|
Post by darkmoon on Aug 9, 2008 10:36:09 GMT -6
mwk: "With all due respect Darkmoon, I take an entirely different interpretation of Moylan's remarks about the number of cartridge shells found around one trooper. 1)... I do not believe he was referring to the total number of shells found atop Calhoun Hill. He already indicated that Calhoun's men were found in regular skirmish order and then added that he counted 28 shells around one of those troopers. My interpretation is that Moylan was indicating that the troopers atop Calhoun Hill had each fired off about a third of their total number of cartridges, not that one trooper fired off 28 rounds and the other 30 men just stood there without firing a shot. Hare would have indicated the same thing in my view....2)... that each trooper had fired between 25 to 30 rounds a piece.In reference to the above underlined sentence #1. You are correct, my dear, he said himself that it was found "on one trooper"! It was suggested, I believe by conz that this number should have been X 10. 10 troopers or 10 all totalled per trooper? The fact remains that 10 times a troopers number would be 260 rounds to 280 per man! And the troopers didn't have that many rounds; all totalled they had about 130 per man. About sentence #2: correct! walkingstar:
|
|
|
Post by historybuff on Jun 26, 2009 8:54:58 GMT -6
I don't know if this makes any sense, but Skelnar's premise in "To Hell With Honor" , if I read it correctly and memory serves, is that the original attack order was directed at the Sans Arc mourners at what is commonly called the "lone tepee", who seeing the dust cloud raised by the approaching column scattered. In my reading, both Herendeen and Gerard point out fleeing NA, the former to the NE, the latter down the valley. Custer sends Reno across the river in pursuit, Gerard/Cooke/Keogh whomever informs him that the warriors are strong and making a front. Custer goes after the other bunch, figuring Reno's got the scouts and three companies and can take care of himself till Custer can get into the action from the flank. Like taked to Bouyer and was told about a ford downriver. At this point, no one has seen the main village, except for maybe the scouts at the Crow's Nest, who Custer disregards because he hasn't seen it for himself. Gets up on Sharpshooter Ridge and for the first time sees a good part of the encampment, and realizes he's got some heavy work to do. But Custer is committed, he can't catch the fleeing mourners(or whoever they were) and he has to support Reno. I can't imagine Custer, given what has been described as his personality, not leading a charge if the main camp was the object, and allowing Reno the honor. DeRudio and maybe a couple of other people sight Custer on the ridge while they're either deploying or on the firing line. Custer either deliberately parades E and F troops alon Sharpshooter Ridge or not, but he sends some of the scouts along the high ground East of the river, with Bouyer and Curlewinding up at the next highest point, Weir Peaks, while he takes the command down Cedar Coulee to MTC.Somewhere along the way, Kanipe is sent back to hurry up the packtrain. Any instructions to Benteen, should he be encountered is unclear, and like most things about this episode of history, contentious. What does Custer know? If he saw the main encampment from the Crow's Nest, then grabbing the Lone Tepee occupants gave him some leverage. If Custer didn't see the main camp, then the fleeing groups he was pursuing were doing exactly what he feared. How much of the encampment could he see from Sharpshooter Ridge? If memory serves, I believe the last consensus theory was to reduce the size of the encampment based on pre/post-battle moves. But in many of these postings, I get the impression the the main camp extended beyond MTC, which is what I believed to be the pre-battle upper limit. Enlighten me please as to what the current views are. In any case, the NA's were there, they were sufficient and efficient, but at this time, all Custer knows are that he might possibly face 1000-1500 warriors based on the intel estimates at the Far West briefing with Terry. And there's pandemonium in the camp and a lot of dust. Custer says okay, so far so good. Time to bring up Benteen and wrap this thing. Down in MTC, talk to Bouyer, readjust equiptment, send an element of the command forward to threaten, hold, and see what's going on at the river, while I take higher ground, check out what's over East, and digest what Boston and Bouyer have just told me. Is this logical? I don't know, and I'm not certainly trying to be George. What can I see from Nye-Cartwright/Blummer? My backtrail. Reno's enclave maybe , warriors coming up between the south fork of MTC and the troops I just sent around MTC. By this time, the wing at N/C/B is getting harassed as well, nothing to impede offensive ops, but annoying anyhow. Let's go down toward the village and throw a little fire on the south fork of MTC , across the river and cover the withdrawl. Then we'll see what's afoot. I confess that I'm unclear about much of this, but I think it seems plausible. I can hold two or three conflicting ideas about this battle for a time, and then change them. It's enough to make a person schitzophrenic (I know, it's deliberate, hope I'm not offending). Just when you think you've got a handle, you know. Of course you do, you're on the forum. Hopefully, together we can conjure some truth (being a relative value), and contribute to a greater understanding and further historical insight. My insignificant contributions will not be the basis for that, but once in a great while I've been known to have a brain fart. (once again no offense ment or intended). I think I'm beginning to sound like, if memory serves Terry;" Caused by a misapprehension of facts and an overabundance of courage". And I promised to be concise.
|
|
|
Post by conz on Jun 29, 2009 19:12:40 GMT -6
hb,
I think you've nailed key issues about as close as you can...there isn't any "truth" beyond that, and much of the above is still speculation, especially as to what happened at the mouth of MTC.
All we can do is share our different considerations...that, I think, is the value...more in the exercise of pondering than in the elucidation of truth.
I think, though, that you'll have to narrow your inquiry to your favorite "mystery." <g>
As for the most recent revelations, I think modern historians are more prone to admit that there are several good "models" out there that are possible and plausible, and can't be disproved.
So the story of what happened to Custer's battalion is actually more open today, I think, than it was in the past, despite all the admiration given to more recent archeology finds.
Clair
|
|
|
Post by runaheap on Jul 8, 2009 10:57:53 GMT -6
Thought I would attempt to revive this thread as it was posted some two years ago. Clair has posted some 13 different areas that were pivotal in his model. Since that time (on this thread and many others) we have had a chance to add and subtract to several of these ideas and I wonder if he has changed his mind on any of these issues?
|
|
|
Post by bc on Jul 8, 2009 13:45:42 GMT -6
Thought I would attempt to revive this thread as it was posted some two years ago. Clair has posted some 13 different areas that were pivotal in his model. Since that time (on this thread and many others) we have had a chance to add and subtract to several of these ideas and I wonder if he has changed his mine on any of these issues? Sounds good to me. Let's give Clair some time in case he has re-evaluated and might want to change into his shower shoes. bc
|
|
|
Post by conz on Jul 8, 2009 14:44:26 GMT -6
What an interesting exercise...has my model changed in the last couple years? Let me go back and see what I thought then...
I've softened a bit after discussion that several hostile Warriors may have been on the bluffs to his north, allowing for the possibility that Custer went up there even without any messsages, just to ensure his right/rear was secure.
On these items, while I have learned more different plausible alternatives, I still think this model is the most probable of them. The last item, #5, as to why he went to Ford D, is where I've learned several more good reasons as to why he might have gone up there, rather than a simple flanking attack.
I've changed somewhat on this...while I think this is still possible, I think it is more probable that Custer turned back because he heard the tumult going on behind him over Keogh's battalion...probably the Warrior counter-attack on C Co's movement off the ridge towards GGR. That was a huge sudden increase in the intensity of the fight there, and it would have gotten Custer's attention. If he had any opposition at all at the fords D, which I think he did have some, he may have for once been prudent and decided to go back to rejoin Keogh to be safe. Unfortunately, he was too late...the Warriors were too quick for him there.
So for #8, my preferred model has Yates returning from a Ford D =because= of the Warrior charge up Deep Ravine, causing the withdrawal from the ford, rather than coincident with it. The main reason is that I don't see much Warrior witness that there was a fight at the fords D worthy of stopping Custer from crossing if he really wanted to. Something other than Warrior opposition there stopped him...or, he was shot at the ford. THAT would stop them...
Also, if Crazy Horse's retinue massing at the mouth of Deep Coulee saw Custer trying to cross at fords D, they wouldn't have attacked Keogh...they would have moved over to block Custer, and we would have a HUGE fight there.
Since CH ended up going over battle ridge and into Keogh, that tells me that Custer hadn't reached the river yet...these two formations...Yates' squadron moving west, and Crazy Horse's group moving east, passed like two ships in the night, with the cemetery ridge finger blocking the sight between each of them.
As usually, the Warriors were faster...otherwise, Keogh would not have been overrun. Custer would have saved him, too.
The rest of the elements haven't changed at all, in my preferred model.
Clair
|
|
|
Post by runaheap on Jul 9, 2009 7:32:12 GMT -6
To me, I have always thought this battle moved south to north and it only makes sense that something catastrophic occured when Custer approached ford D. Either he was repulsed there or unsadled, something happened. More than likely this was simultaneous with CH hitting BR and isolating Keogh's wing. This, to me would explain the separation of these two wings and their destruction beyond supporting distance of each other. When this occured, I doubt if the fight lasted much beyond 30 minutes. Custer's being unsadled may have cast enough command confusion at the very moment decisiveness was needed most. Evidence indicates that an attempt to reunite occured, but it was to little and to late.
|
|
|
Post by conz on Jul 9, 2009 10:02:30 GMT -6
I think that is entirely possible...don't think it can be "refuted."
I can't tell if, after arriving at a ford D and Keogh being attacked in the rear, Custer's leadership made any difference at this point...events had spun out of his control.
Could Yates have charged back to Keogh and joined him, if Custer were in the saddle? Probably.
So since this did not happen, does it indicate that Yates was in command, and he was nurturing a severely wounded and dying Custer, so the command was not in shape to make a sprited and difficult charge through the mass of Warriors in Deep Ravine, to join Keogh?
I think that is very probable. So perhaps the weight of logic actually supports a Custer "unsaddled" at Ford D model.
Clair
|
|
|
Post by runaheap on Jul 9, 2009 11:44:18 GMT -6
Yates was found on LSH with Custer, he was either in charge or down also. Reilly has F co?
On the other site, we were dicussing the Realbirds collection of cassings (by the bucket full) at MTF. The possibility of a repulse here and Custers atempt to "hook" north and relieve preasure starts to make sense. During this time I believe a great many NA's infiltrated on foot and pony across LBH to the east side and most are in defilade and when Custer moves north and CH strikes Keogh the proverbial has hit the fan.
|
|
|
Post by conz on Jul 9, 2009 12:56:58 GMT -6
Yates was found on LSH with Custer, he was either in charge or down also. Reilly has F co? On the other site, we were dicussing the Realbirds collection of cassings (by the bucket full) at MTF. The possibility of a repulse here and Custers atempt to "hook" north and relieve preasure starts to make sense. During this time I believe a great many NA's infiltrated on foot and pony across LBH to the east side and most are in defilade and when Custer moves north and CH strikes Keogh the proverbial has hit the fan. That's what I think is the most probable model, but not it's certainly not definative. I've been going through "Where Custer Fell" again, and find that this was Brian Pohanka's probable model, too, so we are in good company. <g> Clair
|
|
|
Post by bc on Jul 9, 2009 16:39:21 GMT -6
Yates was found on LSH with Custer, he was either in charge or down also. Reilly has F co? On the other site, we were dicussing the Realbirds collection of cassings (by the bucket full) at MTF. The possibility of a repulse here and Custers atempt to "hook" north and relieve preasure starts to make sense. During this time I believe a great many NA's infiltrated on foot and pony across LBH to the east side and most are in defilade and when Custer moves north and CH strikes Keogh the proverbial has hit the fan. That's what I think is the most probable model, but not it's certainly not definative. I've been going through "Where Custer Fell" again, and find that this was Brian Pohanka's probable model, too, so we are in good company. <g> Clair If Custer or a surrogate hooked north with a great many NAs at the river/MTF, someone (Keogh comes to mind) has to move up to the NC ridges to provide covering fire to keep them off Custer's tail. But then if that is the case, then there should be a large trail of lead slugs in MTC which apparently weren't found by Boyes and Weibert. bc
|
|
|
Post by conz on Jul 10, 2009 7:09:49 GMT -6
That's what I think is the most probable model, but not it's certainly not definative. I've been going through "Where Custer Fell" again, and find that this was Brian Pohanka's probable model, too, so we are in good company. <g> Clair If Custer or a surrogate hooked north with a great many NAs at the river/MTF, someone (Keogh comes to mind) has to move up to the NC ridges to provide covering fire to keep them off Custer's tail. But then if that is the case, then there should be a large trail of lead slugs in MTC which apparently weren't found by Boyes and Weibert. bc Actually there are several accounts of people picking up "buckets" worth of cartridge casings in the grounds around MTC ford. Warrior witness accounts also seem to indicate a lot of firing down by the ford (by that I mean perhaps within 500 meters of it), but without a lot of casualties on either side. They also indicate quite a bit of dismounted cavalry movements around the ford area, up and down the bank. So I think anyone's model that includes a lot of action, but not too intense (due to lack of casualties) down by the ford, can be defended. But not proved. <g> Clair
|
|
|
Post by runaheap on Jul 10, 2009 8:21:43 GMT -6
Clair-To me it makes sense that there was long range firing on the up-slope of MTF. NA's were coming across and they were holding them at bay. I can't see Custer being unsaddled at MTF and my only reasoning is that the hook north is a classic Custer move. He had to be the one to lead it. The possibility of him being hit at ford D just has more logic. If that's what happened or not is pure conjecture but the retrograde movment from ford D to LSH is when everything becomes unraveled.
|
|
|
Post by bc on Jul 10, 2009 9:41:09 GMT -6
Clair, can you identify these other buckets accounts at the ford other than Richard Realbird? If these buckets are soldier cartridges then common sense says that there were a lot of soldiers at the edge of the ford and if so then crossing the river would be relatively easy and there would be soldiers on the other side as well.
And if there was a significant attack at MTF, combined with Curley's 2 volley possible signal west of Calhoun ridge, and Two Moon's account of flags and then three separated columns of fours, then I would have to look closely at any theory involving a Custer coordinated and planned 2 company attack at MTF and 3 companies moving to battle ridge with 2 or all 3 companies going to ford D. Although it seems like another Two Moons' account places the troops coming over/behind cemetery ridge which would put them in the north ravine and gravel pit area headed to ford D. The two companies in retreat from MTF would go up over and either on top of or on the Deep Coulee side of Butler Ridge (which is in the middle of MTC & Deep Coulee) retreating back to Luce and then NC ridges.
bc
|
|
|
Post by conz on Jul 11, 2009 6:50:19 GMT -6
Clair-To me it makes sense that there was long range firing on the up-slope of MTF. NA's were coming across and they were holding them at bay. I can't see Custer being unsaddled at MTF and my only reasoning is that the hook north is a classic Custer move. He had to be the one to lead it. The possibility of him being hit at ford D just has more logic. If that's what happened or not is pure conjecture but the retrograde movment from ford D to LSH is when everything becomes unraveled. I think so, and don't have much to add to it. I agree that having Keogh "fix" the enemy at the ford that he couldn't cross, while he goes around to "unfix" them by hitting them in the rear, IS a time-worn Custer (and cavalry in general) tactic. Clair
|
|