davewilma
New Member
I recommend a full size topo map of the battlefield to aid study.
Posts: 6
|
Post by davewilma on Nov 24, 2015 12:54:32 GMT -6
Has anyone addressed the impact of imperfect understanding of geography of the campaign area and the battle areas? I would think that maps available to Custer on 24 June 1876 would have been less than accurate. He certainly had a basic understanding of the valleys of the LBH and the Rosebud etc. and the divides between. On a tactical level a commander simply read the ground and proceeded as best as he could. Did any mapping errors contribute to decisions and events? Did Custer, Reno or Benteen have maps? Did they need maps?
|
|
|
|
Post by benteen on Nov 24, 2015 13:10:29 GMT -6
Has anyone addressed the impact of imperfect understanding of geography of the campaign area and the battle areas? I would think that maps available to Custer on 24 June 1876 would have been less than accurate. He certainly had a basic understanding of the valleys of the LBH and the Rosebud etc. and the divides between. On a tactical level a commander simply read the ground and proceeded as best as he could. Did any mapping errors contribute to decisions and events? Did Custer, Reno or Benteen have maps? Did they need maps? Davewilma, First welcome aboard. There is a thread "Why Cedar Coulee" which has some posts on the terrain, and what Custer knew of it. Perhaps it can answer some of your questions. Be Well Dan |
|
|
|
Post by fred on Nov 24, 2015 13:51:26 GMT -6
Has anyone addressed the impact of imperfect understanding of geography of the campaign area and the battle areas? I would think that maps available to Custer on 24 June 1876 would have been less than accurate. He certainly had a basic understanding of the valleys of the LBH and the Rosebud etc. and the divides between. On a tactical level a commander simply read the ground and proceeded as best as he could. Did any mapping errors contribute to decisions and events? Did Custer, Reno or Benteen have maps? Did they need maps? First of all, let me welcome you to these boards. It is nice to "see" a new face and I hope you contribute with both questions and answers. To give you an idea of the maps, Terry’s maps were based on the mapping of an expedition led by CPT William Franklin Raynolds and LT Henry Maynadier in 1859 – 1860. Wherever the expedition went, the map was platted with fair accuracy, but where they could not survey, they guessed, adding dotted lines as conjecture. The guesses were inaccurate and misleading. Rosebud Creek on Terry’s map was only accurate for twenty miles up; the remainder platted was a probable course. “Reno’s column had followed the Indians’ broad trail about twenty miles further up the valley and the stream had veered to the southwest. Since the trail of the hostiles was following the stream—and the extension of dots on the map angled upon a line almost due west, the direction appeared to suggest that the Indians were headed either toward upper Tullock’s Creek, or, across the Little Chetish or Wolf Mountains to the upper valley of the Little Big Horn River” [Willert, Little Big Horn Diary, p. 189]. Terry used what is referred to as the “Hancock Map,” taken from the field surveys of Raynolds and Maynadier and approved by the army cartographers under MG W. S. Hancock’s name, and issued in 1872. The Hancock Map is a “skeleton” map, showing only water-courses and it is devoid of any topographical features. “There is no attempt to record contours, ridges, mountain ranges, or even rough shading to reveal their approximate locations” [Darling, A Sad and Terrible Blunder, p. 32]. Mountain ranges are noted, but only by name, not by feature. CPT Hughes claimed Terry used only the Hancock Map, but there was another map approved some time in 1876—exact date unknown. This was the Gillespie Map, titled “Yellowstone and Missouri Rivers.” It was prepared by Major G. I. Gillepsie, Chief Engineer of the Military Division of the Missouri. If the map had been published early enough in 1876, Terry would have possessed it for the campaign. When Maynadier explored the region up Tullock’s Creek from the mouth of the Big Horn, he platted a creek whose source was unknown, then inserted dots connecting this creek with the lower course of the Rosebud. “There was no certainty that this linkage was valid” [Willert, p. 189]. The Raynolds (actually F. V. Hayden) map can be seen at the David Rumsey Map. As for knowing the terrain, Mitch Boyer knew the country fairly well and George Herendeen had accompanied CPT Edward Ball when he left for his scout of the region on April 24, so Herendeen was also fairly knowledgable. The terrain was rugged in certain areas, but Custer would have known this and could see some of the difficulties of travel from some of the heights he sat on. To me, the terrain was a factor affecting a dismounted command more than it was a mounted cavalry unit. As best I know, neither Benteen nor Reno had maps and if they did, they were no different than what Terry and/or Custer had. I have the Terry map and believe me, it is worthless in navigating terrain. It gives you only general locations, i. e., it shows the Tongue as next river over from the Powder, and not much else. The colors are nice.... Best wishes, Fred. |
|
|
|
Post by wild on Nov 24, 2015 14:36:55 GMT -6
Davewilma
The key to the usability of the maps would be the scale at which they were surveyed .
At that time accurate maps of a scale of 6 inches to the mile were possible but so labour intensive as not to be feasable .
If Fred's early surveyors succeeded at producing a map of 1 inch to the mile they were doing well .
For tactical purposes a 6 inch contour map is a must.
Cheers
|
|
|
|
Post by herosrest on Nov 24, 2015 16:50:21 GMT -6
DucemusThis www.mtmemory.org/cdm/ref/collection/p15018coll5/id/22was the map in use, updated by Gillespie in 1876 and rushed to Sheridan and the expeditions for use. lbha.proboards.com/post/108712/threadFred is pretty much on the money with expert opinion. A further English speaking scout was Tom LaForge with Terry. He managed an unplanned dismount and spent the entire period until the expedition returned to Fort Pease, in an ambulance with broken collarbone. This came to light from Pauldings letters. Thus an interpreter scout was denied to Terry, as he handed Boyer and Herendeen to Custer. Muggins Taylor was the other scout/guide with Terry. Language with the Crow's may have been a problem and the other interpreter was Bravo. The Infantry had a very rough time of it on marches of the 24th through 26th, and had expected to march down Tulloch's Creek according to Bradley, I think. Still..... what did he know.
|
|
|
|
Post by fred on Nov 24, 2015 19:54:18 GMT -6
A further English speaking scout was Tom LaForge with Terry. Thomas LeForgé was with Gibbon, not Terry. Best wishes, Fred. |
|
|
|
Post by fred on Nov 25, 2015 10:38:38 GMT -6
The key to the usability of the maps would be the scale at which they were surveyed.... If Fred's early surveyors succeeded at producing a map of 1 inch to the mile they were doing well . For tactical purposes a 6 inch contour map is a must. Wild, I am not sure we ever measured our maps in "inches," per se. The scale I used, both in Europe and in combat, was a 1:50,000. We had some 1:25,000s (which were really sweet!!!), but they were too unwieldy. Quite frankly, I put together the best maps in the battalion: the way I assembled them. My boss (company commander), George Joulwan, liked them so much he asked me to assemble a set for him. It didn't stop there. When the battalion CO saw Joulwan's he wanted a set just like that. So-o-o-o.... I do not, however, know how 1:50,000s equate to your maps in inches. The USGS topos of the LBH are 1:24,000s and on the top of the map is printed "7.5 minute series (topographic)." Has that something to do with longitude and latitude? Best wishes, Fred. |
|
|
|
Post by Beth on Nov 25, 2015 16:03:19 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by wild on Nov 25, 2015 16:55:53 GMT -6
Hi Fred
I am not sure we ever measured our maps in "inches," per se. The scale I used, both in Europe and in combat, was a 1:50,000. We had some 1:25,000s (which were really sweet!!!), but they were too unwieldy
Our maps of that period were scaled in inches with a 6inch map equating to 1:10000 and yes sweet but unweildy . That scale would show you everything you needed to know but what does cavalry need to know other than where the fences are.
Cheers
Richard
|
|
|
|
Post by fred on Nov 25, 2015 17:00:50 GMT -6
That scale would show you everything you needed to know.... Boy, I'll say!!! Even a peek in the bedroom window!!! Best wishes, Fred. |
|
