|
Post by wild on Feb 24, 2013 10:52:36 GMT -6
That is brilliant.One picture is worth a thousand words. Great piece of work.
Isandalwana is often compared to the LBH. But at Isandalwana the massacre came after a defensive situation was overcome.There was a process through which the battle progressed.The British deploying,fire fight [outgoing],brilliant fought horse rearguard,troops initally holding their own with artillery support.Pressure coming on.Defensive lines overcome.Troops forming square with cohesion to the end. This was not what happened at the LBH. The LBH started with a collaspe and degenerated into a massacre. That photograph says it all.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 24, 2013 13:01:37 GMT -6
Wild, my opinion is that it's an image pretty much useless to the sudy of the LBH unless you have a preconceived notion. The markers are the best we have and flawed.
The line of figures to the right represent stakes from WCF photos. Accurate? Perhaps.
Other than that, I invite the forum to suggest changes. This was your idea and I kinda like it. Best, c.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Feb 24, 2013 13:19:16 GMT -6
Chris: I don't know how it could be done any differently. That would be for DC, who has throughly studied the period photos. One thing that I would suggest though and I don't know how that could be done either, is somehow portray these people figures as kneeling or prone, rather than standing. That by necesity would spread the figures out, much more than the markers present today depict them. I would suspect also that no one during the battle would be standing on the skyline either.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 24, 2013 13:42:22 GMT -6
Colonel, The image was a spur of the moment thing. Another "what if" if you will. I can do a kneeling and prone scene but I'd be at a loss for what direction(s) to position them and it would be quite time comsuming. Not that I'm so busy!
The skyline was a representation of where the men died not that they were standing up, based on historical accounts. I took the easy way! Best, c.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 24, 2013 14:04:11 GMT -6
Colonel, I neglected to include dead horses. Godfrey said 42 bodies and 39 horses... correct?
How in the hell can we exclude them? And where are they? Get my drift?
Best, c.
PS We're moving closer to creating another Budweiser print (insert chuckle moronic icon here) c.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Feb 24, 2013 14:16:10 GMT -6
Chris: Don't bother for me. It was just an observation. I have no doubt that near the very end of the fight that men bunched up, which is a natural instinct in the presence of danger. I would think those on the stern of the Titanic were quite close together in those final few moments as she was about to go down.
My guess, and it is only that is that the markers put up at the time, thus most of the present markers are a result of several men digging shallow graves in one area, and another detail out trying to identify the bodies, or making the attempt anyway and then moving them a short distance to a pre-dug grave. With but few tools available for grave digging that seems to make the most sense but who knows. There were also supposed to be dead horses in that area in some orderly arrangement to be used as breastworks. That has been questioned, but if so you don't shoot a horse only to stand behind it. That too would add something to the expanse of the area.
My conclusion about this is that it's a somewhat fictionalized representation, and for some worthy purposes, but none of those purposes was an attempt to deceive or gild the lily.
|
|
|
Post by wild on Feb 24, 2013 14:36:55 GMT -6
Hi Chris I would be influenced by Benteen's description of the aftermath as a rout. So taking his description I would say and it seem to be generally agreed that there was no distinguable defence formation on the hill. Archaeology has found human remains in and around the markers. I have heard of no other concentration of human remains other that where the markers are. So I'm not concerned with where individual troopers fell only the area. That gives us a rout with the soldiers grouped where the marker are. Your figures give a better human representation of the hopelessness of the situation. This is very much his Dark Eminence's terrain but a similar representation of the other positions, subtracting a % of markers to allow for the spurious ones would starkly illustrate the total collaspe and near walk over presented to the Indians.
I have no doubt that near the very end of the fight that men bunched up, . Seems like they all thought the end was nigh from the begining.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 24, 2013 14:38:43 GMT -6
Thanks Colonel. Your observations are well respected by me. Best, c.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 24, 2013 14:42:43 GMT -6
"I have heard of no other concentration of human remains other that where the markers are.
Wild, Have you not read of the trench surrounding the granite monument? c.
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on Feb 24, 2013 15:01:26 GMT -6
Bear in mind that what was called 'the Hill' before the fence most likely occupied more acreage in memory. For example Boston and Reed are supposedly on the Hill but hundreds of yards down towards the river in some accounts. Still think that it wasn't as bunched up as the markers denote, because with the horses that'd be a repellant pile in such close quarters. Suspect when people say 'on the Hill' they have in mind at least twice as much ground as we currently are to visualize it. I expect the trail was longer than currently expressed in graphic form, but who'd know? Running up from Deep Ravine or down to it, expect there'd be more continuity in a line of dead.
Custer's horse, in one telling, was on its way up when shot with legs extended. Someone cut off the hooves for ink wells, I recall.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Feb 24, 2013 15:02:37 GMT -6
Chris: Everything is speculation. My observations are only based upon the idea that what soldiers do is not very different through the ages. They would try to do a nasty detail as quickly and efficiently as possible, and get it over with, I would think.
I would think DC's observation has merit as well. Godfrey was a very meticulous man. On the hill is what he said. The bodies depicted are in fact just below the knoll on a ridge. The hill could very well mean an area encompassing four or five acres and still be well within the definition of hill. Just my opinion but I believe Godfrey would have been much more precise in his discription if what we see today was what was seen then. He would have recognized that if what we see today is accurate, then it would have more meaning. Again speculation, but the reason I mentioned it is that I believe it to be inconsistent with the remainder of his work in terms of writting style.
|
|
|
Post by wild on Feb 24, 2013 15:45:35 GMT -6
Hi Chris Wild, Have you not read of the trench surrounding the granite monument? My understanding is that the fallen were reburied under or near the monument? What I ment was that archaeology discovered small particles of bone at a representative selection of markers. Do the markers represent the area where the fallen were found?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 24, 2013 16:11:39 GMT -6
"My understanding is that the fallen were reburied under or near the monument?"
Mine too, probably not under but certainly in the trench surrounding the monument.
"What I ment was that archaeology discovered small particles of bone at a representative selection of markers."
Agree
"Do the markers represent the area where the fallen were found?"
The markers state "fell here." It's difficult to say that someone was found when digs show evidence no one was found. The paired markers show this (and another showing bedrock was too high at the surface to preclude anyone being buried). Such is the LBH! Best, c.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Feb 24, 2013 16:52:38 GMT -6
Chris: Assuming that the inscription - A US Soldier Fell Somewhere In This Vacinity - Maybe, was much to complicated to place on the individual markers - Fell Here seems appropriate.
Tell you the truth though I don't think it much matters. We know, without question, that many of the markers were not placed in the "exact" location where a body was found. We also know that there are more markers than dead soldiers. We also know that where some of the action took place, for instance in the valley and on the Reno site there are few markers and the number does not reflect the casualties in those areas. We also know that the often repeated statement, that this is the only battlefield in North America where each fallen soldier is marked at the place he fell is just not true. And the last thing we know is that taking the location of these markers at face value will lead one down many a false trail in trying to determine what happened.
I think when you look at this field in whole rather than in part the markers tell the story that was intended to be told.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 24, 2013 17:08:29 GMT -6
Colonel, realizing it's a waste of bandwidth and time. let's do a "What If." If you will.
Suppose the 7th (and Terry) hussled off and left the battlefield rapidly, concerned about wounded and a large force of warriors returning. No burials, nothing. They simply left.
In short, what if there were no markers?
Best, c.
|
|