|
Post by wild on Aug 14, 2022 13:24:29 GMT -6
Hi Ian A quick reply to yours
I once asked our old mutual friend Col Quinncannon to formulate the orders given to detached units by Custer. He was unable.
Best
|
|
|
Post by Yan Taylor on Aug 15, 2022 3:10:50 GMT -6
Our old mutual friend Col Quinncannon Indeed
|
|
|
Post by mac on Aug 15, 2022 20:11:19 GMT -6
Noggy By all means check out White Bull and if you feel it relevant quote some of his account. I like to discuss evidence. Cheers
|
|
|
Post by sirfrancis on Aug 16, 2022 7:18:27 GMT -6
Hi guys, be gentle I'm a babe in the woods...Ive been trying to get across some of your excellent research theories, but must admit my head is spinning. Just trying to clarify these theories I've read from the forum -soldiers were definitely at Ford b -no evidence of soldiers at Ford b -red hawk says soldiers didn't get within half mile of Ford b, -white cow bull says soldiers shot at Ford b -no soldier from Custer/keogh group got wet - several soldiers were killed in river from Custer/keogh group So completely contradictory claims some NA some from other sources.... my brain hurts.... need some TLC....Francis
|
|
|
Post by Yan Taylor on Aug 16, 2022 8:44:20 GMT -6
Best way to look at it Francis, is that the Cheyenne where there to stop the soldiers crossing the river, so some of their accounts say that soldiers reached the river.
The sioux where mainly fighting Reno so missed this action. The sioux who made it back in time, probably saw soldiers moving back south so they fought against Calhoun, Harrington and Keogh plus later others of course, none of which tried to go to the river.
There was a tale of four Indians stopping the whole river crossing at ford b, I can't remember who at the moment but Mac knows who they are and we shot holes in this story.
Ian
|
|
|
Post by noggy on Aug 16, 2022 13:46:33 GMT -6
Noggy By all means check out White Bull and if you feel it relevant quote some of his account. I like to discuss evidence. Cheers I don't consider these as "evidence" per say, but I'll look over it to see if it is of interest as far as this goes. Noggy
|
|
|
Post by noggy on Aug 16, 2022 14:00:55 GMT -6
Hi guys, be gentle I'm a babe in the woods...Ive been trying to get across some of your excellent research theories, but must admit my head is spinning. Just trying to clarify these theories I've read from the forum -soldiers were definitely at Ford b -no evidence of soldiers at Ford b -red hawk says soldiers didn't get within half mile of Ford b, -white cow bull says soldiers shot at Ford b -no soldier from Custer/keogh group got wet - several soldiers were killed in river from Custer/keogh group So completely contradictory claims some NA some from other sources.... my brain hurts.... need some TLC....Francis I know at least Michno in Lakota Moon analyzed the Ford B "fight", and most testimonies from the NAs allude to the soldiers never getting close to the river. Only White Cow Bull, who's wild claims I strongly distrust, really seems to claim there was a real fight here. The testimonies I remember or at least have taken notes from, talk about fighting happening on the East side of the River. And btw (I once asked but never got a definitive answer); nobody present seems to mention White Cow Bull, or some of the claims he had, including about other warriors killing soldiers. (He himself ofc killed several that they, or so he claimed) All the best, Noggy
|
|
|
Post by noggy on Aug 16, 2022 14:09:36 GMT -6
There was a tale of four Indians stopping the whole river crossing at ford b, I can't remember who at the moment but Mac knows who they are and we shot holes in this story. Ian Actually, it depends on who you "ask". Bobtail horse,I believe, claimed he and three others were at least the first at the ford. But he also mentioned five Lakotas on the East side of the river as the soldier were approaching. I think, I may be slightly off. Geir
|
|
|
Post by tubman13 on Aug 17, 2022 9:17:44 GMT -6
Noggy, you list the consensus of the warriors at Medicine Tail Ford/B. There were little archeological findings there, however. I believe that soldiers were no closer to the ford than several hundred yards. I know that officers note shod hooves at the ford, but they were there due to the Indians taking them across, post battle.
Regards, Tom
|
|
|
Post by wild on Aug 18, 2022 1:01:03 GMT -6
"I believe that soldiers were no closer to the ford than several hundred yards. I know that officers note shod hooves at the ford, but they were there due to the Indians taking them across, post battle." Always worth mentioning Tom and the same goes for shells found on the field.
Other basic fundamentals....The Indians were not witnesses/observers they were participants and thus had a much distorted view of the battle. Their statements [not accounts] went through a further double translation process. The statements might be of some use at the micro level but are useless at the macro level.
Benteen's description of the field is greatly undervalued by many because it does not fit their more colourful theories. Stating the obvious... Benteen was a senior battle hardened soldier and experienced Indian fighter. A true observer after the fact and in the cold light of day. We should heed his stark unemotional judgement.
The skirmish line is greatly over valued by the sand tablers. The skirmish line was neither an offensive nor a defensive formation. it was a tactic used by cavalry to cover breaking contact with the enemy. It failed twice with Reno and in all instances in the Custer/Keogh sector if it was employed. Only at Weir point was it employed correctly and that to cover a wild dash to break contact with approaching Indians. [Reno Hill is a different scenario altogether]
The use of infantry terminology to describe Custer's detached units greatly inflates their puny capabilities . Lets apply the same terminology to the Reno fight...Benteen's 3 platoons charged into a division of Indians. Or as per Calhoun ,,,Calhoun formed his single platoon so as to hold back the advance guard of a division.
Custer had no way to communicate with detached units ....his command and control system was simply "follow me". Thus the sand tablers' suggested complex deployments were impossible
Custer in essence was a recon gone rogue. Cavalry is not a stand alone arm, it needs the support of infantry.
And finally Custer led his 5 platoons in line astern across the front of a division LOL. Best
|
|
|
Post by noggy on Aug 18, 2022 2:18:56 GMT -6
Noggy, you list the consensus of the warriors at Medicine Tail Ford/B. There were little archeological findings there, however. I believe that soldiers were no closer to the ford than several hundred yards Hi Tom If I recall correctly, most testimonies fro/placed at Ford B said the soldiers turned back way before their horses could get their hooves wet. Which fits with a feint or something like it, I guess. White Cow Bull who according to himself spent the day killing soldiers and cutting up GAC is one of the few I can recall claiming they ever were in theactual river. Bobcat Horse etc never said so. (From memory, and it may be wrong) All the best, Geir
|
|
|
Post by Bruce Robert on Aug 19, 2022 11:09:56 GMT -6
Some may be assuming from the perspective of a tabletop wargamer. If the battle was more hectic than some have suggested (a position I take), officers may have been making decisions as hasty reactions rather than considered actions. When you read some of the battlefield psychology studies done by the Brits and others, I suspect this battle had a lot of fear-based reactions that do account for the "traditional" view. There will always be pieces of "evidence" that don't support or even contradict the larger body of evidence. But when taken as a whole, I think the battle narrative is largely known. based upon Michno, Fox, and Wagner, we have a consistent and well-supported narrative. Speaking of Fred, does anyone have info regarding the new documentary: "CUSTER'S Strategy OF DEFEAT" I have been to the facebook page and website, but can't find the actual video/movie. www.youtube.com/watch?v=YVJE0HwdMF4
|
|
|
Post by Yan Taylor on Aug 20, 2022 6:51:23 GMT -6
I think that most of the skirmish lines where actually forced on the Custer battalion, they certainly didn’t want to be on the ground unless they had to and I also think the idea behind it was NOT to wait for Benteen. Custer was on the attack, he knew he had to try and force a crossing somewhere and that was his goal, this goal was chalked off by increasing numbers of Indians who not only stopped him, they eventually corralled him onto the high ground, thus the only option left was skirmish lines to hopefully keep the Indians away. In the case of Reno, what other option did he have, he had been instructed to move onto the village and was promised support, so he sees his front turn into a no-go area so he halts, in the back of his mind he had thoughts of Custer suddenly coming around his flank or bolstering his lines. He could have course up sticks and moved back, but that would a bad career move . The best option for him was to not get into skirmish in the first place and keep everyone mounted, with this mobility he could have fought a number of small skirmish actions rather like Godfrey did and draw the Indians out. But I am talking in hindsight so please don’t take me too seriously . If he could have remained action in the valley then the longer the Sioux had to stay too, thus maybe Custer would have been able get his battalion back without having hundreds of Sioux blocking him. Ian
|
|
|
Post by Yan Taylor on Aug 20, 2022 6:58:17 GMT -6
Not heard much from Fred for a while Bruce, but if he sees your post, then I am confident he will leave a comment . Ian
|
|
|
Post by Bruce Robert on Aug 20, 2022 13:15:19 GMT -6
Hi Ian A quick reply to yours I once asked our old mutual friend Col Quinncannon to formulate the orders given to detached units by Custer. He was unable. Best I can answer that: "Make it up as you go, just like I do, and hope the Custer luck doesn't run out."
|
|