|
Post by Dark Cloud on Sept 19, 2014 10:05:49 GMT -6
The Cross-dresser term is not mine but appended to the Sioux and Cheyenne who wore uniform by a late member of this board. Not my choice, but it works and people remember.
They are first noted by Edgerly or someone with Weir at the furthest advance north. A glance through the glasses suggested otherwise. Depending on your view that could mean at the end of Custer's fight or after it.
But they rode into the Cheyenne camp in uniform with guidon in formation and scared the living hell out of the women there. Kate Bighead said this was during the battle. Women ran. The Cheyenne camp was furthest north, in the area closest to the ford D's hypothetical existence, at least for actual soldiers. In reality the Indians crossed there and returned there, and it's a safe bet some saw the soldiers and were never corrected in their assumptions. That's where the artifacts came from. It's like they were the ones Gall is said to have seen in the cemetery firing at LSH.ds
That night, those on Reno Hill periodically saw Indians in uniform with guidons and they heard bugles.
Next day, Terry's guys were momentarily confused by the cd's.
They existed, and you can't pretend they didn't just because it screws up a new scenario. At distance and without binoculars and time to stare, they could be very convincing riding in formation.
(I removed the bit about Scotland, thinking I'd read it on this thread and put it where it belonged. Sorry.)
|
|
|
Post by Colt45 on Sept 19, 2014 10:25:21 GMT -6
Ian, I think your description is more like Hollywood than reality. Custer was very careful in the ACW to get as much intelligence about terrain and enemy as possible before attacking, so even though he did a poor job of recon at LBH, his move toward ford B was more of a recon than an assault, so I doubt very seriously if he would have launched an attack with the troops in a column of fours or twos if he decided that ford B was the place to launch his assault on the village.
|
|
|
Post by Mulligan on Sept 19, 2014 10:55:21 GMT -6
AZ, You are very thoughtful with regards to military thinking while on horseback. I have never found myself in such predicaments as might befall the average cavalryman, thankfully. If I ever was, hope you'd be along side. My thought: what is missing from the Custer equation is a visceral sense of urgency. There is endless discussion here of how Custer deployed this battalion, or that company, or sallied here or there on his way down towards the Big Village. Maybe he waved his hat, maybe he didn't. I'm just a civilian, and I know little about the climate of battle, but the fact of the matter is a lot of brutal killing was about to occur on a mass scale. Men and animals were at their limit. The weather was very hot. It's my guess that not a lot of refined movement was even possible at that point. And I agree that we are conditioned to perceive any "action" scenario as being very "Hollywood". But do you really play a chess game with two thousand bloodthirsty warriors or do you try to punch them where it hurts, really quick, before they know what hit them? That said -- and I live in Hollywood, btw -- the reality seems to be that Custer approached the village with extreme caution. See following. ~~~ DC, What I'm THINKing is that this thread is about what Custer saw, or may have seen -- and how that may have influenced his actions -- rather than what he may have done, or not done, or what happened, based solely on strategic or tactical considerations. But since you brought it up: Here's a Google Earth map showing the closest position to the river that "Custer" -- meaning cavalry soldiers -- attained, according to Gall, Iron Hawk, and Feather Earring, who were at the north end of the Big Village. It is true the NAs didn't use the place names "Nye-Cartwright" or "Luce" but they did speak of the cavalry approaching over the "eastern ridges" and not getting closer than several hundred yards. The position indicated is 800 yards from LBH. I am referencing NA accounts from Greg Michno's Lakota Noon and Thomas Power's The Killing of Crazy Horse specifically, but I believe many of these stories go back to Walter Camp and earlier researchers. I know you'll correct me if I'm wrong. In Gall's account two cavalrymen approached this exposed ridge position very, very slowly. Then the main column was brought up behind them, also slowly. The two men were perhaps advance scouts of some sort, maybe Bouyer and a guidon bearer, and the cavalry column may have only been a small detachment. It is unclear how much cavalry was involved, or who they were, but Gall says the group observed the valley for a short time. Then they quickly turned to the northeast and rode off. This sudden movement precipitated the larger battle, as the soldiers were then pursued by all the assembled warriors who had forded the river from the village and had gathered on the eastern banks, in the drainage of MTC. The NAs sprinted after the bluecoats, up Deep Coulee, and the fight was on. I have been of two minds for awhile on the Ford B issue, but I'm beginning to gravitate toward this version. This wary cavalry unit was obviously exploring Ford B but -- in these NA accounts -- they never came down off the ridge to test it. Becoming aware of the huge numbers of hostiles rapidly swarming over the bluffs to the southwest (outflanking them, in effect) and similar hordes crossing over from the river bottom just below, it appears the decision was made to vacate the vicinity, pronto. This had to be when the Luce Ridge and Nye-Cartwright skirmishing occurred -- to cover the cavalry's retrograde movement over the ridge top, towards Calhoun Hill. I think Custer, wherever he was, could see the air was now beginning to fill with dust and smoke. It would be interesting to know if this group was the first cavalry to reach Calhoun Hill, or if other companies were already there, or if a larger contingent had passed through a few minutes before. I understand Fred's gonna clear all that up for us. Mulligan
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on Sept 19, 2014 11:14:34 GMT -6
You agree Indians do not use geographic terms used by the whites/Army/historians at a much later date (say after Nye and Cartwright were born or adult), but you think they thought in 'yards' and could give distances in yards? Especially as Gall apparently talked in sign to Godfrey and Marquis.
Like so many, you're trying to nail down one specific "fact" upon which to calibrate and address everything. It really can't be done at the LBH.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Sept 19, 2014 11:29:50 GMT -6
This ground has been covered so much that it is worn out. You ATTACK in column twos, fours, whatever. You ASSAULT in line. Don't mix the two. An attack is a forward movement for offensive purposes. An assault is the culmination of the forward movement, where the line is used to place maximum firepower forward toward the objective. Attack becomes assault at the line of deployment where the column formation deploys into line.
Is this universally true. No it is not, just 98% of the time. The one notable exception that comes to mind is the 2003 entry into Baghdad by a brigade of the 3rd ID. They remained in column until reaching their assigned battalion objectives. If the Iraqis had their sheets together it would have become one long strung out American grave yard. It worked, but only against Iraqis and Brownies.
Now specifically addressing DC. Cross dressers is not your own. Custer being wounded is not your own. Just what do you claim that is exclusively your own? Parroting and thinking are two far different things.
Now, please dismiss from your mind, now and forever more that I subscribe to artifacts at Ford D (and there is such a place despite your protestations to the contrary) being anything but the droppings and leavings of trophy hunters, battlefield scavengers. In all probability that is exactly what they were, as I have never seen anything conclusive indicating an engagement there. I don't believe Custer ever went there (others differ) for the simple reason that he did not have to. Now that is far different than attributing all artifacts in that far northern portion of the battlefield, specifically the bottom of Cemetery Ravine and on Cemetery Ridge. You dismiss the evidence that exists for this as more cross dressing scavengers. That is where mutual exclusivity comes in. You either prove what you say - No soldiers there, only cross dressers - or drop this nonsense of only one possible answer.
PS: And where is it written that Kate Big Head, Princess Summer Fall Winter Spring, or Pocahontas, any of them would know soldiers in formation from a cocktail party? Does that not seem just a bit of literary stretch to you?
|
|
|
Post by Yan Taylor on Sept 19, 2014 12:16:35 GMT -6
I agree Colt, it is like Hollywood, the only way Custer would do such a move would the fact he was fighting against Indians, which in his mind meant that they would probably run and not a trained army like the confederates, it is my belief that this was a thought out move, with Keogh going right to the ridge line and E Company moving to the ford, F Company may have been just behind them on the higher ground with the RHQ.
Chuck, I think the British 22nd Armoured did a similar thing at Villers-Bocage, but they did face a seasoned campaigner in Wittmann and paid the price.
Ian.
|
|
|
Post by Mulligan on Sept 19, 2014 12:34:51 GMT -6
When asked, the NAs gave their estimate of distances for cavalry proximity, as well as for village size, warrior strength, time increments, etc. Maybe it was by sign. This did not always correlate to the white man's measure -- duh! -- but we accepted it, and now we're supposed to filter it and interpret it. The cavalry came down the eastern ridge. They stopped, they turned, they fled. They never got much closer to the river than where we massacred them. So say us, the victors. What part of this picture isn't understood? ~~~ The Custer movie may have been playing here for some time, fellas, but it's my first time in the theatre. I've paid my 25 cents and I'd sort of like to enjoy the show. Wiseguys in the balcony throwing the gummy bears, are you listening? Mulligan
|
|
|
Post by Yan Taylor on Sept 19, 2014 12:48:29 GMT -6
Milligan, that's why I brought it up again.
Fred did a great piece a while ago, were he posted all the (so called) Indian accounts stating the soldiers move to the river, and it is worth searching for.
Ian.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Sept 19, 2014 14:06:43 GMT -6
Mulligan: There was once a person on this board, now departed, save the occasional appearance, that could not understand the difference between an attack and an assault. To him they were both the same, and his mantra was always - why would anyone attack with only two companies. To him everything under the sun was attack, save defense. The answer of course is that he would not attack with ONLY two companies, SO there must be another reason for both the movement to B and the movement northward.
This same person insisted that when cavalry dismount they become infantry. You could never get it through to him that this is not true, They are still cavalry, only cavalry that for tactical purposes have dismounted. Cavalry is a function, with a clearly defined mission set. Dismounting is part of that mission set. In fact, a through reading of American cavalry history will reveal that from 1832 to the present day, cavalry spends far more time on foot in pursuit of their mission requirements then they ever do mounted.
So instead of throwing gummy bears from the cheap seats, I will suggest to you that you read, both these bygone threads, and make selections from the multitude of written material on what cavalry is, before you again feel put upon. If we were talking about automobiles I would then expect you to first consult the owners manual.
What you are trying to do here is attempting to understand the exceptions and deviations from the norm, without first understanding what the norm is. It will take off board work on your part if you truly wish to understand, It will not be found in the Custer or LBH texts. It must be found in doctrine and tactics. Understanding them will give you the insights you seek, if indeed you seek them. LBH and Custer texts are story books. Doctrine and tactics, organization and structure, are those things hidden behind the curtain of the story, but upon which and understanding of the story depends. I would not start with Sun Tzu or Clausewitz. Those are doctorial, when what you need is Dick and Jane went up the hill to see Spot run. Not demeaning, just pointing to the fact that you require the basics.
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on Sept 19, 2014 15:02:30 GMT -6
Mulligan,
"When asked, the NAs gave their estimate of distances for cavalry proximity, as well as for village size, warrior strength, time increments, etc." You cannot say that, since it's at least third hand and the NA at issue did not speak English, and the minimal two units between him and us do not speak Sioux or Cheyenne. "Sign" is nowhere near as precise as people assume and requires artistic interpretation. Which of them applied a distance in yards to the tale? What other assumptions were made? Further, does anyone believe that a culture with no writing had words for 500 or 345 or any of that? What possible need did they have for such precision? In the one attempt made to count the army dead the Indians were way, way off, but I don't know if this was a late tale or early on.
"Maybe it was by sign." No maybe, Marquis could only communicate with them by sign.
"This did not always correlate to the white man's measure -- duh! -- but we accepted it, and now we're supposed to filter it and interpret it." For what is your word "this" standing? What units of measure did Indians have? Nonetheless we're to take as fact a distance numerically precise from a people who didn't count that high by a unit of measure they didn't have or use? "Duh?"
"The cavalry came down the eastern ridge. They stopped, they turned, they fled. They never got much closer to the river than where we massacred them. So say us, the victors." Rather, 'a portion of the victors saw some soldiers on horse descend a ridge 'east' of the river. They stopped, turned, and fled. They never got much closer to the river than where we massacred them." Great, what about the other portions of soldiers?
"What part of this picture isn't understood?" None, but is it correct? Is it what the Indians said or the translators' biased interpretation of what they said? And there is no "us" but one "me" who may or may have seen what he is telling but what he was told. It's not like with the whites who could exchange info in writing. The Indians left the battle with their own tales and later, over the years, heard other's variations. They'd try to meld the tales together, like people everywhere.
|
|
|
Post by Mulligan on Sept 20, 2014 3:03:37 GMT -6
The second film of the LBHA Theatre double feature will be Akira Kurosawa's Rashomon. The idea of contradicting interpretations of an event has been around for a long time and has been formalized by author Valeri Alia as the "Rashomon Effect", which she explores in Media, Ethics, and Social Change (Routledge 2004) and Deadlines and Diversity: Journalism Ethics in a Changing World (Fernwood 1996). Karl G. Heider uses the term in his ethnography books to refer to the subjectivity of perception on recollection, by which observers of an event are able to produce substantially different but equally plausible accounts of it. Recall the Hindu parable of the blind men and the elephant. Each man touches a different part of the elephant to learn what it is like. They then compare notes and find that they are in complete disagreement. In some versions of the story the blind men stop arguing and collaborate to "see" the full elephant. When a sighted man walks by and sees the entire elephant all at once, they also learn they are blind. While one's subjective experience may be true, it is not the totality of truth. ~~~ What is clear is that the study of the Custer battle has become mired in the subjectivity of truth and the uncertainty of factual accuracy. There can be no factual truth of LBH because the mystery has come down to us as a collection of multiple contradictory realities, and the meaning of Custer's defeat -- and of Kurosawa's film -- is accessible only through allegorical interpretation and symbolism. ~~~ "This is the West, sir. When the legend becomes fact, print the legend." -- from John Ford's The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance ~~~ Mulligan Enlists in Quincannon's "Custer Basics" Mulligan
|
|
|
Post by tubman13 on Sept 20, 2014 3:14:17 GMT -6
Up late or still doing homework?
|
|
|
Post by Mulligan on Sept 20, 2014 3:43:43 GMT -6
Hello Tubman,
3:00am. This is late? I haven't studied this hard since I tested at International Court of Sommeliers in 2006 for advanced Sommelier certification.
1) I have achieved recent minor milestone with first online victory recorded in Napoleon: Total War, winning difference being my effective use of cavalry forces.
2) Expecting Michael Donahue's Drawing Battle Lines: Map Testimony of Custer's Last Fight to arrive in mail soon.
Mulligan
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Sept 20, 2014 5:31:06 GMT -6
And I have not been up this early since Baron von Steuben hauled my dead butt out of bed at Valley Forge, or was it Morristown, and said listen lad, I was a wee slip of a thing in those days, - " Remember that armies only do two things, engage in fire and maneuver, or prepare to engage in fire and maneuver. That's all. Remember it. Everything else is puff and fluff."
|
|
|
Post by AZ Ranger on Sept 20, 2014 7:48:19 GMT -6
I am still open on the ford Ds. Scott and Donahue did a presentation of maps, old photos and artifacts. Take a look at Benteen's map of the battlefield and you can see where he put dead bodies on the north side of the cemetery area. Donahue has a photo of Kellogg's marker when the had the opening of the current entrance. The photographer was apparently associated with the Girl Scouts in the parade and took the picture from a height above the road consistent with standing on a school bus.
Kellogg's marker location is on private property and the marker itself is no longer there.
Regards
AZ Ranger
|
|