|
Post by Jas. Watson on Apr 26, 2006 15:34:39 GMT -6
Jas: Anyhow, enjoy this forum. Lots of knowlege and overall a pretty friendly bunch. Regards, PJS I am enjoying it as I have always been a LBH bug for more years than I can remember, but frankly I am finding that there are an awful lot of threads I don't want to get on because of a couple writers who have returned and I really don't feel like getting continiously confrontational on a subject that is really unknowable and all speculative anyway (but a lot of fun to speculate on--non-confrontationally, that is). Now it seems more and more threads I am staying off of because of that. And if I hear grief because of this answer to you...it will merely illustrate my point. Jas.
|
|
|
Post by pjsolla on Apr 26, 2006 20:50:33 GMT -6
Jas: Well, hopefully, all the discord will settle down and everyone will get back to business.
Hell, West was offered to go to another thread this evening and he said he can't. Claims, "I fell in love with Diane!"
There is hope.
Overall, I think you will find things moving along. Join in. You know you don't have to answer to everything you post.
Regards, PJS
|
|
|
Post by Jas. Watson on Apr 28, 2006 13:43:36 GMT -6
Thanks, but I've sorta discovered that instead of getting into the finer points of the battle and the field that I came here for, it seems like this whole place is mostly about the more objective people trying to talk around those few who think Custer was some kind of god or something, worship him--almost unheathy; and whenever anyone says anything the least detrimental to the 'shining legend' they attack with, frankly, what mostly amounts to gobbledygook and word games in order to keep this man on the golden pedestal. Honestly it gets not only pretty tiring, but kind of repetative and boring. As a retired military man (combat arms my whole career) I think Custer was actually a pretty bad commander--I'd hate to have ever served under him--and I've had some bad ones too (and very good ones), but the 'boy general' ranks pretty low to me. I can justify my feelings by scoring him on concrete long established military leadership techniqes (in this case, lack thereof), but to even broach such subjects here would bring wrath and start all kinds of non-productive confrontation and word games, which I am loath to do. Discuss them yes, but scrap over them--no thanks. Actually I'm not even here for Custer one way or the other; but rather the battle itself...but we always get bogged down with the old 'shoulda helped Custer' syndrome. Yesterday I didn't even feel like checking this forum. It's that disappointing.
Jas.
|
|
|
Post by crzhrs on Apr 28, 2006 13:49:12 GMT -6
JW:
<Actually I'm not even here for Custer one way or the other; but rather the battle itself...>
And I think most of us are here for that also . . . but please don't give up . . . there's is some relevant discussion if you sift thru some of the threads of if you see a post by someone you'd rather need read just pass over it.
|
|
|
Post by Jas. Watson on Apr 28, 2006 14:29:41 GMT -6
Horse, I know what you're saying--which is why I'm still here, but lately I am finding less and less threads that aren't about the same damned thing over and over again; yet I can think of a couple of facets of the campaign that I think have never been brought up...but as I said, I am loath to be the one to bring them up as they might just be construed as putting a chip in that glorious pedestal...and then I'd be in trouble and I just don't feel like scrapping. Maybe later I'll come out and fight. But then what good would it do?
|
|
|
Post by maaloxmya19 on May 24, 2006 19:42:34 GMT -6
Re _bhist_ 's lone marker off to the North:
Could this be Kellog? Most accounts put him in the brush near the River, & North.
Kellog has a stone amidst other markers but we know the engineers were shipped markers based on numbers of killed including many outside the boundary: the markers were erected INSIDE , nontheless (doubling a lot of markers). (Of course they also might have had knowledge we lost).
Sounds like this would be too far away from LBH, but I'll ask.
(PS: should this be a new topic?)
|
|
|
Post by fred on May 24, 2006 20:55:51 GMT -6
Jas.--
I just noticed this thread & your extremely interesting question of the 5 + 1. While I know very little about it, this is one of the fascinating tidbits of this whole adventure. I have my own theory about it & it is one of my favorite subjects, along w/ the C Company move off the neck between Battle Ridge & Calhoun Hill. While a 6-man vidette makes eminent sense, I wonder if it is just one of those things we oft-times simply dream up or if it is true. Since he used advance scouts for the entire 40-day campaign, why wouldn't Custer do it one more time as he traversed the most important terrain of the whole trek? It makes sense to me & I have even come up w/ a name of someone who may, may, may have been the NCO.
Best wishes, Fred.
|
|
Gumby
Full Member
Posts: 202
|
Post by Gumby on May 25, 2006 9:38:01 GMT -6
Watson, In regards to your question of how to get a copy of Magnusson's book, go to your local library and request an inter-library loan. I managed to get several rare and expensive books that way. You have to return them, of course, but at least you get a chance to read them. You can probably get away with photo copying some of the pages for future reference.
|
|
|
Post by Jas. Watson on May 25, 2006 13:45:11 GMT -6
Thanks, I just might do just that...after I read some of the stuff under my chair right now (HA!) Took me a while (longer than I like to admit) to get 'Mystery of E troop' and I want to get into that...although it will take some convincing to make me believe that it was cemetery ravine rather than deep ravine. But I'll certainly 'listen' (read) to what the man has to say.
Fred, I'd love to hear who you might think might have been the NCOIC of the six men--and how you came to the conclusion. I really would. It is that little detail stuff that really gets me going about this whole thing--the mystery of it all. I too am a 'C' company enthusiast. Mainly because they are the most mysterious, or have the most mysteries anyway. Meanwhile I will content myself with reading about the mystery of 'E' company for a bit.
Jas.~
|
|
|
Post by maaloxmya19 on May 25, 2006 14:21:33 GMT -6
Re: 5 + 1
Having read the original Perter Thompson/James Wilson account in Black Hills Trails (by interlibrary Loan):
1. The "vidette" is an INTERPRETATION 2. The two said they saw Custer's men AMBUSH an Indian HORSE charge, 6 men across the mouth of their STATIONARY formation ("semicircle" they say). I call these men "BAIT".
3. This accords with the BASIC FINDING of Archeology, that Custer did NOT just ride in a long line, losing men on the way, but was deployed in a STATIC DEFENSE - - which the Indians moved around. _PS: in a 4-sided box, but the river side has only a half-dozen thinly scattered bodies. THOSE six ? _PPS one was autopsied and Had TWO fatal chest wounds dealt from either side from above downwards (as if from horseback) -- plus his gun hand was shot. If that was first, the Indians must have thought they killed him 3 times. _4. This initial incident they witnessed probably provided the pile of Horse bones in the center of the formation - - Indian horses. _5. We hear that Old men on heights told all Warriors that the soldiers "were too dangerous to Approach on horseback" I have been told the Indian Foot Approach DISPROVES the PT/JW "Last stand Witness" but I see no problem. They only saw the repulse of the first Probe. (then they left, as more Indians gathered, reaching Reno later) In fact:
6. The Indians did not forbear to overrun Custer on horseback FOR NO REASON -- this initial engagement is the reason (again, PT/JW has been tossed off for reporting a Victory but over what? 2 dozen braves? Few of the dead Indians ever spoke to Reporters afterward [! of course], and the "Old Men" were no longer around many years later when historians began hunting Indian witnesses. __But this finally explains what gave Reno, etc. time to dither around for hours). Thus: _7. In every respect, Archeology confirms their account. _8. Many people sneer at the REAL wacko thing they saw happen well before any fighting: Custer met with TWO Indian parties: one of (maybe) Women.
We KNOW in Kansas after his first "battle", Custer always had SPIES in the Enemy camps (usually Monaseetah or Mawissa -- at least one of which is KNOWN to be at LBH). Now PT & JW speculated that maybe one Indian Party was Army scouts & tried to kill the ladies & Custer stopped them or .... the 2 disagree here (PT's noting JW's dissent, without even sneering at it, is to me a telling point indicating his honesty) , but remember they are DEDUCING.
Take their witness, forget their CONCLUSIONS. So I think the first group are SPIES. Who is the Other??
We all know Sitting Bull, ahead of time, RELUCTANTLY promised to MEET with any Soldiers & go back to the Reservation -- every Indian Chief swears this. [glow=red,2,300]I'll bet he did.[/glow] Custer wouldn't accept our Surrender [Talk], they all said. Either EVERY Chief lied ... Or Sitting Bull lied ... to them. Heck, if you were Custer would you have accepted Sitting Bull's surrender ?
Most people'd surrender to Sitting Bull ! !
|
|
|
Post by bubbabod on May 27, 2006 20:58:04 GMT -6
Jas., I think some of us know who you're talking about. It'd be nice to find a forum this individual can't find, but he's like a bad stink that won't go away. Hang in there. Ignore him (them) and maybe he'll go away. I checked in with the Against All Odds Board today, and it's virtually dried up due to this and others negative, confrontational posting. He's here now. Lord help us.
|
|
|
Post by AZ Ranger on Jul 18, 2006 23:49:35 GMT -6
Bubbabod --I would be shocked if DC is described as someone who thinks of Custer a some kind of god. Where did he say something like that?
|
|
|
Post by steveuk on Dec 4, 2007 18:40:26 GMT -6
Anyone got a decent map, chart or site I can get to with marker names and numbers? [Hopeful lol]
|
|
|
Post by herosrest on Mar 9, 2015 13:20:49 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by herosrest on Nov 12, 2015 15:07:27 GMT -6
Nothing earthshattering but several piceces I have read state that before Custer went int MTC, he sent out an advance party of 1 sergeant and 5 enlisted men. They rode well to the east of Luce and Nye/Cartwright Ridge and appears, joined the right wing on Calhoun Hill. Another interesting bit of info is that Michael Moore, around 1985 or so, found indirect evidence for six marble markers that were once located at the visitor center site, but were allegedly removed before construction of that facility in the 1950's. Anybody know if this was verified? This supposedly was found in the Custer Battlefield National Monument Archives. Six markers would add more substance to the stories of E company's skirmish here and losing some of their horses to the suicide boys at that site before rejoining the left wing in the basin. PJS Ducemus
The discussion broadly concluded that the six markers issue was forlorn, although it quite possibly still haunts enterprising dark corners of romantic minds. Thus, in tribute to those who can never say die, behold. I think there were a few more than six!
I've been looking at these things for ages.............. what are they?
|
|