|
Post by desertlobster on Jan 27, 2009 10:28:45 GMT -6
1. What actual physical evidence or warrior testimony indicates that the troopers tried to cross north of Last Stand Hill?
2. If #1 is true, do we assume that the three companies to the south are waiting for Benteen?
3. How is it that Keogh and Yates get assigned battalion commander status? Just to make things look neat and tidy in the history books based on their seniority? Did the 7th Cavalry even have battalions and were specific companies normally assigned to each?
4. If Ford A(I hate that designation) was weakly defended, why would the troopers retreat from it after a very few casualties? Which companies attempted to cross there?
5. What's the distance from Last Stand Hill to where those bunch of bodies were found in the ravine?
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on Jan 27, 2009 10:45:09 GMT -6
1. There is no Indian testimony at all. Artifacts could come from several sources not the battle. Wishful thinking to keep Custer on the offensive is the motivation.
2. Custer, in contact with the enemy, waits in plain sight on bad cavalry ground? Explain.
3. What status are you referencing? If you send off a couple of units, you put someone in charge, seniority works. The 7th apparently did have wings and battalions at need.
4. Ford A is Reno's southern crossing, not MTC, which is Ford B.
5. Which bunch of bodies? What do you consider the perimeter of LSH? From the monument to Deep Ravine, if that is the ravine in question, is several hundred yards to a half mile in my recollection, depending upon where you consider the ravine to begin, and which.
|
|
|
Post by desertlobster on Jan 27, 2009 11:07:16 GMT -6
4. Yes, I meant Ford B.
5. Ok, it's quite a distance. Were they already there or did the soldiers near the end rush to escape and ended up in Deep Ravine, or both? The Indians noted a move or moves toward the river. Does that indicate there was more Indian pressure from the other direction(north and east?)? I assume most were on foot, so they made it quite a distance.
|
|
|
Post by desertlobster on Jan 27, 2009 11:11:05 GMT -6
2. The separation between the wings is what i wonder about. If Custer had gone north and got stymied, maybe he just couldn't make it back to the other 3 companies who were likely under Keogh??? Both groups being under attack at about the same time and falling back towards the high ground and towards each other?
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on Jan 27, 2009 11:21:21 GMT -6
Passing MTC, everything Custer did or was done to him is unknown, and attempts to pat it into shape amount to little more than Fan Fiction or as yet undrawn graphic novellas.
My recommendations are to factor in only information that appeared before the end of the RCOI, look at the photos from 1877 and 1879, redo the markers on LSH to where photo and testimony places them, and evaluate. The markers are very thready, the high rankers in the LSH bunch are on the perimeter, not the center where they would be in an organized defense, looking very much as if shot as they topped the hill leading the units.
It's very thready, both because 10 of the markers aren't valid, and testimony and photo places them strung out. Much scarier, looking very much like slaughter on the run.
Also? Extra credit question. Why does the current fence about LSH enclose so much empty space with odd configuration?
|
|
|
Post by George Mabry on Jan 27, 2009 11:46:55 GMT -6
1. What actual physical evidence or warrior testimony indicates that the troopers tried to cross north of Last Stand Hill? This point is still debated. Not everyone agrees that Custer moved that much north of LSH. As for the Indian accounts, there are several good books out on their stories. [quote author=desertlobster board=theories thread=3378 post=63535 time=1233073725[/quote] 2. If #1 is true, do we assume that the three companies to the south are waiting for Benteen?[/quote] This point is also much debated. No one knows for sure what Custer's thinking was on these deployments. [quote author=desertlobster board=theories thread=3378 post=63535 time=1233073725[/quote] 3. How is it that Keogh and Yates get assigned[ battalion commander status? Just to make things look neat and tidy in the history books based on their seniority? Did the 7th Cavalry even have battalions and were specific companies normally assigned to each?[/quote] Assignments as battalion commanders was usually based on seniority. You were considered a battalion commander if you were assigned command of more than one company. The number of battalions and the number of companies in a battalion was determined by the Regimental Commander based on need. In WWII, companies were assigned to battalions in alphabetical order. With three companies to a battalion, Company E could usually be found in 2nd Battalion for example. As with most things, there are variations. The Regimental Commander will make the call to fit his needs. [quote author=desertlobster board=theories thread=3378 post=63535 time=1233073725[/quote]4. If Ford A(I hate that designation) was weakly defended, why would the troopers retreat from it after a very few casualties? Which companies attempted to cross there? [/quote] Once again there is no consensus of opinion here. No one that was there survived so it's all a guess but some historians believe that E and F went to Ford B while the other companies moved over the ridges east of the crossing. Other historians don't believe anyone went to Ford B. Take your pick. [quote author=desertlobster board=theories thread=3378 post=63535 time=1233073725[/quote] 5. What's the distance from Last Stand Hill to where those bunch of bodies were found in the ravine?[/quote] Although the majority of historians believe that at least some bodies were found in " a deep ravine," noT everyone is in agreement as to which ravine it was or where exactly in that particular ravine the bodies were found. As you can see, there are no hard and fast answers to your questions. Feel free to do like everyone else and chose a theory then cherry pick the "evidence" to support it. But you should be aware that this "evidence" comes in varying degrees of credibility. The degree of credibility you assign a piece of evidence is for you and you alone to determine. If you're satisfied with it, then you're a lucky man. Happy theorizing, George
|
|
|
Post by desertlobster on Jan 27, 2009 11:53:17 GMT -6
I'm not sure about the fence. Any thoughts on the whole Ford B and the gap between the two groups of soldiers?
Seems to me about all that might possibly have saved the troopers would have been to form a small perimeter behind their dead horses earlier on and maybe more effective volleys might have kept the attackers at bay. The Indians did respect the troopers and did not usually waste their lives foolishly. I would guess they immediately recognized the troopers' vulnerability. Superior numbers against spaced troopers sure makes for more aggressive attacking.
Another random question: How wide is the river at Ford B?
|
|
|
Post by biggordie on Jan 27, 2009 11:55:47 GMT -6
That Custer advanced beyond Custer Hill toward the northern fords appears in both Cheyenne and Mnicoujou histories and individual accounts.
The distance from anywhere to Deep Ravine is immaterial, since there never were any bodies in it. The references in evidence and accounts are to a deep ravine - there are several. See John Gibbon's 1877 accounts about the SSR [not then so named, obviously].
There is no evidence whatsoever, other than some anecdotal accounts, of any action at MTC Ford [Ford B], or that any troops were ever there. Read the RCOI testimony, nay STUDY it.
The Seven Cavalry was formed in two wings of two battalions each during the march from Fort Lincoln, until the night of 22 June, when Custer abolished said organization. The wings had been commanded by Reno and Benteen; the battalions by Yates, Keogh, Weir and French.
When Custer re-assigned battalions, at the halt after crossing the divide, he gave one to Keogh, one To Yates, one to Benteen [the three senior captains], and one to Reno [the senior field grade officer next to Custer]. Reno got the advance, because it was his by right of seniority, or because that is how Custer wanted it. Each of the four battalions had two captains, either by plan or by accident - Custer had juggled the make-up of the battalions slightly. See the RCOI testimonies of the officers who were there.
The two Custer battalions did not separate and were not seperated from one another until it was done by the hostiles, during the retreat from the northern fords area. See the Lop and Chop Theory Of Everything. Respond now, and you'll receive a genuine map of the Custer Battlefield, indicating where everyone was, when, where every weapon was discharged, including the multitude of arrows which the horses failed to avoid [despite their intense training], with every individual weapon identified as to owner, and the size of his boots or moccasins. Just send all your credit cards and a specimen signature [your passport wqould be nice too]. We guarantee not to misuse you trust, or your cards. And remember that it's us, and you can trust us.
I am currently working on my graphic novella, and need an artist for the panels. I am trying to get it down to 300 panels with two words and an exclamation mark per. Little Artie of Funky Town - or the General He Don't Look Good Anymore. If I have too many words left over, I may do a sequel or prequel or alternate universe coincidental - Captain Good Times And The Hunt For The Dairy Queen.
Because they threw in a few spurious markers, including Autie Reed and Boston Custer, and had to enclose them, and because they had to spend the whole allotted budget of 25 bucks for the original wooden fence*. The iron fence followed the wooden one, and was erected by a bunch of drunks on a Saturday night, compounding the felony. And they had to use all the fencing they were given, like the guy who painted the Admiral's Chinese carpet Battleship gray.
Gordie
* it might have been 50 or more.
|
|
|
Post by desertlobster on Jan 27, 2009 12:10:29 GMT -6
Gordie,
I read one of your posts earlier and had a couple questions/comments:
Darris or Duggans? What was that about?
Do you think Butler and Foley's bodies markers are correct?
Evidence for Bustard crossing river into village?
Nathan Short?
Dose at river and Voss with Custer as LSH?
Why isn't Korn considered a survivor?
Sturgis found?
Harrington found?
|
|
|
Post by bc on Jan 27, 2009 13:16:22 GMT -6
Scorpian, regarding your question #1. I suggest you read the RCOI testimony of Frederick Girard regarding his qualifications and observations at the various ford areas. His descriptions and observations of the MTF/ford B area and his descriptions of the Ford D1/D2 area are rather compelling. At MTC the bank did not show evidence of a cavalry crossing and at the fords in the LSH area, there was an attempt to cross and then a movement to another place where troops did cross.
bc
|
|
|
Post by desertlobster on Jan 27, 2009 14:38:57 GMT -6
One of the soldiers(I'll have to look it up) did report that he saw two columns of fours(two companies) markings that led to Ford B.
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on Jan 27, 2009 14:43:33 GMT -6
There is ample evidence that a bunch of Cheyenne, maybe Sioux as well, dressed as soldiers on soldier mounts with guidons and rode around to mock the dead. Weir saw them and was fooled, Terry's guys saw them the next day and was briefly fooled, and according to some Indians these guys scared the living hell out of the Cheyenne women when they blew out of the dust into camp in formation, the sort of trauma that might endure if nobody corrected the image. Indians sometimes, being human, loved practical jokes on friends and family, and they could well have kept this tale alive for the giggle about Aunt Willow Bark's hysteria.
Although it is impossible to prove, this would explain ALL the tracks and artifacts in the areas of concern and the tales of soldiers reaching the camp from people who saw them or heard about it in the confusion and the correct tale was not memoed out by Sioux Command during their hourly briefings to the Smoke'n'Magic embedded media. But for those today claiming something else caused them, they have to EXclude this, a known event, and they cannot just dismiss it. Neither Girard nor Sitting Bull nor anyone could tell from tracks who was riding the beasts that made them.
It would be interesting to learn the distinctions between "Cheyenne and Mnicoujou histories and individual accounts" and "anectodotal accounts," as well as when the first were obtained and vetted. harpskiddie apparently feels the former are better than the latter. I see zero light between them, and would think they're all melded stories by the time they get to us through sign or speech through translators. Doesn't mean the people telling the tales are liars, just human. Stories get reupholstered through the ages.
Scout apparently does the needed images, harpskiddie, inquire of him for the novella. And strange. And no doubt the Living Historians or lowly re-enactors would, somehow, be willing to pose for the artist chosen. For history.
For the children.
|
|
|
Post by markland on Jan 27, 2009 15:27:34 GMT -6
There is ample evidence that a bunch of Cheyenne, maybe Sioux as well, dressed as soldiers on soldier mounts with guidons and rode around to mock the dead. Weir saw them and was fooled, Terry's guys saw them the next day and was briefly fooled, and according to some Indians these guys scared the living hell out of the Cheyenne women when they blew out of the dust into camp in formation, the sort of trauma that might endure if nobody corrected the image. Indians sometimes, being human, loved practical jokes on friends and family, and they could well have kept this tale alive for the giggle about Aunt Willow Bark's hysteria. Although it is impossible to prove, this would explain ALL the tracks and artifacts in the areas of concern and the tales of soldiers reaching the camp from people who saw them or heard about it in the confusion and the correct tale was not memoed out by Sioux Command during their hourly briefings to the Smoke'n'Magic embedded media. But for those today claiming something else caused them, they have to EXclude this, a known event, and they cannot just dismiss it. Neither Girard nor Sitting Bull nor anyone could tell from tracks who was riding the beasts that made them. "Although it is impossible to prove, this would explain all the tracks and artifacts...." it seems that if "impossible to prove..." it should be written as either "could explain" or "might explain" rather than your likely erroneous "would."
|
|
|
Post by markland on Jan 27, 2009 15:28:24 GMT -6
One of the soldiers(I'll have to look it up) did report that he saw two columns of fours(two companies) markings that led to Ford B. Weren't those tracks leading from MTC over Calhoun Ridge? Billy
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on Jan 27, 2009 15:42:50 GMT -6
I think the 'would' and 'could' here are distinctions with no real difference, but okay. Still, the known event explaining evidence has to be excluded before a hypothetical event supplants it.
|
|