|
Post by AZ Ranger on Sept 17, 2009 10:14:24 GMT -6
What activity was Custer observing in the pony herd?
I agree Billy that if the village ended at or before MTF it would be easier to catch fleeing people from behind rather than crossing the battlefield terrain.
Does that make 4 cents.
AZ Ranger
|
|
|
Post by Melani on Sept 17, 2009 10:16:52 GMT -6
I don't believe Keogh was wearing his Papal medals. They were precious to him, and therefore not something he would take on a campaign, and were more appropriate for dress occasions. I would have to check, but I believe they are in the possession of his family. He was wearing some kind of Catholic religious symbol, but nobody has agreed on exactly what it was--Benteen said it was a silver Agnus Dei, if I'm not mistaken.
Somebody recently commented that the Lakota who had come under Christian influence had been exposed to Father DeSmet and tended to be Catholic, and that Keogh being left alone may have had to do with recognizing a Catholic medal of some kind. But that doesn't make a lot of sense, since there were a large number of Irishmen in the Seventh who were probably mostly Catholic, and many of them might also have been wearing religious medals. So it is a mystery, but I just don't think it makes sense for his fellow officers to make it up. For Custer, it does.
There are a bunch of Indian accounts that say the soldiers never got closer to the river than a quarter mile or so at MTF. So I rather like the idea presented above, of a look-see there, and then fighting at Ford D.
|
|
|
Post by clw on Sept 17, 2009 10:36:23 GMT -6
Exactly what I think Billy -- that the village extended to near Ford D. Camp's 1910 map shows the Cheyenne camp there, as does Philo Clark's from his 1877 report.
|
|
|
Post by zekesgirl on Sept 17, 2009 10:45:13 GMT -6
I believe defeat never entered Custer's thoughts until the very end. He was "Cavalry". He was agressive. Defeat does not play in his world.
|
|
|
Post by George Mabry on Sept 17, 2009 11:30:43 GMT -6
I doubt that you're missing anything clw. It's more a matter of perspective and just plain old guessing. Your's has just as much a chance of being right as mine. But here's the way I see it: If Custer left 3 companies at the south end of Battle Ridge, I just don't see how he could have been thinking offense when he went north with the other two companies. This is the biggest village he's ever fought. He doesn't want to enter it with only two of his companies. As far as the non-combatants go, I don't see that they would be much of a concern. IMO, having the non-combatants inside the village proper would be a hinderance to what I was wanting to accomplish. Those women, children and elderly are going to kill some of my troopers if I try to ride through them to get to the warriors. Let the non-combatants flee. I want to concentrate on the warriors. Once I defeat the warriors and take possession of the camp, I can police up the non-combatants at my leisure. They've got no where to go and I've got their equipage. We're in agreement on MTC. I don't think Custer was prevented from crossing. Maybe if we could see what Custer saw from the divide between MTC and Deep Coulee then we'd better understand why he chose not to cross. My thinking on it is that Custer planned on having Reno fix the warriors to his front while Custer struck them from the rear. That may not be right but that is my first guess as to what he initially planned. Now everything is in place. Most of the warriors have moved to the south end of the village. It doesn't matter if the village extended north of MTC or not. Custer's objective is the southern end where the warriors are battling Reno. He needs to cross the river at his first opportunity. Crossing at mid village just means he'll support Reno's attack that much faster. All of this is assuming that most of the warriors are moving toward and massed in front of Reno. I tend to think that was the case otherwise Custer would not have had that long period of little Indian aggression while he was deploying around Calhoun Ridge, Cemetery ridge and on down to Ford D if in fact he went there. I think Custer had about half an hour or so to do his meanderings along Battle Ridge without being pressed. I don't think that would have been the case had several hundred warriors been directly across the river from him when he arrived at the MTC ford. Custer was pretty much free to do what he wanted until the 500-800 warriors that were fighting Reno returned to take on Custer. Looking forward to hearing from you after you finish reviewing Michno's Indian accounts. One of my favorites is Cheyenne Memories ed. by Hardorff? I think and one other with Cheyenne recollections but I can't recall right now who put it together. I found both at my local library. George
|
|
|
Post by zekesgirl on Sept 17, 2009 11:44:22 GMT -6
But if Custer and his two companies grab at least some of the non-combatants, wouldn't that give him a shield of sorts to help hold off any attacking warriors until Benteen gets there?
|
|
|
Post by clw on Sept 17, 2009 12:23:17 GMT -6
What activity was Custer observing in the pony herd? It was being driven in from the west and probably headed north in complete chaos as the men tried to catch their horses and expletives to the effect of 'Stand still you damned jug head' were heard. Your point?
|
|
|
Post by George Mabry on Sept 17, 2009 12:29:35 GMT -6
Z,
In a word, no. Taking hostages at that point would only tie up troops he needed to fight the warriors.
What are you going to do with the hostages? The warriors know that all you can do is take them to the rez and they won't stay there long before they leave and rejoin their men.
Custer had a battle to fight before he started thinking of taking prisoners. No hostages were taken at the Washita until the fighting was over. The hostages taken after that fight might have been used as a shield to facilitate his escape but it wouldn't have helped at all in winning the battle.
And then there is the problem with taking prisoners. A prisoner, for the most part, has to submit to an arrest. Generally speaking, you going to have to defeat their warriors before anyone is going to surrender. As long as their men are fighting, I suspect those women and children and old people are going to fight too.
George
|
|
|
Post by AZ Ranger on Sept 17, 2009 12:42:28 GMT -6
What activity was Custer observing in the pony herd? It was being driven in from the west and probably headed north in complete chaos as the men tried to catch their horses and expletives to the effect of 'Stand still you damned jug head' were heard. Your point? A question rather than a point. Did Custer think the horses indicated running village?
|
|
|
Post by clw on Sept 17, 2009 12:58:24 GMT -6
Yes at this point hostages are a distinct liablility. But where 'helpless ones' (ha) are threatened, there will be warriors and he doesn't want any on his six. They're always going to put themselves between their families and any threat. Maybe better to keep the whole crowd between him and Reno?
|
|
|
Post by tonypag7 on Sept 17, 2009 13:21:05 GMT -6
I didn't have time to read all the post on the ford "D" story. However, I did propound a theory on page 6 on the Luce Hill discussion where Custer did that exact movement during the Civil War (cannot recall the battle). He sent a company or two to hold the enemy at one ford, and then took the remaning force and crossed unmolested at another ford, circled around and attacked the Rebs from behind. The intersesting fact here is that he did it with Yates--the same Yates that was sent to ford "B" at the Little Big Horn. Was he attempting to repeat this same manuever again? Only this time he was repelled at or seriously wounded at ford "D" causing a withdrawal--this may have accounted for the often heard twenty minute unexplaned halt north of LSH.
|
|
|
Post by clw on Sept 17, 2009 13:27:12 GMT -6
I came across that halt several times as I was reading NDN accounts last night. It's a mystery to me. Maybe tending a wounded officer, but battles don't come to a screeching halt for that.
I don't think Yates, or anyone else, went to MTF. Check my/our other posts here.
|
|
|
Post by clw on Sept 17, 2009 13:36:50 GMT -6
Steve ~ It may have contributed to his assessment. Hard to say.
|
|
|
Post by tonypag7 on Sept 17, 2009 13:39:30 GMT -6
The battle would come to a halt if you had to tend to a dying commander--especially one like Custer. That could account for the unexplaned delay-either he died there or he was dying and after the halt they attempted to get back to LSH and south toward Benteen--only to find their left flank (Calhoun) breaking down and running toward them. I do believe Custer would have sent a company to ford"B" either to check the feasibility of a crossing (as any commander would, instead of just charging accross) and or to hold the enemy at that ford, while he crossed at one further down (as I stated in other post) as he did in the Civil War
|
|
|
Post by crzhrs on Sept 17, 2009 15:15:38 GMT -6
<The battle would come to a halt if you had to tend to a dying commander--especially one like Custer>
Maybe, afterall, it was Custer going down with a wound that stopped the command in it's tracks from getting into a village that from Kanipe's & Martini's accounts appeared ripe for the taking?
What else could keep Custer from hitting a village that appeared devoid of warriors? Waiting for Benteen? Why? A chance to capture the village proper would be a major victory even without a "glorious battle". It would vindicate Custer and propel him to an even higher position in the military and beyond.
Custer being wounded could explain a lot . . . put to bed all the "whys" of waiting around . . . but that would not be such a glorious end to Custer and his famous "Last Stand".
|
|