jag
Full Member
Caption: IRAQI PHOTO'S -- (arrow to gun port) LOOK HERE -- SMILE -- WAIT FOR -- FLASH
Posts: 245
|
Post by jag on Sept 4, 2012 19:09:41 GMT -6
When Weir rode north, he was not under fire. When Edgerly rode north, neither was he. Nor Benteen, nor Reno in their turn. The command at issue was not under fire. Wild, who thinks the US inflicted genocide on the Indians and yet should have nuked our recent Soviet allies when we could have (God knows the Irish would have), may suddenly switch concept to the greater command of the 7th in order to include Custer's situation. But then, the term command would have to also reference Custer's inclusion in all the previous posts, which would be stupid. DC, Both Weir and Edgerly came under fire as they approached the furthermost point of their advance. They returned fire there and Weir put Edgerly in charge of that effort as Weir rode back a very short distance to Reno for further orders. Reno didn't want to stay there and ordered Weir and his company to return. Both Benteen and Reno were there at that furthermost point, it was only D and another company, forget which at the moment, that went a little farther than they did.
|
|
|
Post by fred on Sept 4, 2012 19:46:58 GMT -6
Both Weir and Edgerly came under fire as they approached the furthermost point of their advance. They returned fire there and Weir put Edgerly in charge of that effort as Weir rode back a very short distance to Reno for further orders.... Both Benteen and Reno were there at that furthermost point, it was only D and another company, forget which at the moment, that went a little farther than they did. Jag, sorry, but I must disagree with you here, at least with some of what you posted. First of all, no company went farther than D. We have accounts backing that up. D, with Edgerly leading, actually went beyond the Weir complex and Tom Weir called them back to the loaf. Archaeology proves the presence of troops in that area. Also, no one fired at Tom Weir... at least that I am aware of... and he ordered Edgerly to open fire on some Indians to their front, a desultory firing, probably at Indians remaining from the Reno fight, the same ones Benteen ran off when he reached Reno Hill. How many there were is hard to say, but I would bet 50 - 100, scattered all around. Guess only!Here is something I have written, a modification of which will appear in a book... "While Weir sat atop the northern peak, Edgerly continued moving forward. After traveling about one and one-half miles from Reno Hill—beyond the Weir complex—Edgerly saw Weir motion for him to return. Hare now reaches Weir, telling him of Reno’s request to contact Custer, but Weir, watching the dust and smoke-shrouded mayhem some 2 1/3 to three miles away, is having none of it. A few minutes later, Edgerly has moved D from in front of the hill complex up the slopes of the Weir loaf and is beginning to position his troops. A moment later he spotted Benteen, French, and Godfrey approaching from the south. As Edgerly’s men hunkered down, they were ordered to begin firing at marauding Indians to their front, again, the remnants of the warriors who had confronted Reno in the valley. According to Sergeant Thomas Harrison, the troops 'had stopped back at the south end of this sugarloaf and Edgerly said he would go out to the end of the sugarloaf to look down and see if he could see Custer while they were out there.' Shortly, Benteen had climbed the northernmost bluff and was standing side by side with Weir. If they could have seen anything in the dusty veil overhanging the Custer fields, they would have seen C Company bodies strewn along Finley–Finckle Ridge; they would have seen Calhoun’s stricken command decimated on his hilltop; they would have seen Keogh’s last remaining handful of men struggling toward Last Stand Hill; and they would have seen the remnants of companies E and F battling to remain alive amidst a horde of Sioux and Cheyenne warriors bent on their destruction. "Companies H, M, and K arrived and spent the next fifteen minutes positioning for a defensive stand. Edgerly described the H Company position as occupying the twin peaks in a file, while D was placed at a right angle on the loaf. French’s M Company set up a little to Benteen’s rear, while Godfrey’s K was positioned adjacent to D, but on a narrow side-spur along the bluffs adjacent to the river and M Company. Godfrey said he stopped his troops 'a little below on the hillside.' He then went to the top of the hill to see what lay beyond. While he was up there—probably on the loaf—he saw Indians downriver starting back toward them, maybe three or four miles away. The troops were ordered to dismount and Godfrey formed a 'skirmish line on the crest of the bluff next to the river about that high point… with M Company which was on the high point.' Private Windolph described the positioning: 'Here we were stretched out all over the hell’s half acre, a troop on this hill knob, another in this little valley and over there a third troop. Behind, at a slow walk, came the pack trains, the wounded men and the rear guard.' "Edgerly claimed this firing lasted about ¾ of an hour. He deployed his command, ordering his men to fire at will. At --:-- PM, the firing eased, commensurate with Varnum’s account at the Reno court, of slow, long-distance firing; and at --:-- PM, Edgerly began his withdrawal from the hilltop." You can see from this-- drawn almost entirely from accounts of the men who were there-- how difficult it would have been to defend that area. Best wishes, Fred.
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on Sept 4, 2012 19:58:40 GMT -6
When well passed Weir Point they eventually came under fire. That is not the issue under discussion.
|
|
jag
Full Member
Caption: IRAQI PHOTO'S -- (arrow to gun port) LOOK HERE -- SMILE -- WAIT FOR -- FLASH
Posts: 245
|
Post by jag on Sept 4, 2012 21:07:23 GMT -6
Both Weir and Edgerly came under fire as they approached the furthermost point of their advance. They returned fire there and Weir put Edgerly in charge of that effort as Weir rode back a very short distance to Reno for further orders.... Both Benteen and Reno were there at that furthermost point, it was only D and another company, forget which at the moment, that went a little farther than they did. Jag, sorry, but I must disagree with you here, at least with some of what you posted. First of all, no company went farther than D. We have accounts backing that up. D, with Edgerly leading, actually went beyond the Weir complex and Tom Weir called them back to the loaf. Archaeology proves the presence of troops in that area. Also, no one fired at Tom Weir... at least that I am aware of... and he ordered Edgerly to open fire on some Indians to their front, a desultory firing, probably at Indians remaining from the Reno fight, the same ones Benteen ran off when he reached Reno Hill. How many there were is hard to say, but I would bet 50 - 100, scattered all around. Guess only!Here is something I have written, a modification of which will appear in a book... "While Weir sat atop the northern peak, Edgerly continued moving forward. After traveling about one and one-half miles from Reno Hill—beyond the Weir complex—Edgerly saw Weir motion for him to return. Hare now reaches Weir, telling him of Reno’s request to contact Custer, but Weir, watching the dust and smoke-shrouded mayhem some 2 1/3 to three miles away, is having none of it. A few minutes later, Edgerly has moved D from in front of the hill complex up the slopes of the Weir loaf and is beginning to position his troops. A moment later he spotted Benteen, French, and Godfrey approaching from the south. As Edgerly’s men hunkered down, they were ordered to begin firing at marauding Indians to their front, again, the remnants of the warriors who had confronted Reno in the valley. According to Sergeant Thomas Harrison, the troops 'had stopped back at the south end of this sugarloaf and Edgerly said he would go out to the end of the sugarloaf to look down and see if he could see Custer while they were out there.' Shortly, Benteen had climbed the northernmost bluff and was standing side by side with Weir. If they could have seen anything in the dusty veil overhanging the Custer fields, they would have seen C Company bodies strewn along Finley–Finckle Ridge; they would have seen Calhoun’s stricken command decimated on his hilltop; they would have seen Keogh’s last remaining handful of men struggling toward Last Stand Hill; and they would have seen the remnants of companies E and F battling to remain alive amidst a horde of Sioux and Cheyenne warriors bent on their destruction. "Companies H, M, and K arrived and spent the next fifteen minutes positioning for a defensive stand. Edgerly described the H Company position as occupying the twin peaks in a file, while D was placed at a right angle on the loaf. French’s M Company set up a little to Benteen’s rear, while Godfrey’s K was positioned adjacent to D, but on a narrow side-spur along the bluffs adjacent to the river and M Company. Godfrey said he stopped his troops 'a little below on the hillside.' He then went to the top of the hill to see what lay beyond. While he was up there—probably on the loaf—he saw Indians downriver starting back toward them, maybe three or four miles away. The troops were ordered to dismount and Godfrey formed a 'skirmish line on the crest of the bluff next to the river about that high point… with M Company which was on the high point.' Private Windolph described the positioning: 'Here we were stretched out all over the hell’s half acre, a troop on this hill knob, another in this little valley and over there a third troop. Behind, at a slow walk, came the pack trains, the wounded men and the rear guard.' "Edgerly claimed this firing lasted about ¾ of an hour. He deployed his command, ordering his men to fire at will. At --:-- PM, the firing eased, commensurate with Varnum’s account at the Reno court, of slow, long-distance firing; and at --:-- PM, Edgerly began his withdrawal from the hilltop." You can see from this-- drawn almost entirely from accounts of the men who were there-- how difficult it would have been to defend that area. Best wishes, Fred. I agree to disagree, to a certain extent. The places we've named today didn't exist back then. Trying to read into this using those named places as the verified place is like playing Russian Roulette with a fully loaded revolver. They named one coulee, Custer creek, it no longer exists. They named another Benteen, it no longer exists. Then they name one Reno, but it isn't the same one referred to long ago. Hell, even Crazy Horse Ravine is mistaken for two places today, so much so that a disconcerted discussion about where it was would soon turn to disconsolate discord and enmity between beliefs. And there is then still that element of this area being the correct one. Hell any of those landforms anywhere else could have been described as a loaf. And as for twin peaks, which one? There's those about a third of a mile almost due west of what is now called Weir Peaks. Personally the twin peaks I really like the most I believe is called Nye Cartwright and East Ridge. Else someone come along to burst my bubble about such matters, name it what you want to, everyone else did at one time or another. The reason I like that area for the twin peaks it makes a hell of a lot more sense than the idiotic area always touted as but never verified as the same. There was fighting there, there is physical evidence for it and not one shell or cartridge case or spent bullet past the usual trapper, fur trader or Indian out hunting his own dog was ever found there at that favored sight so well ingrained as truth and so called, Weir peak today. If it had been that position, because of its attractive state and close proximity to something in line of sight to to Timbuktu and its useful purpose exacerbated by its location, something more would have been found than the butt of someone's jokes or that fur trappers pistol left there when he stopped for his Sunday brunch and marveled at the view.
|
|
|
Post by bc on Sept 4, 2012 23:11:18 GMT -6
Fred, one thing has always bugged me about Weir's signal to Edgerly. Just how far away can you see someone motion for you to turn one way or the other? I personally think Edgerly was too far from Weir to see an arm or hand signal. All you can see is a moving hand/arm and not see enough moving detail to ascertain a direction.
On the other hand, cavalry or anyone out of the plains without radios probably did have some type of universal hand signals. Weir had his orderly with him as well but I don't think the orderly was carrying the flag for use as a signalling device. I never heard of anyone using their carbine with a hat or flag on it to signal either.
I believe Edgerly said he signaled them to turn away from some approaching NAs. That is signalling two intentions; one to turn a certain way and two to avoid some NAs in front of you. I'm not sure how anyone would signal that although Edgerly did see it all after he made his turn.
Just thought I throw this out for discussion since I've always wondered about it. And I don't think he was using it as an excuse not to go forward either. I've been exploring whether or not those cartridges on Luce actually came from Edgerly but I can't put him that far away although it still intrigue's me.
Hello Scott! I just posted this message and saw you were here. Have a good one.
bc
|
|
|
Post by wild on Sept 5, 2012 2:49:34 GMT -6
When Weir rode north, he was not under fire. When Edgerly rode north, neither was he. Nor Benteen, nor Reno in their turn. The command at issue was not under fire. You can always depend on DARK Cloud to render the civilian view, innocent of even an iota of tactical appreaciation. When Benteen arrived at Reno Hill and reported his command to Reno he had arrived within the ambit of enemy operations and the enemy were in the ascendency all initiative having passed to them. To make it blinding simple for his dark eminence;if this situation occured on one of the Colonel's warships the crew would have closed up to battle stations. Thanks to soldier Benteen nothing of the sort was put into effect on Reno hill.Quiet the opposite.Benteen's 2i/c takes off followed by one of Benteen's troops.Then Benteen exacerbates the situation by taking off without orders ;no need to itemise the fragmentation we all know the cringe inducing facks. There were wounded men being carried in blankets at the rear of the column when Willy Freddy was racing to Weir Point;no not Weir Point to God knows where. There was not a single aspect of military organisation in effect on that rout to Weir Point. There was no stated objective. There was no stated destination, There was no uniform pace. There was no dedicated advance or rear guards. There were no flankers. There was no leadership. And all this while advancing towards an enemy which had inflicted a rout on Custer advance guard. Soldier Willy presided over a disgrace.
|
|
|
Post by fred on Sept 5, 2012 5:57:24 GMT -6
I agree to disagree, to a certain extent. The places we've named today didn't exist back then. Jag, not to be argumentative, but I have no idea what you are talking about... so I just give up trying to discuss anything with you. Like Rosebud, we are simply "oil" and "water." As far as I am concerned-- and I sure you all have your followers and believers-- you make little sense, so your levels of knowledge must far exceed my own. Like "keogh" and Clair, next door, I have decided to ignore whatever you post, instead choosing to wallow in my own self-imposed ignorance. Lead on MacBeth! Best wishes, Fred.
|
|
jag
Full Member
Caption: IRAQI PHOTO'S -- (arrow to gun port) LOOK HERE -- SMILE -- WAIT FOR -- FLASH
Posts: 245
|
Post by jag on Sept 5, 2012 6:36:05 GMT -6
I agree to disagree, to a certain extent. The places we've named today didn't exist back then. Jag, not to be argumentative, but I have no idea what you are talking about... so I just give up trying to discuss anything with you. Like Rosebud, we are simply "oil" and "water." As far as I am concerned-- and I sure you all have your followers and believers-- you make little sense, so your levels of knowledge must far exceed my own. Like "keogh" and Clair, next door, I have decided to ignore whatever you post, instead choosing to wallow in my own self-imposed ignorance. Lead on MacBeth! Best wishes, Fred. Fred, I have the deepest respect for you. I thought sure you would send your context police after me, and true to form, rather than agree to disagree, you did by the very nature of your post. Please don't misunderstand me by saying what you said, I know you know better, and others here do as well. It is not the work and effort you have done that I disagree with, it is what it is, and your time and efforts have been and should be well rewarded, lauded, praised or for that matter disagreed with, with all due respect. It is the linear repetitive nature of the history that has been warped into the historical context that I take issue with. Which again, with all due respect, has nothing to do with you or your findings. As stated it is what it is. I contend there is nothing linear about any of it, and it has been taken out of context from the truth, whatever that is, since Custer turned down that left bank after he sent Reno away. Terrain names have changed - fact. So much so that no one knows which terrain they were referring to. We all might as well be talking about that old oak tree that stood not far from some ford by a beaver dam of which there were three that day. Just because I favor two other peaks in close proximity one to another doesn't make it wrong, contextually or otherwise. Just because you favor two other peaks doesn't make it right or wrong either. Historians, writers, so called scholars, along with rank amateurs have for as many years since this battle went about constructing, or as you have said in the past, deconstructing this thing the wrong way. They always start with Custer being somewhere convenient and then try to linear advance to his death. Instead, like any good detective who starts with the evidence that lay upon the ground and then work back towards the beginning, those so listed above keep getting it wrong each and every time. And is why I stated I agree to disagree with you. Not that I'm any more or less right about any of this than you.
|
|
|
Post by Yan Taylor on Sept 5, 2012 6:49:38 GMT -6
Jag, Most Custer Battle maps you come across have these terrain features named in the way we are all familiar with, why try to change things, if you say Reno hill or Weir Peaks, I can look at my map and know exactly what or where you are referring to, so if you start changing names just for the sake of it, we may as well throw all the maps with place names out of the window.
Ian.
|
|
jag
Full Member
Caption: IRAQI PHOTO'S -- (arrow to gun port) LOOK HERE -- SMILE -- WAIT FOR -- FLASH
Posts: 245
|
Post by jag on Sept 5, 2012 7:11:50 GMT -6
Jag, Most Custer Battle maps you come across have these terrain features named in the way we are all familiar with, why try to change things, if you say Reno hill or Weir Peaks, I can look at my map and know exactly what or where you are referring to, so if you start changing names just for the sake of it, we may as well throw all the maps with place names out of the window. Ian. I didn't change a thing. Who named Custer Creek? Who decided to name it something else? Who named Benteen Creek? Who decided to name it something else? Who named Reno Creek? And who decided to name it somewhere else? Who named both Crazy Horse Ravine's? And which one is right today? So don't go blaming me for changing anything other than what might be someone's warped perceptions based upon a fractured historical fairy tale.
|
|
|
Post by fred on Sept 5, 2012 7:22:47 GMT -6
Please don't misunderstand me by saying what you said, I know you know better.... Jag, While I find your post a bit difficult to understand, I will take it in the spirit I seem to detect it to have been meant. I have no idea what you mean when you use the word, "linear," so let me try to explain the approach I have tried to use over the years. First of all, I believe firmly that without understanding the proper time events occurred you cannot understand this event in its entirety. A lack of understanding of that timing distorts and can falsely color our opinions of people. You are always going to have the intellectual fools who will cling to their heroes, but those people are soon proven to exactly what they are. In addition to timing, I have always put an inordinate amount of reliance on what participants had to say, excluding only the most outrageous or only the situations we cannot explain and fall outside of a proper context. Context is another important issue. For example, I had an e-mail discussion with a senior member of the CBHMA who insisted all of Reno's horses were sequestered in the timber. He cited example after example of participants claiming thus. Yet every single one of those citations fell outside the context of the situation... in other words, they pertained to what happened just prior or just after the particulars we were discussing. When I continually called his attention to this, he wrote that he would have to review it and get back to me. I believe that was in April, and I haven't heard from him since. I realize my position in that matter is probably the lone exception to a universal belief, but there are too many comments to let it drop and when one puts the entire valley fight into a "context," those comments cannot be ignored. A lot of other things fall into that same category and that makes much of what I say and believe contrary to generally accepted norms. I can give you a dozen examples... maybe more. The bottom line then, is I pay extremely close attention to what participants had to say-- and that includes the Indians. And I do not give up until I can put those statements into a proper contextual setting... or else eliminate them entirely as being useless. The C Company charge versus the E Company charge is a very good example. And as I said, there are a dozen or more others. I place no stock in "place names," but prefer to go by distance estimates and relative terms rather than definitive. I also believe Theodore Goldin when he claimed the officers had no clue what time various events occurred... therefore "relative" over "definitive." I also believe majority and discount the "agenda" business as being no more than an excuse to insert theory over context rather than the other way around, as some would like. We'll see, Jag. I am delighted to see your participation in this rock drill. And I hope I haven't discouraged others from participating. I'll back away from that and address only other issues. And I appreciate your solicitude. Best wishes, Fred.
|
|
|
Post by Yan Taylor on Sept 5, 2012 7:48:09 GMT -6
Jag, I don’t care who gave Custer creek its name, all I am saying is that the names and places of various topographical features should be used as reference points, so that people like me can find what people like you are talking about when you name such a place in one of your posts, simple as that.
Ian.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Sept 5, 2012 8:17:46 GMT -6
This is going to sound like way off topic bible thumping, but I ask your patience for a moment for it speaks to context.
Mary Magdalene, a follower of Christ was long thought to be a prostitute by biblical scholars. Pope Gregory declared her so in the sixth century, Magdalene Houses have been established by Christian groups all over the planet to save women from the evils of prostitution. July 22, her feast day is my favorite for obvious reasons. This all comes about by the biblical passage of Jesus dealing with a woman who was a prostitute in the paragraph immediately before Mary Magdelene was first introduced. Therefore,thought the scholars and the Pope, the prostitute must be Mary Magdalene. This went on for centuries.
It was all nonsense and later scholarship has seperated the two to the point where the Roman Catholic Church, that most conservative of institutions, even relents and says no, they were wrong, the Pope was wrong, the church scholars were wrong, and the prostitute of the previous paragraph was indeed another woman.
Now I will tell you frankly I liked the old story, because it was a story of redemption, where even the worst among us can be healed, BUT, it was a false path, a story of no basis, and in accepting the prostitute, we missed the real purpose of Magdelene's presence, whatever that may be.
Now we are not dealing here with saints and sinners only soldiers (on both sides) but Fred's near constant reference to context and flow is just as important here as it was for the biblical scholar. Get it out of context and you are heading up the wrong trail. Remove it from the general flow and you branch off from that trail into the underbrush of the unknown and unknowable.
If you disagree with Fred, myself, or anyone else that's OK, but please let's all of us keep in mind that it is context and flow that must bind these events together in our time just as it did in their's.
|
|
|
Post by Yan Taylor on Sept 5, 2012 8:46:47 GMT -6
Richard, I think that the fact Capt. Weir left first (and his Company D followed shortly after) without orders may make it look disorganised, Maj. Reno then sent Lt. Hare to find Col. Custer, Capt. Benteen followed with Companies H, K and M about 20 minutes later. But I agree with you over wounded men being carried in blankets, it must have been hell for them.
I know I have strayed off topic Chuck, I have to apologise to you all for being a bit annoying at the moment, two weeks ago I went for my yearly dental check-up, the dentist cleaned and polished my peggies and fixed a filling, and between you and me it don’t come cheap, yesterday I broke a filling eating a grape, so much for healthy eating, so in future I will stick to grape juice, the Californian type that is around 12 per cent proof.
Ian.
|
|
jag
Full Member
Caption: IRAQI PHOTO'S -- (arrow to gun port) LOOK HERE -- SMILE -- WAIT FOR -- FLASH
Posts: 245
|
Post by jag on Sept 5, 2012 9:04:30 GMT -6
This is going to sound like way off topic bible thumping, but I ask your patience for a moment for it speaks to context. Mary Magdalene, a follower of Christ was long thought to be a prostitute by biblical scholars. Pope Gregory declared her so in the sixth century, Magdalene Houses have been established by Christian groups all over the planet to save women from the evils of prostitution. July 22, her feast day is my favorite for obvious reasons. This all comes about by the biblical passage of Jesus dealing with a woman who was a prostitute in the paragraph immediately before Mary Magdelene was first introduced. Therefore,thought the scholars and the Pope, the prostitute must be Mary Magdalene. This went on for centuries. It was all nonsense and later scholarship has seperated the two to the point where the Roman Catholic Church, that most conservative of institutions, even relents and says no, they were wrong, the Pope was wrong, the church scholars were wrong, and the prostitute of the previous paragraph was indeed another woman. Now I will tell you frankly I liked the old story, because it was a story of redemption, where even the worst among us can be healed, BUT, it was a false path, a story of no basis, and in accepting the prostitute, we missed the real purpose of Magdelene's presence, whatever that may be. Now we are not dealing here with saints and sinners only soldiers (on both sides) but Fred's near constant reference to context and flow is just as important here as it was for the biblical scholar. Get it out of context and you are heading up the wrong trail. Remove it from the general flow and you branch off from that trail into the underbrush of the unknown and unknowable. If you disagree with Fred, myself, or anyone else that's OK, but please let's all of us keep in mind that it is context and flow that must bind these events together in our time just as it did in their's. Q, and a merry St. Dasius day to you to.
|
|