|
Post by elisabeth on Aug 17, 2006 21:28:26 GMT -6
harpskiddie: could be, and I'll await with interest as the theory evolves.
One other possibility (I don't like it much, but it could fit some of the evidence). What if they were indeed "killed in line of march", as some of the earliest observers suggested? In this case we'd have L and possibly I as rearguard; C third in line behind E & F (or F & E, as they could have shifted position once at LSH). And then LWM's attack splits C in two, just as you've said. Half make it to LSH, half don't?
My worry about Co. I is the swale. It's not a position anyone would choose for defence, as has often been said. Assuming the markers are reasonably right, doesn't it look more like an offensive move -- one that's been met by numbers and stopped in its tracks? (E.g. to clear Indians out of Horseholders' Ravine, as one possibility.) Possible?
|
|
|
Post by harpskiddie on Aug 17, 2006 22:13:12 GMT -6
I don't believe there was much fighting going on when Calhoun was occupied, so I don't think C was shot up marching along. At that time, early in the fight, there were no Indians close to the troops.
As to Keogh, I do believe that the markers have been moved, but since nobody kept any decent records about markers being moved, with a couple of notable exceptions, it's purely speculation based on the logic of the situation. If Keogh had been positioned on Battle ridge, it would have been on the military crest, which is a position where you can fire at the enemy, but they can't get at you [except by accident], i.e. not on the ridge but over it. The reverse slope so to speak. They would have had to move to avoid direct fire from behind when warriors circled around behind the ridges behind Battle Ridge [there is plenty of forensic evidence that they did so [see Wiebert Custer Cases and Cartridges].
While anything's possible, I don't see an offensive move by Keogh that would have him end up where he did. Where was he going and what was he doing? [Attack, sir!! Attack what, sir? What guns, sir?] I think he might have been rallying his men for a final stand, and that is why he was mounted [if his leg wound and the wound to Comanche really did line up]. And why the wooden first marker said Keogh and 18 men of I Company.
That would be one of four final stands: Keogh's, at the Finley markers, on Graveyard Ravine ridge and at Custer Hill. Take your pick as to which one was last. But like I said, these are just ruminations.
There are some, and I'm sure you have seen these theories, who think that Calhoun and Keogh were marching away from LSH toward Weir Ridges in order to open a road to, or make contact with, Benteen and Reno, whose guidon/s had been seen from LSH by Custer. I refuse to comment on such a theory.
|
|
|
Post by elisabeth on Aug 18, 2006 6:10:13 GMT -6
Yes, I've seen those theories. Charming, but as far as I know not supported by anything Indians say ...
Re Keogh: I've heard suggestions of (1) attempting to repulse an attack on the horseholders, and (2) of reacting to the attack on Calhoun. Either sounds feasible; but so does a final stand -- except for the terrain. There's no way he'd have been aiming to get into the ravine, for cover, is there? Some of the earliest reports mention bunches of bodies in ravines "where they had clearly gone for defence", or words to that effect. They could have used the sides of the ravine as breastworks, I suppose; but they'd have been right under the guns of Indians on Calhoun Hill, so it doesn't seem ideal.
|
|
|
Post by harpskiddie on Aug 18, 2006 9:37:50 GMT -6
Elisabeth: I don't know if you.ve ever been over the battlefield, and I don't want this to sound preachy or demeaning, so please take it in the spirit intended.
Defensive positions and deployment depend on several factors. The most important are: the numbers and makeup of the defensive force; the numbers and makeup of the exterior or attacking force; the nature and extent of the ground to be defended; and the avenues of approach available to the exterior force [and hence to be defended]. My thoughts as to the initial dispositions mentioned above are based on those factors.
The fact is, that given the circumstances of the moment, there was no truly defensible ground anywhere on Custer Field. Even the dispositions I'm thinking about could never have been held for very long, and neither could any others. The best ground for defense is probably the Blummer/Nye/ Cartwright/Luce area, but it couldn't have been defended for long because of the lack of a water source. There are spots there where the horses could have been relatively sheltered and the troops not overly exposed to hostile fire, while still able to hold the warriors at bay. Could they have lasted until Terry came up on the 27th?? Maybe - unless the warriors decided to have an all out mounted charge en masse, which probably could have carried the position with huge Indian losses [and I doubt that they would have even contemplated such a charge]. The big thing would have been the lack of water for the men and horses.
I have never gone two days without water, although I have gone a long time without food. I don't know if men could actually stand such a need while broiling under a hot sun, and with all the stress attendant to the situation.
Anyway, they didn't go there and perhaps never could have, although from some of the evidence it would seem to have been possible - unless the positions adopted were taken later than popularly believed, when the force of the warriors could have prevented a move to the higher ground.
There really seems to be no good reason why Custer selected the ground he chose to defend. And if it wasn't Custer that selected it, there were plenty of smart soldiers there who would have known that it wasn't ideally suited to defense. If there was no access to water at Blummer etc., there wasn't any at Custer Hill-Battle Ridge-Calhoun Hill/Ridge either.
The idea of Keogh attempting to deflect or repulse an attack on the horseholders could be viable if one assumes that there were still any horses or holders to protect, and I think by the period in time we are talking about, they were all gone - the horses stampeded and the holders either killed or run back to Calhoun/Crittenden.
I think that once the command took up the positions it did, whether or not they were as I'm thinking about, it was done for. However the fight actually progressed, there were not going to be any troops left to tell the tale, unless the Indians chose to let them live. I do think that Custer, or whoever was in command, could have escaped with maybe a portion of the command simply by running away and taking his chances on a running fight. That was not done when fighting Indians, however, and likely was not considered. That's all guesses anyway.
Towards the end of the fight, there is no question but that the troopers would have been seeking any defensive position they could reach - hollows, ravines, whatever. Men under fire will set up behind the flimsiest of protection - even a sagebrush might look appealing. It is far easier to find a defensive position for a couple of men who are unencumbered by horses, than it is for five companies of men, By that time, the guys would have known they were finished, and would just be looking for the place where they could delay the inevitable the longest.
You may be entirely right about Keogh - maybe instead of making a stand, he was rallying his men for one last defiant gesture by charging the enemy. I would not argue with you about that, because there is no way I could prove that you weren't right if you adopted such a position - just the same as I can not prove that any of my not-quite-yet-theories are correct.
I know that you are a big Keogh fan. So am I, although I don't know a tenth of what you do about the man, and probably never will.
BTW - my name is Gord. Most of my friends call me Gordie - and I wish you would too. The "Harpskiddie" is from my baseball days in the long ago. You're probably not overly familiar with baseball, being a Brit and all, but that "nickname" is actually a form of exhortation, as in "C'mon Harpsiddie, give it a ride!!" [meaning to hit the ball out of the park, or at least off the outfield wall].
Gordie
|
|
|
Post by elisabeth on Aug 18, 2006 10:36:23 GMT -6
Oh good, and thank you -- Gordie is much easier to type!
I wasn't (I hope) attempting to romanticise Keogh with "one last defiant gesture", so much, attractive though that might be. What I was trying to conjure up was a pragmatic deployment to meet a situation -- whether it's the collapse of Calhoun, threat by warriors from the east, or whatever. In such a scenario he wouldn't necessarily know or intend that it would be his "last"; whatever's happening/happened to C at this point, E & F are still in action. Plus there could even be the lingering hope that the other seven companies might yet deign to make an appearance. It could be he's doing something as simple as trying to drive out a pocket of annoying warriors from somewhere. Then it (whatever it is that he's trying to do) falters, either in the face of the twin attacks from Crazy Horse/White Bull and LWM, or because he's wounded and his men screech to a halt. Or both. At which point it de facto becomes one of several Last Stands. The situation in this scenario goes from tough-but-controllable to desperate in seconds.
But that's just one of about a million-and-a-half equally convincing ways of explaining it all, and could be as wrong as any ...!
|
|
|
Post by harpskiddie on Aug 18, 2006 18:49:15 GMT -6
As Dennis Weaver used to say in his McLeod role: "There you go."
Gordie
|
|
|
Post by elisabeth on Aug 21, 2006 3:23:33 GMT -6
Loved that series.
You touched on an interesting point: whether Custer could have run for it. I know that all the wisdom of the time says you don't turn your back on Indians; and we see it borne out in Reno's retreat. However ... given the losses the Indians had already sustained, is it possible they might have been content just to chase him off rather than annihilate him?
He'd have had to abandon his wounded ("as Reno did", the Recorder pointedly remarks at the RCOI when raising this very question) but he might have saved at least some of the rest. I suppose the question then becomes: could he have spun it into a Crook-style "victory", or a Hancock-campaign-style gallant dash to get help for his besieged remnants -- or would he have been done for? It's tempting to think the latter, but it would have been in Terry's interests not to have the campaign represented as a disaster ... so it's just possible that a suitably "heroic" story could have been plucked from it for the press.
I realise that "what if"s are somewhat empty; but if it was one of the choices open to him, we might need to consider the wisdom or otherwise of not taking it?
|
|
|
Post by crzhrs on Aug 21, 2006 8:10:40 GMT -6
If Custer decided to "escape" (run) I believe the Indians would have chased him . . . just as they did Reno . . . and just as they did the Weir "Retreat".
The LBH & Rosebud were two different battles . . . there was no Indian village close by and no non-coms threatened. Crook retreated after the Indians broke off the engagement . . . not because they were defeated but because they had done enough to stop Crook's advance.
Custer's command was a threat to the village and the warriors would not have stopped fighting until Custer was driven as far as possible away from their families. He may not have been wiped out but still would have suffered casualties and a humilating defeat (I guess that's better than being dead, though)
|
|
|
Post by harpskiddie on Aug 21, 2006 10:21:58 GMT -6
Horse: Your reasoning seems to me to be dead on, insofar as the reaction of the warriors is concerned, and for the very good reason that you state.
I think in the Army of that day, it would almost have been preferable to be killed than to run, and, Elisabeth, I doubt that Terry could have spun much out of it, if Custer had run leaving his wounded after suffering heavy casualties. Too many officers would have known and made it known. Imagine Benteen and Brisbin having a field day with leaks to the press!!!
If Custer had done all that and survived, the inquiry into his conduct, or outright courtmartial, would have made the RCOI look like a picnic!!! As you suggest, he would have been done for.
|
|
|
Post by rch on Aug 21, 2006 10:55:17 GMT -6
re: military crest
Somewhere in LBH literature I have seen the term military crest used as if a hill itself could be used as a sort of wall with troops firing over the top at an enemy on the reverse slope. I don't believe this is correct. I'm not sure how the term was used in the 1870's or if it was used at all.
This is not the way the term was used in the 1960's. You may find a few hill tops or sand dunes that are steep enough to do something that. You can position or dig in a tank or armored vehicle that way, but most ridge and hill tops are too broad for a man on foot to use the hill that way. If you try to defend a hill that way you'd be leaving a lot of dead space just on the oposite side of the hill. You might be able to fire at the enemy when he was relatively distant from you, but as he got closer he'd be covered by the hill itself, until he was practically on top of you.
I don't remember the exact definition of the "military crest" as we used it in the 1960's but it was something like a point down from the top of a hill were a man standing up would not have any part of his body silhouetted against the sky. At Gettysburg you can see very easily that, whether they used the term in those days or not, the Union infantry and artillery defences were placed on the same side of the hills and ridges that the Confederates charged up.
I believe Benteen's position in the Reno defences did have a salient formed by a ridge that was defended by men lying prone on the ridge top and firing down the slope on both sides, but in that case neither slope offered any protection.
rch
|
|
|
Post by harpskiddie on Aug 21, 2006 20:27:54 GMT -6
RCH: A lot depends upon the nature of the ridge or hill involved. There were plenty of hills on Custer Field that had no "military crest". Calhoun Hill and Ridge are examples. Battle Ridge had much more of a knife edge before it was graded for construction of the road, and so did LSH. I use the term to indicate a positon where the occupant could see over and shoot in relative safety, I.e. better covered than if he were on top of the ridge. The definition I have seen would indicate a poosition on the reverse slope where a man on horseback or standing up, could shoot over the ridge. Obviously he would have to be partially exposed in order to do this.
If the enemy got behind you, then the military crest would be on the other side from where you first were positioned, but since there were already enemy forces on that side, there would really be no military crest at all, and you would have to position yourself on top of the ridge and fight both ways. Given the number os warriors in the fight, as soon as they got behind you, you were toast.
If you were defending a large hilltop, or even a large depression, you could set up a perimeter defense on the hill or in the depression, provided the position was not dominated within effective rifle or arrow range. The spacing of the troops would naturally depend upon the extent of the line and the number of troops available for deployment.
As a matter of opinion, since Custer's command could not defend the approaches to their rear, they were toast as soon as they deployed. It was only a matter of time.
|
|
|
Post by Jas. Watson on Aug 24, 2006 13:21:22 GMT -6
The military crest is that point down from the hill top from which you can cover all the terrain below you--no dead space. From most steeper hill tops you cannot see the lower slopes=dead space. Somewhere further down you can see (and shoot at) all the ground in front of you. That is the military crest.
A military crest would look on the map as an irregular ring around the actual crest.
There are not too many of them on the Custer field itself, most of the slopes are so shallow that even from the actual crest one can see all the terrain in front--minus the gullies and small folds in the land of course.
|
|