|
Post by mcaryf on Mar 27, 2006 13:33:17 GMT -6
Dear All I am a new poster on this site so first I should say that I am immensely impressed with both the volume and quality of posts here.
I run a small military history discussion group in the vicinity of Epsom (15 miles South of London) in the UK. We cover all eras although I have a number of WW2 veterans on board so we quite often have topics on that. For my most recent meeting today we had a discussion on LBH which I led using lots of material from RA Fox's book (my actual name is Fox but no relation!), Peter Panzeri's (seems largely to use Fox's version but good graphics) and "The Custer Myth" by W.A.Graham.
A number of questions came up and I would be interested to hear your opinions on them:
1) What was the purpose of the volleys that Custer's men apparently fired. One theory we had was that it was Custer's attempt to draw off the Indians from attacking Reno since by then he knew from the scouts that Reno was in trouble. Thus the volleys were a signal but to the Indians not Reno/Benteen. I should note that if Custer already thought he would actually attack across another ford even further North then it would not matter if he attracted Indians to the Medecine Tail Ford.
2) To what extent might Custer's movements been inhibited by any wounded men he already had with him? I note the theory that he left the Right wing in a static position whilst supposedly using the Left wing to investigate a North Ford. By this time he would have presumeably suffered a few wounded on the way so having a static group (the Right Wing) would have given himself somewhere to park his wounded.
3) I read on a web site dedicated to Sgt Kanipe that his opinion was that the Indians only tended to seriously mutilate those who were still alive. Does this have any validity and might it explain Custer's relatively minor mutilations?
4) I have seen some suggestions that Custer's head wound might have been inflicted with his own handgun. It would seem to me quite possible, if this were true, that an Indian might have taken his own gun from his dead or dying hand and shot him with it. Has this ever been seriously suggested?
I look forward to your answers.
Regards
Mike
|
|
|
Post by alfuso on Mar 27, 2006 17:48:36 GMT -6
volleys: "Help!"
alfuso
|
|
|
Post by Treasuredude on Mar 27, 2006 20:27:59 GMT -6
4) I have seen some suggestions that Custer's head wound might have been inflicted with his own handgun. It would seem to me quite possible, if this were true, that an Indian might have taken his own gun from his dead or dying hand and shot him with it. Has this ever been seriously suggested? If that is true and an Indian used Custer's own pistol to finish him off while he lied there dying, that sort of answers your #3 point about only the soldiers still alive being mutilated. As far as the volleys, I believe they were a signal to a couple of longtime professional soldiers as to his whereabouts.
|
|
|
Post by El Crab on Mar 28, 2006 3:07:44 GMT -6
Its possible the volleys were as much for the purpose of letting the regiment know where he was. Its also possible, since it seems that volley fire was sometimes directed before an order for independent firing was given. In a sense, as skirmishing began, officers directed a few volleys, then gave the order for the men to fire on their own.
|
|
|
Post by AZ Ranger on Mar 28, 2006 7:33:55 GMT -6
If Custer's command fired the volleys then my first choice would be to announce his position. Second would be firing from a skirmish line under command. The terrain and the Indian approach to battle did not allow many opportunities where volley fire would have the desired effect. From what I understand near the end of the battle was a more likely appropriate opportunity with Indians rushing in but very unlikely that any skirmish lines remained.
Another possibility is that it was heavy Indian fire when part of Custer's command came into view. If enough Indians fired from an ambush position it may have sounded as volley fire.
|
|
|
Post by crzhrs on Mar 28, 2006 9:16:06 GMT -6
azranger:
The possibility of Indians using volley fire is doubtful . . . they did not have the training to do so . . . the military did. The soldiers may have been trying to hold off any warriors trying to advance on them, but from accounts most warriors were concealed while firing arrows/weapons at the troops.
Still the possibility of Indians using volley fire is a good question.
|
|
|
Post by mcaryf on Mar 28, 2006 9:22:56 GMT -6
Thank you to those who have responded to my volley question.
I myself think it probably was intended as a signal of some effect either to the Indians to draw them off Reno or to Reno to say this is where I am. I do not think it was a "distress" signal as some early theories surmised.
I quite like Azranger's suggestion that one of the volleys might have been Indian fire at Custer's men e.g. when Co C supposedly sortied. However, that would probably only account for one volley and there were reports of several.
So far none of you have picked up on my query about how Custer might have been handling the wounded that he had probably accumulated during his various manoevres. I was wondering if the area where Captain Keogh was found might have contained the beginnings of a field hospital.
Richard Fox and others draw various conclusions from the "clumping" of bodies and use this to point to disintegration of morale. However, that assumes that the clump all perished at the same time or had no other reason for being together. Surely a skirmish line suffering casualties might have to close up somewhat to fill the gaps created by the fallen. Viewed subsequently these closed up soldiers might be thought to have died simultaneously in clumps. Similarly if a field hospital was initiated and subsequently overrun then these previously wounded soldiers too would appear to be in a clump.
Regards
Mike
|
|
|
Post by crzhrs on Mar 28, 2006 10:05:17 GMT -6
Mike:
I believe a hospital was set up near or at Last Stand Hill, which may suggest another reason why horses were shot to protect wounded and medical personnel.
Or it may have been such a rapid disintergration of command that there was no time to take care of any wounded in a proper fashion.
Another point is that the final resting spot of soldiers may not have been the original spot where they were wounded and/or killed. Indians moved bodies when taking clothing, weapons, equipment, etc., . . . so we have to be careful about assuming what the position and locations of bodies may represent militarily.
|
|
|
Post by mcaryf on Mar 28, 2006 10:40:04 GMT -6
Hi Crzhrs
Thank you for your comment, however, on the face of it an exposed hilltop position would not seem an ideal location for a field hospital unless of course you have nowhere else to go.
My thinking really was about the wounded that Custer must have incurred in the hours before the climax. Typically wounded would be some multiple of those killed (2 or 3 dead probably means a dozen or so wounded). Keogh's position would appear to offer potentially better protection for incapacitated wounded, he was also supposedly static whilst the Left Wing was still undertaking recces thus my thought that an initial hospital might be there and this might explain some of the dead found there.
Regards
Mike
|
|
|
Post by markland on Mar 28, 2006 10:40:09 GMT -6
"Richard Fox and others draw various conclusions from the "clumping" of bodies and use this to point to disintegration of morale. However, that assumes that the clump all perished at the same time or had no other reason for being together. Surely a skirmish line suffering casualties might have to close up somewhat to fill the gaps created by the fallen. Viewed subsequently these closed up soldiers might be thought to have died simultaneously in clumps. Similarly if a field hospital was initiated and subsequently overrun then these previously wounded soldiers too would appear to be in a clump." Mike, regarding the skirmish lines. Godfrey in two of his articles (the Washita and the LBH articles) states that while retreating in the skirmish lines on both occasions he experienced problems. At Washita, the men forgot their numbers (odd and even) during the withdrawal. At LBH, I seem to recollect that he specifically stated that the men bunched until ordered to spread back out. Hmmm, just had a thought. If the 1841 Regulations called for the skirmishers to retreat (or advance?) in "odds and evens", could that explain the two volleys? Since the men were using the single-shot Springfield, it would not have done them any favors for the entire company to simultaneously be reloading. Anyway, here is the link of the Godrey article which is at my site: freepages.history.rootsweb.com/~familyinformation/Custer/washita_godfrey_cav_jour_wwm.pdfI will have to dig up the link for the Making of America site which has the Godfrey article from Century magazine. Billy
|
|
|
Post by crzhrs on Mar 28, 2006 10:55:46 GMT -6
Mike:
Most of Custer's command even though on the high ground, were exposed and there may have been no opportunity to transfer wounded to any protected area.
Keough was kept in reserve in a swale that offered some cover, possibly to await Benteen's arrival and were overrun once Indians took out Calhoun's command. Many were not able to flee and were killed, with remnants of Calhoun's and Keough's command running toward LSH.
Anything is possible regarding Custer's fight and the best we can do is speculate on what and where the position of the dead meant.
|
|
Gumby
Full Member
Posts: 202
|
Post by Gumby on Mar 28, 2006 22:53:16 GMT -6
I don't believe there was all that much time to take care of any of the wounded. Any initial wounded from the skirmishing in MTC would more than likely have been left behind with Keogh's bttn. After Keogh is destroyed it was just hard luck to any non-officer who might have been wounded. The Yates bttn had their own hands full getting back to Last Stand Hill. If they couldn't keep up they would have been left behind. Nobody bothered to wait on the stragglers who ended up with Reno's command, Thompson and the rest.
|
|
|
Post by AZ Ranger on Mar 29, 2006 7:18:48 GMT -6
azranger:
The possibility of Indians using volley fire is doubtful . . . they did not have the training to do so . . . the military did. The soldiers may have been trying to hold off any warriors trying to advance on them, but from accounts most warriors were concealed while firing arrows/weapons at the troops.
Still the possibility of Indians using volley fire is a good question.
crshrs -- I agree that the Indians had no training in volley fire and did not intend to imply they purposely fired in volley. The sound of 100's Indians shooting at the same time might have sounded like volley fire if they were given the opportunity to fire that way, all at once or nearly so, during the battle. Since ammunition was a concern of Custer's how many volleys could he afford for signal purposes only. Each trooper used up 1 % of his total ammo for his carbine each time he fired.
|
|
|
Post by Jim on Mar 29, 2006 8:33:45 GMT -6
According to Private William Morris' statement in Custer In 76, page 131, he says, The Indians who fired these shots were among bluffs on east side of river, to right and front of Morris as he was acsending the hill. That is, they were in the bluffs and to south of line of retreat up the bluffs. All three men and three horses were hit simultaneously by a VOLLEY from these Indians." So, according to Morris' statement to Camp, the Indians DID know how to fire volleys.
Jim
|
|
Gumby
Full Member
Posts: 202
|
Post by Gumby on Mar 29, 2006 11:12:45 GMT -6
There were so many people firing on that battlefield it could have been volley firing or as previously stated, 100 Indians who just happened to fire at the same time. I don't think the volley firing was meant to be a signal. I think people tend to read more into things than necessary. The guidon falling is a perfect example. Someone already mentioned the change in Custer's demeanor during the officers call. If Custer had been successful nobody would have ever mentioned either incident.
|
|