|
Post by mcaryf on May 15, 2006 0:57:44 GMT -6
I have recently been reading "Black Elk Speaks" by John G Neihardt and the description of Black Elk's own participation in LBH. He was quite young at the time and was with his older brother the passage reads: " My brother took his gun and yelled for me to go back. There was brushy timber just on the other side of the Hunkpapas, and some warriors were gathering there. He made for that place, and I followed him........... When we got into the timber, a good many Hunkpapas were there already and the soldiers were shooting above us so that leaves were falling from the trees where the bullets struck." I have seen the map of Reno's fight in the valley at: www-cgsc.army.mil/carl/resources/csi/sioux/IMAGES/MAP20.GIF but it does not show any timber by the Hunkpapa circle other than that used by Reno. Also it does not indicate timber/cover across the river which Reno refers to at RCOI. I have also read DeRudio's comments about personally withstanding hordes of Indians whilst in the timber but that is more confusing than helpful. Is there a map that is generally regarded as definitive with respect to the area of Reno's valley fight as I am interested in looking at the arguments for and against staying in the timber. Plainly access into it for infiltration, its total extent and other nearby cover would be key issues. Regards Mike
|
|
|
Post by elisabeth on May 15, 2006 1:18:33 GMT -6
I don't know if it's definitive, but the 1996 McElfresh map -- ISBN I-885294-09-3 -- is very good indeed, and does show the timber in detail.
|
|
|
Post by mcaryf on May 15, 2006 3:19:53 GMT -6
Thanks Elizabeth. I just ordered one.
Looking at the picture of the cover on Amazon it almosts shows what I want to see but the whole thing will be better.
Regards
Mike
|
|
|
Post by elisabeth on May 15, 2006 5:06:25 GMT -6
Great! The whole thing is gorgeous; you won't regret it, I think.
|
|
|
Post by fred on May 15, 2006 7:39:08 GMT -6
Mike--
Elisabeth is correct. The McElfresh map is far & away the best there is. It even shows the agency Indians' camp on the east side of the river. The only criticism I have is Reno's skirmish line. If you read Varnum's writings the angle of the line shown on the map is not correct. Other than that, the map is extremely accurate, as far as I can tell. And actually, I have 3 of them, one of which I had framed-- it is that nice.
I hope would will agree.
Best wishes, Fred.
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on May 15, 2006 7:49:02 GMT -6
If you're looking for surety in cartography, the term "water color" ought not to appear on your choice. This isn't a map of Reno's timber; nobody made such a map. This is an illustration, an artistic interpretation, unless there was a hitherto unknown cartographer within a year or two of the battle. Even then......
It shows things, like an east bank camp circle, that may not have been there during that period. It was a popular camping site, at least before the battle, and there's no way of telling if artifacts of a camp circle originate in 1876 any more than to tell if shell cases did. It's a newish theory, and might be correct, but a lovely map doesn't make it so.
|
|
|
Post by fred on May 15, 2006 10:13:41 GMT -6
Oh, Darkcloud, give it up! Go find a house to haunt or join the local reenactors. It'll give you something to do & shoo the flies from around your ears. Failing that, go see a chick-flick; it will haul the weight of the world from your shoulders for a while.
|
|
|
Post by d o harris on May 15, 2006 13:19:29 GMT -6
Maguire's preliminary report to the Chief of Engineers, dated July 2nd, 1876 contains a map labelled Plan of the Battlefield. It shows timber from the first bend South of Reno's skirmish line North until nearly the position of the ravine from which the Indians countered. North from the ravine there is woods, but none from MTC to just across from Deep Ravine, and continuing to the Ford D area. Interestingly, this map indicates Indian occupation of the woods from approximately the right of the skirmish line to the ravine. This may be why French had Sgt. Ryan and ten men to fire into the woods. There is a further representation of Indians at MTF, then a large gap until West of Ford D. If I had to hazard a guess it would be that this map was not drawn by the same person who drew the COI map. It depicts Terry's march through the abandoned village to the place he camped, Reno's skirmish line, and Custer's route from Reno Hill to MTF, Calhoun, LSH, and Deep Ravine. It does not show any Indian occupation on the East Bank. A question I've had is, if there were no occupation on the East bank prior to Reno's attack, how did the Indians so quickly take up firing positions there? Varnum had hardly joined A before Moylan went into a panic over danger to the horses, which was not an immediate threat of theft, but of rifle fire from the East Bank.
|
|
|
Post by El Crab on May 15, 2006 14:45:52 GMT -6
I wasn't aware that to be referred to as a "map", it has to be accurate and certainly cannot contain conjecture. But I guess it answers that ancient Chinese riddle:
When is a map not a map? When its an illustration.
Someone should alert Sotheby's and the like, they've probably auctioned off many an illustration, under the false pretense that they were, in fact, maps. Can you say lawsuit?
Did any of the illustrations that Magellan or Columbus use to sail the world survive? They still would have value, since they were the pre-cursor to the maps we now use.
For someone who seems to despise minutae, he sure likes to nit-pick over the tiniest details, don't he? Then again, he has a hard-on for anyone who he deem to have a Custer man-crush.
|
|
|
Post by fred on May 15, 2006 15:29:06 GMT -6
According to Charlie Varnum, “In the timber there is a little glade or opening, & I know in riding in on to this opening I could see the stream in one direction, so we must have been near the stream, & I could see the line of the opening in front, & supposed there was a detached portion of the village on the other side of the stream, & that is where they were going.”
I would give you the attribution, but I am jealously guarding my sources. (Actually, it was a conversation between Charlie & me, several years before he died, & long before our boy DeltaCharlie was even a gleam in the cartel's eyes.)
That is as close as I have seen-- or heard-- of direct evidence of an Indian presence across the LBH. Of course, I am sure that is not good enough for some, but unfortunately, the video cameras were broken that day & after all the hullabaloo, no one thought to film the east bank.
Best wishes, Fred.
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on May 15, 2006 19:35:38 GMT -6
All this, of course, was in response to mcaryf, who reasonably asked:
Is there a map that is generally regarded as definitive with respect to the area of Reno's valley fight as I am interested in looking at the arguments for and against staying in the timber. Plainly access into it for infiltration, its total extent and other nearby cover would be key issues.
And no such map was made. Varnum reached a conclusion that could have been correct. As could his theory that the 7th mostly fired .45/70 rifle loads as his men did, and the best weapons the Sioux had were obtained from Custer's men. So much for those .45/55 cases and that superior firepower of the Henrys.
What we have are artisitic interpretations based on supposition and reasonable guesses. But I fail to see how Crab's trench to allow the lowered bar of "Here Be Dragons" level of acceptabililty meets, somehow, the term "definitive."
And after all, as others here have pointed out, McGuire said his offerings were in the nature of sketches and not maps.
And I believe there WERE lawsuits about the early new world maps because competing nations tried to steer each other wrong. I recall that was one of the reasons the Pope divided the hemisphere between Portuagal and Spain by a navigational reading rather than the conflicting maps.
|
|
|
Post by fred on May 15, 2006 19:49:43 GMT -6
mcaryf--
No.
Best wishes, Fred.
(How's that, DeltaCharlie? Now, can we close down the whole site or would you like to continue playing in our sandbox? As for the Pope, I cannot say; for once, words elude me... whoops! ... my mistake... knowledge eludes me. I fail to see, however, what lawsuits, the Pope, Spain, or Portugal have to do w/ a map of Poor Marcus' Timber or the loopty-loops across the river. Be that as it may, I extend to you my best wishes, & despite what others may think, that is a sincere gesture. Fred.)
|
|
|
Post by d o harris on May 15, 2006 20:50:47 GMT -6
I am sure there is a firearms expert in the membership. Correct me if I am wrong, but it is my impression that the outer dimensions of a 45/55 cartridge, and a 45/70 are indentical, including the casings. The difference in the powder charge, I understand, was compensated for with a thin cardboard packing in the 45/55. The difference between the two cartridges can be determined by x-ray, but not the naked eye. I may be wrong. In 1994 the skeleton of a cavalry horse was found near the river, along what would have been Reno's line of retreat. The saddle bags were intact. Inside, according to Herman Viola, was shaving kit, soap, toothbrush and 50 cartridges---45/70. During the fighting on Reno Hill the Springfield would have been superior to the Henry, as most of the shooting was beyond the range of the Henry.
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on May 15, 2006 21:33:19 GMT -6
I'm barely conversant about firearms, but from people who are on various boards, that is correct about the powder loads in the same case, although apparently not even X-rays are always able to resolve the matter after all this time. The wadding in the 55 load leaves a burn mark, and is absent from the 70 load.
I had not heard about a saddlebag found in 1994 with .45/70 either, which shows you how up on things I am. I don't know, or care, except to point out this is an example of prissy exactitude so often substitutes for actual knowledge. Push to shove, it turns out we don't actually know what powder load the 7th mostly carried and used, yet on various boards great detail about trajectory and range and such are discussed and how the carbine could have affected the battle. I'd think knowing the load would be necessary for such discussions, but I'm a civvie. Some authors use .45/55 for all carbine cases, some .45/70.
|
|
|
Post by d o harris on May 16, 2006 7:27:25 GMT -6
Push comes to shove, if we can't refute Varnum and Godfrey maybe we ought to accept what they had to say. I think it incontrovertible that they were there, after all. The prissy attitude, DC, as you refer to it, becomes necessary sometimes when people use incorrect information in an attempt to make a point. Or, use incomplete information. Sometimes investigating the trivial leads to significant discoveries. Maybe one day someone will be really bugged out on the 45/55 thing, and do some real research, perhaps discovering supply orders and shipping documents, and in the process find something that is important, as I think this whole issue is not.
|
|