at Little Bighorn which makes me entirely superior to everyone else such that I can.... let's see. Make some truly serious errors about what happened and sugar coat them in parsimonic parentheses. He was a rude and seemed to be quite nasty - I suffered him briefly but that is terrible strategy. Some liked him. I learnt not to. Right, are you up for discussing application of accordion effect to LBH, or would you prefer to consider how duelling banjos could have altered the outcome? This is a light hearted post. It takes some immense efforts to get under my skin and almost uniquely, Wagner the III, did.
|
|
|
Post by crzhrs on May 9, 2023 14:05:16 GMT -6
Fred used that expression and attitude because he didn't give a damn, maybe. The consequence is that many who mingled with him, didn't for very long. I know a bit about the fighting at Little Bighorn which makes me entirely superior to everyone else such that I can.... let's see. Make some truly serious errors about what happened and sugar coat them in parsimonic parentheses. He was a rude and seemed to be quite nasty - I suffered him briefly but that is terrible strategy. Some liked him. I learnt not to. Right, are you up for discussing application of accordion effect to LBH, or would you prefer to consider how duelling banjos could have altered the outcome? This is a light hearted post. It takes some immense efforts to get under my skin and almost uniquely, Wagner the III, did. I found Fred to be a very caring, compassionate and humble human being. We only "knew" each other via this forum and personal messages. His knowledge, research and field trips of the LBH was more than enough to prove his understanding of what happened. His books are filled with facts and never had any personal agendas to blame anyone involved with the battle. I find it outrageous that you would disparage someone who has passed on and not being able to defend himself!
|
|
|
Post by herosrest on May 9, 2023 15:17:06 GMT -6
Fred used that expression and attitude because he didn't give a damn, maybe. The consequence is that many who mingled with him, didn't for very long. I know a bit about the fighting at Little Bighorn which makes me entirely superior to everyone else such that I can.... let's see. Make some truly serious errors about what happened and sugar coat them in parsimonic parentheses. He was a rude and seemed to be quite nasty - I suffered him briefly but that is terrible strategy. Some liked him. I learnt not to. Right, are you up for discussing application of accordion effect to LBH, or would you prefer to consider how duelling banjos could have altered the outcome? This is a light hearted post. It takes some immense efforts to get under my skin and almost uniquely, Wagner the III, did. I found Fred to be a very caring, compassionate and humble human being. We only "knew" each other via this forum and personal messages. His knowledge, research and field trips of the LBH was more than enough to prove his understanding of what happened. His books are filled with facts and never had any personal agendas to blame anyone involved with the battle. I find it outrageous that you would disparage someone who has passed on and not being able to defend himself! Fred used that expression and attitude because he didn't give a damn. There was no reading between the lines withmy post and it offered no offence. Fred couldn't be offended. He accounted for the entire E Troop, don't ya know. That's a fact and one argued bitterly here. He didn't give a damn.
|
|
|
Post by herosrest on May 10, 2023 5:24:31 GMT -6
Perhaps the best battle account was by O. Dunbar Wheeler, inked to to paper in one of, if not the last editions of Smalley's Magazine. Even here, the this or that conundrum of 7th Cavalry's infernal tortures was not realised. link. Correctly though, it is pointed up and out that Military men have thought they could interpret much that occurred and have done so.... repeatedly and bereft of reality. This was 1903, with Godfrey rampant, King deluged away, Patterson Hughes maintaining steadfast Terryier and Graham in Legal Practice in Des Moines and serving on the border. On it went, and on it goes as a topic of interested discussion, enchanting research and people re-writing history with some intersting ideas 'cos they did some research or in some cases way too much and not all their own. But lo.......... there came the 50th Anniversary where even those undertaking it, realised, the re-enactment was regrettably re-writing understanding of what happened. Interesting reading is the stuff of the time, of the 50th Anniversary. The battle is a mystery because those who fought it, wanted it that way and without their veracity, a mystery it will always be. It's great fun and teaches much about people. The only fair comments ever made were those of P.H. Sheridan who fully understood what took place after Maj. Reno wrote to him, behind Terry's back, on July 4th 1876. I did recently post research giving numbers of dead actually identified during burial, and for Company E that was seven, rather than the ten I though was the case. That means that, about thirty men of that company were not identified on the battlefield when burials took place. There is the mystery of Troop E. 'lo and behold, do people actually read these books and understand them? Which Officer who survived the battle, thought that 30 men had not been found or buried?
|
|
|
Post by herosrest on May 10, 2023 7:26:50 GMT -6
He doesn't walk on water and is probably giving Benteen a run for his money at the moment. He published and has been damned. He got where he was going.
I'm sorry for your loss.
regards.
|
|
|
Post by herosrest on May 10, 2023 11:18:25 GMT -6
Yup, correct. There was a search for survivors as mentioned by Godfrey, probably others and of course Benteen on the 27th, who felt initially that Custer had retired on Terry and abandoned Reno. Up to July 4th, Benteen felt that 30 men had not been found and noted this on the map he sent with that dates letter, to his wife. W.A. Graham found the map and letters, or rather they were offered to him. He published in his 1954 book about Reno's trial. Abstract of the official record of proceedings of the Reno Court.... The map is at rear pages of the book. Incredible bit of history and at 'G' on Benteen's bullet list is '3411'. Obviously pointed out to Benteen by Martin. Benteen's text on the Custer fight is on the immediately preceding page.
|
|
Jenny
Full Member
Posts: 200
|
Post by Jenny on May 14, 2023 19:45:35 GMT -6
He accounted for the entire E Troop, don't ya know. Can you point me to his argument for the location of E Troop? I'd like to read what he had to say. Thanks, J
|
|
|
Post by Yan Taylor on May 15, 2023 7:43:11 GMT -6
I can remember some of it as I cut this part from the conversation for future reference and for times just like this Smith was the only E Company member found of LSH. Few people know this, but before the visitors centre and the National Cemetery were put in place, there were six markers on Cemetery Ridge. I believe all six were E Company men, especially since HQ personnel were accounted for and F Company was likely sent into the basin area. Then we have this:
1SG Ryan (M): 18 or 20 men of E Company. 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: 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. LT Richard Thompson (6th Infantry): maybe 34 bodies in a gully [Camp]. LT Edward Maguire: 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.
These 28 + the 6 = 34. There were 36 enlisted personnel in E Company. We also know only something between 6 and 12 bodies were found between LSH and its ridge line and the ravine. McDougall said there were only a few bodies between the deep gully and where Custer lay. He was sure there were less than twelve and might not have been more than six. I would venture to say the missing 2 were part of those few. That accounts for all of E Company.Ian
|
|
Jenny
Full Member
Posts: 200
|
Post by Jenny on May 15, 2023 8:50:21 GMT -6
This is from Fred? Thanks Ian. As with many things about this subject, it's possible.
J
|
|
|
Post by Yan Taylor on May 15, 2023 8:56:27 GMT -6
Yes Jenny its all Freds word for word. I copied it some years ago in case I needed some data on E Company, I knew if I didnt copy it then I would lose it and never find the thread page again.
Ian
|
|