|
Post by markland on Sept 10, 2009 12:46:04 GMT -6
Hi markland. Gibbon was ill with Cholic. He may have been ill but he was with Terry.
|
|
|
Post by herosrest on Sept 10, 2009 18:43:58 GMT -6
Both are correct. Gibbon joined Terry on the 26th, he was ill aboard 'Far West' on the day before. He remained quite ill but had recovered enough strength to return to duty and caught up with column. Brisbin lead the Cavalry advance, l'm not sure who was senior amongst the infantry, possibly Freeman.
|
|
|
Post by herosrest on Sept 10, 2009 19:36:43 GMT -6
99 in 100, conclusion is false. A.E. John Gray used T&M to produce a theory. He took a supposition and built a model around it. lt does not stand up to test.
If the cavalry truly advanced to battle at avg. speed 4mphish, there lies the cause of problems which occured with their horses. They were bored to death. There is a paper of Gray's linked here - CLICK - , a decent and informative report. Veterinary Service on Custer's Last Campaign.
Terrific stuff. However, once Gray draws his conclusions, he is fair game, same as anyone. 25th June, 1876 - post officer's call, that regiment was going into battle. If it was neccesary to ride the horses into the dust reaching the objective, then that was what was done, not a stately parade. It was neccesary to ride down the horses and that occured. Gray did not correctly assess Custer's situation and his responses. Top of the agenda was close in, close up, close on the valley, once the decision to attack was made.[/color][/b]
|
|
|
Post by AZ Ranger on Sept 10, 2009 20:12:32 GMT -6
HS Maybe you could share the part you don't like to if anyone agrees?
|
|
|
Post by herosrest on Sept 11, 2009 21:22:38 GMT -6
There is no record amongst those riding with Custer of a slow or halting advance to battle on the 25th and certainly not one conducted at a walk, once attack was ordered. Gray is happy that the animals were fit for duty, pushing them rapidly 14 miles caused 7 animals to fail. His time line does not reflect the rapid advance that Custer made. 7 out of more than 600. Terry's cavalry marched harder. In that rather basic matter he is in error.
His report adopts a childs comic and novelists style of engaging and adopting the reader as participant rather than critic. It is a writers trick used in a serious, factual report to smooth over and prepare for acceptance of his conclusions, which are reasonable upto the point l make above. No reference exists to the 'we' he refers to, so here is a point of contention. It is a very important point. There may well have been another half dozen PhD's underwriting his study, unfortunately they are not credited so Gray stands alone using comic book tricks that delight children.
|
|
|
Post by herosrest on Sept 12, 2009 7:09:06 GMT -6
A handful of military commanders faced the types of threat encountered during 1876/77 upon the Northern Plains. Fewer still, had proven able to combat that threat with forces to hand. Gray's study of Custer at LBH draws conclusions based on erroneous data, ie speed of advance to battle, a critical component. The advance was misunderstood and not detailed correctly. It underlies and balances all record of events. Many drawing conclusions from the battle had not faced the conditions and circumstances Custer did. Sherman stated, that once discovered, there was no option but to attack.
Gray rationalised (sythesized) a data set that portrays a 4mph average speed to battle from the officers call and relys upon time data which is unreliable and unproven. If a time difference existed between the cavalry and solar time, ie the sun was overhead but watch time was different, then we know that time difference would be true for dusk and dawn. It is not. Major Reno ordered Trumpeter Martin to blow Reville on 26th June. When Martin did that, all hell let loose.
We know what then occured and at what time of day. Lacota, Cheyenne, Arapaho, Cavalry, Absaroka and Arikara scouts and civilian packers agree when the fighting started. By description of time of day and watch time, unless watches were synchronised to a different time set during the night of 25th/26th June, Grays analysis of time data is incorrect. We know that no such record exists for watches being reset therefore we know that Grays time line is flawed and unreal.
|
|
|
Post by AZ Ranger on Sept 12, 2009 7:53:08 GMT -6
There is no record amongst those riding with Custer of a slow or halting advance to battle on the 25th and certainly not one conducted at a walk, once attack was ordered. Gray is happy that the animals were fit for duty, pushing them rapidly 14 miles caused 7 animals to fail. His time line does not reflect the rapid advance that Custer made. 7 out of more than 600. Terry's cavalry marched harder. In that rather basic matter he is in error.
His report adopts a childs comic and novelists style of engaging and adopting the reader as participant rather than critic. It is a writers trick used in a serious, factual report to smooth over and prepare for acceptance of his conclusions, which are reasonable upto the point l make above. No reference exists to the 'we' he refers to, so here is a point of contention. It is a very important point. There may well have been another half dozen PhD's underwriting his study, unfortunately they are not credited so Gray stands alone using comic book tricks that delight children.
Maybe reading RCOI and Gray would help before you make statements.
|
|
|
Post by herosrest on Sept 12, 2009 8:23:23 GMT -6
The right wing halted 10 minutes watering horses at a stream and moved onto the bluffs. The advance was at the jump, gallop... trot. Varnum saw the gray horse troop as he dismounted in the valley before the horses were led to the timber. There are very few places that could take place. Reading Martins RCoI with the Marshall map to compare with shows what Martin states as the way of it. Right Wing were on the Ford soon after the valley skirmish was underway. Custer was not shot there.
This item files.myopera.com/herosrest/albums/634358/VarnumAA.jpg is from a US army Corps of Engineers assessment of the basic issue of the advance comparing the Curtis route with that of Godfrey. This was way back before the Cedar Coulee compromise appeared. The map is the 1891 US Geo by Marshall used by Corps of Engineers to show the enduring issue over route to Custer battlefield, l used it as a scratch pad. files.myopera.com/herosrest/albums/634358/VarnumA.jpg
The right wing fought harder for longer and manouvered more than anyone today is willing to give credit for. It began earlier than credit is given for.
|
|
|
Post by AZ Ranger on Sept 12, 2009 9:09:46 GMT -6
Someone needs to read a map also. When the contour lines turn into a solid mass it is cliff. Is that where sitting bull saw them falling into camp?
So don't confuse you with the testimony. Clearly Custer did walk after sending Reno at the trot and they must have been walking before that.
You need to read Martin and Private Peter Thompson. They were there and Varnum was not. How does Custer's battalion disappear to the right leaving Thompson alone? Martin states they were in column of twos and then went downhill in column of fours.
If anyone is loose with the "facts" it is you HS. Show us where 15 miles away for Godfrey would be as you have placed on your map.
|
|
|
Post by AZ Ranger on Sept 12, 2009 10:06:09 GMT -6
Let's look at what Varnum states about him looking over the actual route Custer took. This had to before your red map of Godfrey's. Looks to me that you drew Varnum's route near the river and not Custer's.
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on Sept 12, 2009 10:26:10 GMT -6
If he could read a map, and he cannot, he could see that the photo he claims is taken from Calhoun Hill ain't, and is LSH, because the land in the photo follows the land on the map, among one, maybe two other reasons.
No doubt he's blinded by the seven hundred foot portable saw mill building in the distance. Odd that nobody in Sanderson's party, or anyone whatsoever, noticed it, nor that the NA's suffered its existence by itself with no protection, or that whoever paid for it suffered its existence because it did nothing till farm and railroad at that particular site might require it. Ft. Custer, twenty miles north, had many options nearer of wood and saw need. The camouflage matching grain by grain the dirt of the ravine alone required a year of labor by a team of glue experts.
That he can imagine generations of Custer fanatics missing a seven hundred foot saw mill or building of any sort, the first for many miles, in a photo for over 130 years, plus the professionals missing it and three of them saying in WCF it's a ravine, speaks to ego without basis. People who've lived on the field for all intents never mention that huge building, a saw mill, nor its remnants. No records of it at the museum (someone asked, right?)
Like some - not all - Brits here, they (herosrest seems several writers to me, but he could be just insane) can't admit lameness or the emptiness of quiver nor in any way admit total error. And they all try to hide from that horror by layering on blather to cover for it. The retina searing alternate colors and no standard for distinguishing quotes from the original text just adds to the confusion, annoyance, and utter waste of time.
The charge of "racist" may not be far behind.
|
|
|
Post by herosrest on Sept 12, 2009 11:51:34 GMT -6
Varnum said....... he left the trail. He did not come on the trail but over a bluff. You read more from that than l do. There are bluffs both sides of the Coulee mouth and a bluff is not bluffs. There is nothing either way there to draw from. He did however see horses moving on the bluffs when he was dismounting.
Between 1877 and 1891 a significant loop of the Little Bighorn river disappeared. This was the probable result of tree felling for lumber that built Fort Custer and other construction works including the railway line. The loop is shown clearly and precisely, verified by terrain data presented on his map by W.P. Norris, Superintendant of Yellowstone park. The map is dated July 5th, 1877.
It may be neccesary for me to amend my opening somewhat, as you state, semi correctly - l have misread the US geo. Topo survey map. It proves the situation in regards river loops being present below Calhoun Hill. Thankyou very much. I had hoped it would be pointed up earlier. The idea that Norris, 130 some years ago drew a map of the valley simply to fool you all this time later takes some swallowing, l find it impossible to contemplate. That would be outstandinding Deja Vu on Norris's part.
It is quite true that there is no record of large structures upon the battlefield at that time. What are we arguing about? The photograph, that's what and actually, two of them.
Arrows, racism and standards fall under religious freedoms and beyond that l haven't a clue what you are itimating or on about, yet, so don't be shy. You obviously were short changed when the sticks were handed out. If the issue is Patrick, my mum was a Corker. Salt of the earth.
Now....... amongst the following blurb, which might just be not your cup of tea, are a couple of pictures from FAL. Do you know anything of interest, relevant to them. Regards. ps - did the recommendation do any good?
I am not a Custer fan. I mentioned this previously. ________________________________________________________________________________________ Here is a picture of D.F. Barry
Between 1878 and 1883, Barry traveled to Fort Buford, Fort Yates, and other forts in the Dakota Territory. He photographed famous Native Americans including Sitting Bull, Rain in the Face, Gall, Red Cloud, and Shooting Star. Barry also photographed some of the most important forts and battlefields of the Plains Wars, military officers including General George A. Crook, soldiers, trappers, and pioneers. His papers contain correspondence with photograph dealers and other customers seeking details and prices for Barry's portraits. In his correspondence, Barry often reveals details of his experiences as a pioneer photographer and with the people he photographed.
David F. Barry first came west in the 1870s as an apprentice to photographer O.S. Goff, who worked as a photographer at Fort Abraham Lincoln, located near present-day Bismarck, N.D. It was from this post that Lt. Col. George Custer led his Seventh U.S. Cavalry division in May 1876 to the now-famous battle along the banks of the Little Bighorn river in southern Montana. Goff photographed Custer and his officers extensively before their departure and made the last known image of Custer. Following the battle, Goff and Barry became partners in a Bismarck photo studio that concentrated on producing and selling portraits of Custer, other military figures and American Indians.
From his studio, Barry traveled to several Indian reservations making images of Lakota, Apsolooke, Cheyenne, Arikara and other tribal members. Though Barry and Goff severed their partnership in the 1880s, Barry continued to photograph soldiers, American Indians and others who passed through the Dakotas, including William F. "Buffalo Bill" Cody.
Here are photographs of two of 7th Cavalry Company's. I believe them the work of Goff, taken at FAL obviously, prior to LBH. I can't pin the date abd l am earnestly serious. 7th Cavalry, FAL, pre battle, recognise anyone?
-CLICK IMAGE TO VIEW - l believe that Custers scout Curley is far right in this image.
Crook and Terry's columns effected a surprised junction during 10th August, '76. 4,000 troops bumped into each other somewhere in the middle of nowhere and wondered 'Where are the lndians? Medical officer Porter is quoted to have punned it would have been Siouxicidal for them to have fought, which very nearly occured.
Camp on the Yellowstone River, near the mouth of Big Horn, July 2. I think I owe to myself to put you in more full possession of the facts of the late operations.....
...... The Indians had evidently nerved themselves for a stand, but as I learn from Captain Benton, on the 22d, the cavalry march 12 miles, on the 23d, 25 miles, from 5 A.M. till 8 P.M., and on the 24th, 45 miles, and then, after night, 10 miles further. Then, after resting, but without unsaddling, 23 miles to the battlefield. The proposed route was not taken, but as soon as the trail was struck it was followed. I cannot learn that any examination of Talloska Creek was made. (Signed) A. H. Terry Major-General Commanding.
Godfrey was of the opinion that had Custer waited, the Indians would have escaped and Custer would have been blamed.
|
|
|
Post by clw on Sept 12, 2009 12:39:17 GMT -6
AZ and dc, my hats off to you for your patience. I can't make head nor tail of his point. Is there a color key somewhere? Talloska Creek? The use of quotation marks might -- might -- help. But I doubt it. As to the 'sawmill'.......
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on Sept 12, 2009 14:42:02 GMT -6
AZ really has taken the lead in deserved confrontations on three Custer boards, both here and at AAO, where he has Wiggs' number and can devastate that particular inanity in eight words. I realize you don't agree with me about conz, but benteeneast's - on the Custer Delicate's board - expert paying out of rope for conz to hang himself - it's getting more and more ridiculous as it gets more and more detailed and precise - coupled with the dead-on summations has wrested the job from me. Not a moment too soon, either. Because of his gravitas and superior relevant knowledge, his words carry the oomph mine do not in the quarters at issue.
Also, Highwayman has developed into a real good sentry against Benteen slander as well.
I think it important, because in some cases I don't think it's Custer and Benteen who are being talked about at all.
And by the way, it's highly unlikely AZ and I belong to the same political party; nor do Merkel and I; nor Reece and I; nor Markland and I. It has not come to blood between any of us as yet. Well, Merkel, but that's because she welshed on the Armadillo y Tarantula Parfait. And she swung first. And that after pointing to the sky and screaming "Look out!" And she also swung second, the paramedic thought.
Those are all learned guesses, but I'm making the point that Custerland issues are NOT dependent upon today's politics, nor should they be. When Mabry made the comment I turned on conz because he said he was either conservative or GOP, I forget, I had to laugh at its basic cluelessness. Virtually everyone in Custerland is GOP. The issue is, or should be, do any living vets want to have combat actions they played a part in subjected to the same level of cherry picked evidence and crap Reno and Benteen have? I read where you think Benteen dawdled, but I surely do not, and cannot imagine any reason why he would even want to, even if able, without being shot or brought up on charges. Rescuing Custer would rank high with both Reno and Benteen. Dying with him pointlessly ranked a distant second.
In some cases, I suspect - I cannot know, of course - that people who also were involved in actions in Vietnam where women and children were killed under circumstances our soldiers did not choose nor wish for, find their sense of guilt - deserved or not - assuaged by arguing about the Washita and Custer's actions here. It's why their time image is locked with the '60's and 'hippies' and the 'librul media' who called attention to those incidents. And soon, Custerland may have more modern vets dealing with similar issues from the current Asian wars.
While it's not possible for me to imagine or totally appreciate that sort of turmoil in memory, I don't think it fair Benteen, Custer, and Reno should be their sock puppets, either, and I doubt any current vets would want that to be their own fate in the future. There's a certain amount of fiasco to every battle, it seems, and whatever percentage you agree to, when subtracted from the LBH, Benteen especially - but even Reno - don't look any worse (or better) than many officers whose careers prospered, then and certainly now.
|
|
|
Post by clw on Sept 12, 2009 15:22:01 GMT -6
AZ and Highway one has to respect -- they earn it. As to not concurring on conz.... don't bet on it. I just don't get emotional about it. He's just a product of his environment and doesn't push my buttons unless he starts in on NDNs. Those maps of his drive me bats. As to Benteen, I agree it makes no sense that he'd hang back, but I can't be convinced he didn't. I don't hold it against him. He was a good officer.
You know I love George yet I'm a liberal Democrat. Go figure. Maybe it's because I'm an old hippie who was married to a warrior. I still don't know how THAT happened.
|
|