|
Post by tubman13 on Jan 2, 2019 16:15:27 GMT -6
[quote source="/post/120949/thread" timestamp="1545692988" author=" benteen " ]By the way Dan, when was Tom Custer assigned to HQ, did he leave the divide there or with his company? [/p]
Regards, Tom
[/quote] Tom, Just a guess, but I believe that Tom was with George when they left the divide. If this is not true and he was with his company, then how can we explain how he died a mile away from them with Harrington leading a charge of "C" company which was Toms company. Be Well Dan Could Tom have been with his company when they were beat up by Lame White Man or Gall at FF and have retreated through Company L & I as they collapsed with a string of dead men in his wake as he proceeded to LSH and GAC? Knipe said he got his orders from Tom, Knipe was with C. Damn, was Knipe lying? If so prove it.
Regards, Tom
|
|
|
Post by wild on Jan 2, 2019 17:32:58 GMT -6
Thanks for that Tom. Major General to captain ,some drop !
|
|
|
Post by herosrest on Jan 3, 2019 6:57:41 GMT -6
Well, we got there. Four battalions, one Colonel. A Lt. Colonel and three majors. At last. Have no clue what you mean. Three majors if the regiment is split like the formation would each have 4 companies. Since at the time it was a temporary designation a battalion would still be anything from two to seven companies. There are lots of opinions of what Custer did with the 5 companies but zero proof. I read recently in Graham's book that Custer kept all 5 companies. The problem is that I believe the opinion of the forming of a Keogh battalion is used to denigrate him. He was a good soldier and without being a battalion commander things change in his favor. Regards BE With four senior subordinatetes including the EO, 7th Cavalry were able to deploy four three company battalions and were structured in that way. Benteen was able only to cofirm that he was given a three company command and seems to have considered it to be a battalion. I feel thatt this is true also for Reno but he understood that Benteen had three companies under his command. The trail of 'facts' ends there with 50% of the regiments companies assigned to what we call battalions. We may be wrong about Benteen and Reno leading battalions and perhaps should in future refer to three company commands. That aside, the 7th Cavalry were formed as I have said previously and operated ad hoc formations as required and ordered. It is because of the established structure of four by three that a number of officers assumed that that was the structure of the formation which Custer led north and it is a reasonable deduction by them. There are those who see a chaotic or flustered and frenetic approach to command by Custer and thus cannot fathom anything other than chaos from a battle to which 'they' seek to bring order. A principal source of confusion with understanding the slaughter on Custer's field stems from Owen Sweet's informed interpretation of events. He was an infantryman throughout his career and that was fundemental to his comprehension of the Custer's Field fighting. If the commands of Custer, Keogh and Yates fought dismounted then by degree, Sweet may have correctly interpretted what he found. However, cavalry did not fight in the way in which infantry did and this is discernable from the marker patterning which he put in place. It is worthwhile considering Kuhlman's justification of Sweet's work and its immense pitfalls and errors (Kuhlman's flawed understanding and insane insight). If the five companies fought dismounted and were overwhelmed, then there should be outlaying locations of marker clusters where the horse holders died. There should be between five and eleven clusters of markers for those who died guarding the led horses. It isn't there. Sweet believed that Keogh and Custer's companies died on the east flank of Battle Ridge in a group of some eighty plus which he marked. Mark Kellogg died there as far as he was concerned and remember that Brisbane issued Sweet's orders and was at Fort Custer. They are not there and it is perfectly reasonable to consider or assume that a running fight took place. It cannot be assumed that the entire fight was a running fight and the opposite is also a real truth.
|
|
|
Post by AZ Ranger on Jan 3, 2019 10:30:11 GMT -6
Sgt Ryan wrote even Custer wouldn't fight these troopers mounted.
There is nothing on the Custer Battlefield that indicates they fought at any time mounted.
Regards
BE
|
|
|
Post by benteen on Jan 3, 2019 15:54:20 GMT -6
[/p]
Regards, Tom
[/quote] Could Tom have been with his company when they were beat up by Lame White Man or Gall at FF and have retreated through Company L & I as they collapsed with a string of dead men in his wake as he proceeded to LSH and GAC? Knipe said he got his orders from Tom, Knipe was with C. Damn, was Knipe lying? If so prove it.
Regards, Tom
[/quote] Tom, Anything is certainly possible, but I have a hard time trying to picture with his company engaged that Tom would take off toward LSH. Now I could see him leading a charge to that location but there is no indication of that. The only charge was I believe made by Harrington towards the village. My opinion is that it is more likely Tom was with George acting as an aid to camp. As far as Knipe goes I have no proof, but we have 2 exact opposite statements. Knipe saying he was a messenger to the pack trains, and the 2 Officers Mathey and McDougall saying they never got any message. You I believe have to choose one over the other. For my part I believe the 2 Officers they have no reason to lie. Dont forget that when Knipe reported to Benteen he never mentioned Tom Custer. He only said it was Tom that sent him after he knew Tom was dead. Be Well Dan
|
|
|
Post by wild on Jan 3, 2019 16:32:46 GMT -6
Tom being with his brother on LSH is just another indication that the roof fell in rather suddenly. Had the command been committed to a certain action then Tom would have rejoined his company. Tom would unlike the other officers have had a certain freedom of movement and would have made use of it to see just what the hell brother was up to. Cheers
|
|
|
Post by wild on Jan 3, 2019 16:46:24 GMT -6
Just rereading the first post by Montrose which kicked off this discussion on Keogh (all of 8 years ago). He sets the scene with a description of Keogh's battalion deployed as if an infantry unit in defence. Someone not familiar with the battle would never guess that the unit was one of cavalry. The only horse mentioned is crazy and the only 4 footed animal mentioned is a deer. I think Walter can rest easy. Cheers
|
|
|
Post by tubman13 on Jan 4, 2019 5:39:24 GMT -6
Dan, you need to take me no more seriously, than Wild, when he rants about his hero, Captain Benteen. Speculation, speculation, speculation, the history of this battle is rife with it.
|
|
|
Post by herosrest on Jan 4, 2019 19:00:21 GMT -6
There is an article here (BATTLING WITH THE SIOUX ON THE YELLOWSTONE. G. A. CUSTER. The Galaxy. A Magazine of Entertaining Reading (1866-1878); Jul 1876) which often slips off radars when thinking about the cavalry fight. It's a 'boys own' type romp penned by Custer which was in readers hands....... as he was being killed on the frontier. What a coincidence that was. It's a bit of reading and then some unless you hold real interest in Custer or the broad topic but relevant it is and useful also, because, they fought outside the bubble on the Plains and use of some orthodox tactics are described. The marching square adapted to 7th Cavalry and this offers a slightly different way of thinking about movement and interpreting evidence. Do I offer a holy grail........ of course not. My remit is way too large. In fact it's so huge that it is immense. I shall excerpt the relevant romping bit, and seem to remember that this article, or one of the series; prompted spiteful wit from F.W. Benteen. G.A. Custer: ' A moment's hurried consultation between the officers and myself, and we decided that as we would be forced to act entirely upon the defensive against a vastly superior force, it would be better if we relieved ourselves as far as possible of the care of our horses, and take our chances in the fight, which was yet to come, on foot. At the same time we were then so far out on the open plain and from the river bank, that the Indians could surround us. We must get nearer to the river, conceal our horses or shelter them from fire, then with every available man form a line or semicircle, with our backs to the river, and defend ourselves until the arrival of the main body of the expedition, an event we could not expect for several hours. As if divining our intentions and desiring to prevent their execution, the Indians now began their demonstrations looking to a renewal of the fight.
The next move on our part was to fight our way back to the little clump of bushes from which we bad been so rudely startled. To do this Captain Moylan, having united his force to that of Colonel Custer's, gave the order, "Prepare to fight on foot." This was quickly obeyed. Three-fourths of the fighting force were now on foot armed with the carbines only. These were deployed in somewhat of a circular skirmish line, of which the horses formed the centre; the circle having a diameter of several hundred yards. In this order we made our way back to the timber; the Indians whooping, yelling, and firing their rifles as they dashed madly by on their fleet war ponies. That the fire of their rifles should be effective under these circumstances could scarcely be expected.
Neither could the most careful aim of the cavalrymen produce much better results. It forced the savages to keep at a respectful distance, however, and enabled us to make our retrograde movement. A few of our horses were shot by the Indians in this irregular skirmish; none fatally however. As we were falling back, contesting each foot of ground passed over, I heard a sudden sharp cry of pain from one of the men in charge of our horses; the next moment I saw his arm hanging helplessly at his side, while a crimson current flowing near his shoulder told that the aim of the Indians had not been entirely in vain. The gallant fellow kept his seat in his saddle, however, and conducted the horses under his charge safely with the rest to the timber. Once concealed by the trees, and no longer requiring the horses to be moved, the number of horse-holders was reduced so as to allow but one troop to eight horses; the entire remainder being required on the skirmish line. The redskins had followed us closely step by step to the timber, tempted in part by their great desire to obtain possession of our horses. If successful in this, they believed no doubt that flight on our part being no longer possible we must be either killed or captured. Basic tactics of infantry and columns of advance practiced by cavalry on the Plains on 4th August 1873. There is useful information in the reports of the battle with Sitting Bull which occurred on the Bighorn River one week later. Does this solve anything, well not really but keep looking for where the horse-holders died.
|
|
|
Post by wild on Jan 4, 2019 23:58:27 GMT -6
As Custer's command was fragmented and surrounded, horse holding was a luxury the command could no longer afford . Cheers
|
|
|
Post by wild on Jan 5, 2019 19:18:37 GMT -6
Herosrest has a point in asking about the horseholders (the 25% noncombat troops) . If you are outnumbered and surrounded where is the best place to hold the horses? The horse holding system required the holders to withdraw the mounts out of the line and range of incoming. Well that was not possible . So the horses were released? And the command is spread out over a mile and cohesion is lost and its everyman for himself...... Cheers
|
|
|
Post by herosrest on Jan 6, 2019 5:49:21 GMT -6
I'll raise a couple of points in response with regards to this. There was comment from 7th Cavalry participants that what they saw on the ground indicated 'to them' a running fight'. Of course that could just be a part of the story but there was movement by the five companies and made in contact if Indian accounts are heeded. The essence of Marquis and Kuhlman is an organised and almost leisurely fight by the book which disintegrated. I do not see it in any of the evidence but Fox and many other modern students hold to this and therefore horseholders were under cover away from the skirmish lines. * The Godfrey/Gall interpretation is based upon the horse holders being attacked first and the mounts stampeded and captured. If the horses were released by order, it is reasonable to expect that the extra ammunition would have been taken for use before the release of the horses. Godfrey is reasonably specific with locations for horseholders and there was related observation from McClernand. - I've attached Godfrey's article and a blowup from a long lost battle study which show what he imparted with regards to his little chat with Gall and where he deduced or observed, the locations of horseholders or dead horses. It is an awkward problem because Godfrey would have seen dead horses in June 1876 and then had Gall explaining them to him in 1886. Some weight must be afforded this data. Of course Godfrey had a beautiful wife and long droopy mustacheo so how much faith can be placed in his excellent account? He did identify the ravine, death sites west of Last Stand Hill and what I call Smith's Hill where he believed that Smith's men fought before retreating into the ravine. Quite a bit of meat to this, what do you make of it?
|
|
|
Post by AZ Ranger on Jan 6, 2019 10:13:36 GMT -6
When the 7th dismounted at the Yellowstone they had shooters and when the Indians got close their horses and themselves were hit causing them to back off. At the LBH Sgt Ryan states even Custer would not fight the 7th mounted. They couldn't ride and/or shoot while moving. There is no indication that Custer tried to use the 5 companies as cavalry fighting mounted. The horses were merely transportation.
Regards
AZ Ranger
|
|
|
Post by AZ Ranger on Jan 6, 2019 10:19:19 GMT -6
Herosrest has a point in asking about the horseholders (the 25% noncombat troops) . If you are outnumbered and surrounded where is the best place to hold the horses? The horse holding system required the holders to withdraw the mounts out of the line and range of incoming. Well that was not possible . So the horses were released? And the command is spread out over a mile and cohesion is lost and its everyman for himself...... Cheers The best place for your horse to be is between your legs if you can ride with an independent seat. Allowing yourself to be surrounded, fixed, and destroyed is not a tactic at all. It is a result of an aggressive action by your enemy and you should anticipate what the enemy is doing and react before they are successful.
Regards
Steve
|
|
|
Post by herosrest on Jan 6, 2019 11:17:33 GMT -6
When the 7th dismounted at the Yellowstone they had shooters and when the Indians got close their horses and themselves were hit causing them to back off. At the LBH Sgt Ryan states even Custer would not fight the 7th mounted. They couldn't ride and/or shoot while moving. There is no indication that Custer tried to use the 5 companies as cavalry fighting mounted. The horses were merely transportation. Regards AZ Ranger That is the point.
|
|