|
Post by conz on Dec 3, 2007 14:12:59 GMT -6
These theories are all over the place. It is so hard to decipher that I think most historians simply say that they ran into there for cover near the end.
Many now believe, however, that for whatever reason, the E Co Troopers were the last to die on that battlefield.
Clair
|
|
|
Post by fred on Dec 6, 2007 5:43:05 GMT -6
Clair--
I voted for "pushed," but it could be just as easily, "scared."
Best wishes, Fred.
|
|
|
Post by gocav76 on Dec 6, 2007 5:55:57 GMT -6
I tend to believe that there was a total breakdown of discipline and leadership on LSH. I find it hard to believe that any officer would have ordered the horses released, and can't imagine an order being given that would have sent that final rush to the river or ravine for cover.
|
|
|
Post by fred on Dec 6, 2007 7:20:19 GMT -6
gocav--
I cannot really disagree, other than to say someone ordered E Company to try to break out toward the river and, of course, they failed, being pushed by fear and Indians into the big ditch. If you want to say a "break-out" is far-fetched, you won't find me on the bully-pulpit arguing against you.
And by that time, it matters little anyway.
Best wishes, Fred.
|
|
|
Post by gocav76 on Dec 6, 2007 8:27:17 GMT -6
Fred, I have seen photos of Algernon Smith's marker, but how close was he in relation to Custer's? Any idea who was the ranking officer or Non-Com with the E Company movement?
|
|
|
Post by conz on Dec 6, 2007 8:50:09 GMT -6
Clair-- I voted for "pushed," but it could be just as easily, "scared." Best wishes, Fred. Do you have an opinion on whether you think they were pushed into the gully while they were attacking, or were they there because their defense collapsed so they dove in there? Clair PS...sorry, I see you kinda answered that. I really can't buy the "attack towards the river" though...into the Native village?! I doubt even scared guys tried that...always was doubtful of those theories of "last minute breakouts." Best I can guess is that Custer ordered E Co to attack towards Keogh or Calhoun Hill from their position near the current cemetery. That route takes them right over that gully they were found in, and also accounts for bodies looking like a "skirmish line" down "SSL Ridge." Too many Natives in Deep Ravine shot down this charge, much as C Co's earlier charge was probably shot down. These Natives that day simply weren't too intimidated by the Cavalry charges of 40 or so men. Clair
|
|
|
Post by Scout on Dec 6, 2007 9:13:20 GMT -6
Mexican accounts say some 40 defenders fled over the walls of the Alamo toward the end when things looked hopeless. No different here. It would have been the same human reaction of self preservation. I don't think anyone was ordered to charge the ravine and as Clair said the warriors weren't going to be intimidated by such an action
|
|
|
Post by fred on Dec 6, 2007 9:26:45 GMT -6
Any idea who was the ranking officer or Non-Com with the E Company movement? gocav-- My guess is Harrington (C) or Porter (I), though it could have even been Sturgis. Today, his gravestone is Marker 48, set in Cemetery Ravine along the SSL, almost assuredly spurious, though it doesn’t mean he was not killed somewhere nearby. Best wishes, Fred.
|
|
|
Post by BrokenSword on Dec 6, 2007 9:32:51 GMT -6
GoTube-
If you and Fred don't mind me chiming in here:
Lieut. Smith’s marker is #105 on Last Stand Hill. An archaeological dig at that maker uncovered bones of an individual somewhat shorter in stature than Lieut. Smith’s known height. Members of the Seventh Cavalry stated only that his body was among a group of ten men at the top of the knoll on LSH.
Richard Hardorff’s first book on the subject has a small map of the knoll (which I made a small copy of), with small dots indicating body positions of those ten. Using that map, and some accounts by members of the original burial detail as to specific locations of others found on the knoll - I came up with my own ideas concerning final positions.
So, for what its worth: If you stood on the hill today and with the village location to your back: I would suggest that Smith was about six feet from G.A. Custer and to the right (Custer's right, your left) of his body.
IF there was an E Company movement off the hill, I would suspect that Lieut. Sturgis was in command. Of course, his body was never identified. So we have no real idea where he might have been, or what his role was. I think that the next man in charge would have been Sgt. Hoffmeyer (not sure of spelling). I think Hoffmeyer’s body was identified among the bulk of E’s dead, down slope from LSH and closer to the village.
M
|
|
|
Post by fred on Dec 6, 2007 9:47:57 GMT -6
If you and Fred don't mind me chiming in here: Lieut. Smith’s marker is #105 on Last Stand Hill. An archaeological dig at that maker uncovered bones of an individual somewhat shorter in stature than Lieut. Smith’s known height. Members of the Seventh Cavalry stated only that his body was among a group of ten men at the top of the knoll on LSH.... IF there was an E Company movement off the hill, I would suspect that Lieut. Sturgis was in command. Of course, his body was never identified. So we have no real idea where he might have been, or what his role was. I think that the next man in charge would have been Sgt. Hoffmeyer (not sure of spelling). I think Hoffmeyer’s body was identified among the bulk of E’s dead, down slope from LSH and closer to the village. Why would I mind you chiming in? Your opinions are as valid as mine, any day. You are correct about Smith. His body was the only E Company man identified on Last Stand Hill. The only reason I tend to think this was an organized charge was that it was virtually all E Company personnel. No other real reason. Also, Clair, they would not have been "charging" toward the village. That was a mile farther south. The only sense of a "breakout" is that enough men could get that far, scattering warriors along the way, to reach the river, get through whatever Indians were still to the north (the refugees Custer was interested in), break through that group and reach Terry. The idea is so completely ridiculous it is laughable... except for one thing... there was no other way out and when you are confronted with the choice of standing there and dying or opting for the 10,000,000:1 shot... guess.... And they had no horses (or only a couple)... And the Indians were quite riled by that time... And I'm really tired... Best wishes, Fred.
|
|
|
Post by fred on Dec 6, 2007 9:50:36 GMT -6
Clair, I'm sorry.
Pushed or jumped.... I don't know. If they charged toward the river, they had to have run out of steam, I don't care how scared one can be. So, I would guess a combination. The desperate running with nothing left in the tank. Brother, can you spare a dime... or me...? Nope.
Best wishes, Fred.
|
|
|
Post by BrokenSword on Dec 6, 2007 10:16:46 GMT -6
Fred- “…Why would I mind you chiming in?…”
Only because gocav specifically asked you a question, and I was butting in a bit.
The entire picture of the Custer fight is to me like a rabbit hunt. I only catch clear and fleeting glimpses of the ‘rabbit’ now and then, and here and there.
Right now, I’m leaning strongly to the Ford D notion. HQ, E and F companies making the trek there. I see them being repulsed, or maybe returning to the Keogh battalion when the fighting there intensified. Perhaps one of the dead troopers from I Co. that was found on LSH had been a messenger from Keogh to Custer advising him that he was in serious trouble. (Lord, do we need another messenger theory?)
In any case, it would then be conceivable for Custer to have ordered E to peel off (during the return) to the position their bodies were mostly found in. For the purpose of blocking the warriors in pursuit and providing time, while HQ and F moved to higher ground to re-assess the situation and consider options.
In that case, it would also be concievable for a wounded Lieut. Smith to have stayed with HQ (that's where the Dr. was) and finished the ride to LSH leaving E in Lieut. Sturgis' hands.
Did you simply misspeak when you suggested that Harrington or Porter may have commanded E at some point? (Lord knows - I have never misspoken, so you can understand my confusion)
Michael
|
|
|
Post by conz on Dec 6, 2007 10:30:34 GMT -6
I tend to believe that there was a total breakdown of discipline and leadership on LSH. I find it hard to believe that any officer would have ordered the horses released, and can't imagine an order being given that would have sent that final rush to the river or ravine for cover. Hmmm...in a crisis, I think you'll find several examples of officers ordering their horses released, for two reasons I recall: 1) to give the Natives an excuse to go chasing horses rather than kill Wasichus..."maybe they'll be happy to get some booty and not risk their lives further to attack us." 2) to put more men on the firing line. Men holding horses can't fight effectively. Of course, there doesn't have to be any order to have horses running amok...they can either get away from their handlers under pressure, or their handlers on their own initiative may abandon the horses to protect themselves (sitting in the saddle is a conspicuous target as is just holding a horse...you won't control any horses if you are standing on the ground...and you can't fire your weapon on bucking horses). Clair
|
|
|
Post by gocav76 on Dec 6, 2007 11:18:36 GMT -6
Clair, You have given some good examples why the horses might have been ordered released. But is it not an admission of a hopeless situation to release your horses, with the thought that several hundred warriors will forget about you and go chasing after the mounts? I can imagine that would really help morale-I would rather shoot them for cover and to deny them to the enemy. I just think that Custer was already wounded and out of Decision making at that time. I think your last statement may be closer to the truth as to what may have happened. [shadow=red,left,300][/shadow]"Of course, there doesn't have to be any order to have horses running amok...they can either get away from their handlers under pressure, or their handlers on their own initiative may abandon the horses to protect themselves (sitting in the saddle is a conspicuous target as is just holding a horse...you won't control any horses if you are standing on the ground...and you can't fire your weapon on bucking horses)."
|
|
|
Post by gocav76 on Dec 6, 2007 11:23:39 GMT -6
BrokenSword-Fred, If Algernon Smith was the only member of E Company on LSH, then I would have to agree with the rest of you (Conz, Scout, Fred, BrokenSword) and say- Yes! They must have been following someones order.
|
|