|
Post by crowsnest on Sept 27, 2022 16:59:25 GMT
It seems to me that the common consensus from LBH researchers is that Thompson's account has inaccuracies in the story. Whether from embellishment, misunderstanding what he was seeing, stress of the event, or possibly even bold face lies. But I gather there are plenty of moments from his account that are clearly accurate. There are plenty of aspects of his story that survivors of the battle don't push back on at all. Thompson was after all an Medal of Honor winner for his actions at the battle. Served with distinction according to those who saw him, and in his account is paired with another soldier (if you're gonna lie, it's easier to tell your tale as a solo artist) . Unfortunately corroboration never occurred or at least was never written down.
So for this thread I'd like to take it ,Thompson's account, in a different direction. I want us to assume that Thompson's account is accurate in it's entirety (or virtual entirety allowing for small misinterpretations of events occurring around him).
If we take Thompson's account as gospel in this scenario, how would you piece together Custer's actions, and how would you attempt to discern his intentions, along with the already known archeological evidence that exists.
I struggle to believe everything in the Thompson story myself, but if we progress with 2 truths in this though experiment.....1 Thompson is telling the whole truth and nothing but the truth, and 2. the archaeological evidence is accurate.......how do you time up the events that occur in the Custer collum after Reno heads to Ford A.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Sept 27, 2022 17:31:32 GMT
Boy, when you ask a question CN, you ask a whopper.
My short answer is that I cannot, having tried, make any sense of the Thompson story, as it may relate to existing archeological evidence. There are just too many holes and inconsistencies for me.
My take though is that Tompson and Watson, did what any normal soldier would do having found themselves in the situation they were in, that being seek cover and conceilment, and hide until such a time they could effect a link up with friendlies. Having read extensively on more modern combat events, especially in the Bulge, and Korea, that course of action sems to come natural to any soldier with his wits about him. So, it then becomes a case for me of normal human reaction, that which we would expect of a rational human being's conduct in uncertain circumstances.
No one, and especially not me, would ever, or should never impune the character of a person awarded the Medal of Honor (it is awarded, not won). Having said that, I believe Thompson in his elder years, put himself deeper into the story than he actually was. There are reports of Thompson's declining mental health, and while no one can know for sure if this effected the story told by him in later life it certainly should be considered.
Not having Watson around certainly complicates investigation, but I see no account of Thompson relating his story while he was still a member of the 7th Cavalry, or at reunions he attended in his middle years. There is a fairly well known photo of him at the battlefield with Sergeant Kanipe, and Mrs. Kanipe, the former Mrs. Bobo. That photo alone should speak to the issue, in that if Thompson was considered a whack job, he probably would be shunned by his fellow collegues. That evidently was not the case.
To summarize then, I believe some, but not most of what Thompson has to say, but I cannot tie what he has to say in with what little else we have pertaining to the course and flow of the battle. One thing that must be said though about Thompson, that is very material I think, is that he with the rest of the survivors was on the field following the battle, and a lot of what is contained in that story of his, is based upon what he saw afterward, and not during.
Always assume that soldiers will do exactly what the rest of human kind will do in extremely adverse conditions. You will be wrong in your assumptions sometimes, but not most of the time.
Great thought provoking qustion. Does you credit.
|
|
|
Post by yanmacca on Sept 27, 2022 18:52:26 GMT
Over to you AZ (Steve), you have looked more in Thompson's account then anyone I know, plus didn't you visit parts of his escape route?
Ian
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Sept 27, 2022 21:32:39 GMT
Ian: How do you visit conjecture, and a route that is not supported by anything even resembling verified fact? Anyone can draw a line along those bluffs and say this is the route I took, but that does not mean the episode was real.
Crowsnest is trying to determine from Thompson's story and from information that is known to include the location of artifacts if the Thomspson story is real or not. He would not be doing it I suspect if the Thompson story was established fact, rather than the speculated upon ramblings of an old man in the last years of his life. Unfortunately we will never know for certain which is which, but there is one thing that is known. The story and the known facts do not match one another, in anything but the most tangential way, as in the reported story and the battle itself both took place in Montana, supposedly on the same day.
|
|
|
Post by herosrest on Sept 27, 2022 22:39:49 GMT
Hi, I'll give a little of what I know of Thompson and sources relevent to him. Firstly, his account published in 1924 link and can be read at the link. I don't believeb the full account published earlier but perhaps some snippets may have been in Belle Fourche SD, press. The timing is interesting since Thompson attented Arlington in 1921, met up with comrades present, and got into argument with Godfrey about his part in the battle. You can imagine Godfrey going apoplectic. This led to inquiry by Walter M. Camp whom Godfrey knew, and so on, and so forth. There's much more with family standing up for PT, and wider academic confusion and a military just wanting anything Custer to go away because of the wife's staunch undying loyalty and love. What a lady, and she was and living in the New York home. I digress........... I believe that Thompson assembled notes over a period of time and various researchers have looked into the yey and nay'a of it all. My feeling is that the set to with Godfrey galvanised Thompson and we are all the richer, if not wiser in consequence. Godfrey 1 Godfrey 2 At the burial of the Unknown Soldier in Arlington, Gen Godfrey led two platoons of medal of honor men who took part in those ceremonies. Walter M. Camp found Thompson believable but was unable to accept certain parts of the account, small wonder when rubbing shoulders with Godfrey on the battlefield as well as being there with Thompson. I'm going to post and a few bits in update 'cos i'm using a cluster shambles machine which is p'ing me off and tempus fugits.... H'Ok............................. on a more amicable box now. That other one is as old as the hills and was APO link to Yeltsin's Bar for his instructions. The World thought he was a drunken sot. If only the truth were known. Those with the milage will know Godfrey repeated the unknown soldier ceremony at Garryowen for the 50thh Anniversary on 26th June 1926, with the remains of a soldier of Reno's battalion discovered by the Weiberts the year before whilst digging irrigation ditches. The burial was a part of the burying the hatchet ceremony after which, 7th Cavalry did exactly what John Stands in Timber in 1956, told Rickey and Vaughan they did. Ride over ford D onto the cemetery nd flats and fight the Indians gathered there in a re-enactment of the original battle. There is a web site here, Polf Design Gerry Schult's stuff on Thompson and worth the time to thoroughly review. His introduction to Thompson is remarkable and remarkably so - see 'A TRUE MONTANA HERO' article on the linked page. WoW. A further, in his footsteps assessment is by Bruce Brown Here. There are a number of books on the matter, Magnusson, I think Walt Cross got into it.......... Yup...... The Duck Peter Thompson really is make up your own mind. He can be fitted neatly into timelines and my own research generally supports him through the classic understanding of the battle, rather than more erstwhile efforts of latter day. If you wish to apply rigour and timing it is there but depends upon your timeline and being able to see fighting at Finley and Greasy Grass hills from his hiding place in the river loop. He was interviewed by Walter Camp which is why we know where Thompson's Ford is. His character and life were exemplar and beyond this he left a beautiful puzzle which Godfrey simply wished snuffed out for obvious reasons. Try the Gin Sling.
Greasy Grass Hill looking upriver towards tthe timber and Garryoen. Bob Reece finding a 50 Cal. Remington case, link If you climb the hill at right, it offers clear views to Garryowen. In conclusion, I married an exemplary Scot. You take your life in hand to malign them. Godfrey was a lucky lad. 'Nemo me impune lacessit'
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Sept 28, 2022 4:27:27 GMT
HR: If Thompson did see anything logic tells you it was the fighting on F-F Ridge. That is the closest place to where he said he observed the battle from. His narrative of seeing soldiers in a skirmish line fits the Company C occupation of that hill. The problem for me though is seeing that portion of Custer's fight, then retracing his steps back to the place where he was picked up by friendlies. In retracing those steps he had to be just as careful in his movements as he did going north. Careful movement takes time, and I do not believe there was enough time between when Company C fell, and where Thomson and Watson were recovered by the regiment (-). The alternative explanation is that he viewed those bodies on the 27th and over time bacame convinced he had seen that portion of the fight.
Guilt and trauma do funny things to people, that none of us fully understand. Those malodies were magnified I am sure by the wide notariety of the event itself. I expeienced some of this when I had cancer and was taking chemo. I would go every Monday for treatments over a six months period, and one by one the people I was taking therapy with would not be there. When you would ask about them out of concern, the answer was always the same. They don't need treatment any more. You came to know what that meant. The short of it is - Why did I survive and they did not. It works on your mind, and although it has been twenty two years it still bothers me, unable to answer why.
|
|
|
Post by herosrest on Sept 28, 2022 11:18:15 GMT
Understood. I agree caution and reservation noting he made tremendous effort to leave us with his account. Troubled mind, tortured soul or plain and simple p'd off with Godfrey. During his ascent of the bluffs to meet the advance towards Custer, Thompson passed out. I'd guess this was either dehydration or exhaustion and probably both. So, by degree, you are correct on both physical condition and psychology at the time and afterwrds. The bravery on Reno Hill suggests a level of grief and it is interesting that he does not equate the fighting he witnessed with destruction of 'his' company. Gerry Schultz was a firm believer and partly because Thompson's manuscripts were delivered by divine intervention. I cannot make that leap but Gerry pulled it entirely apart and was convinced. Gerry was all over the terrain and timelines - link to video shoots. RiP
|
|
|
Post by herosrest on Sept 28, 2022 11:38:09 GMT
I'll add an oblique riposte to the Custer shot in the water, at the river, in the bottom - ouch! angle of things. If you accept Thompson then Custer was down at the water and which lends credence to disaster befalling him. However, Thompson with Watson, then got into a fire-fight at the riverbank which dumped Watson off his horse into the water - in essence the White Cow Bull shooting. I would have been a little more comfortable with the White Cow Bull story if it had come from anyone other than Humphries Miller. That said, his work brought some really worthwhile insight to events and people on the ground but I just have to wonder at the ongoing plethora of 'he killed Custer' accounts. I hit a dead end with Thompson's companion, as everyone does but know I missed something.... i'll get there. For some reason entirely beyond me, I think Watson and the HQ sergeant and Philadelphia always pop into mind. Can't figure it..... just the way the mind works. It's telling me something. link regards.
|
|
|
Post by yanmacca on Sept 28, 2022 13:09:29 GMT
Ian: How do you visit conjecture, and a route that is not supported by anything even resembling verified fact? Anyone can draw a line along those bluffs and say this is the route I took, but that does not mean the episode was real. Well as everyone knows QC, I will try to help any new poster, or anyone for that fact, if I can, but on this occasion, I can’t help C’Nest other than post stuff which he probably already knows. I do know that Steve knows a lot more than me and is the only person who I know to have spent time looking into Thompsons story. C’Nest asked for opinions, I couldn’t provide any, so I did what I do when I was a painter, If I was checking out an outside paint job and I found that a window was too rotten to paint, then I would tell the owner that it needs replacing, if he asked if I could do it, I would reply, no, but I know a man who can. So that is why I posted up Steve, I can’t help C’Nest, but I know a man that can, but unfortunately due to personal reasons, Steve is a rare bird around here at the moment. Ian
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Sept 28, 2022 14:01:19 GMT
He was on here yesterday, and had the opportunity to comment, on CN's post, your post, and my post. He was on at a time when all three were up, and he did not. Make of that what you will.
|
|
|
Post by yanmacca on Sept 28, 2022 14:08:13 GMT
Not really been on myself, we are going on vaction to Cyprus, next Tuesday, got a lot of loose ends to tie up, plus see my brother as we are not able to go to the funeral next Thursday, so I haven't looked at who had signed in.
Ian
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Sept 28, 2022 14:27:57 GMT
What funeral?
Please Ian for your own sake and mine, come to understand that no one knows any more than you do about this battle. In fact I would say you know a hell of a lot more than most, because you have a basic understanding of warfare itself, and can build upon what you know of earlier conflict as a means to understand this one piss ant little battle in the middle of nowhere, better than all the soothsayers, prognosticators, crystal ball gazers, bull shit artists, and those who sit around the camp fire with Chief Thunderthud and thinks it makes them smarter.
|
|
|
Post by yanmacca on Sept 28, 2022 15:13:30 GMT
My sister in law died a few weeks a go, about a day after the queen, we booked our holiday months ago, but my brother has gave us his blessing and told us to go and enjoy ourselves.
We leave on the tuesday, Margaret's funeral is on the Thursday. I will ring him from cyprus on the day.
Seems like a lot of people in florida are bracing themselves for hurricane Ian, I hope my name sake causes little damage.
Ian
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Sept 28, 2022 15:25:43 GMT
Sorry to hear that.
In Florida the damage from Ian will be in the billions of dollars. My mother in law used to live in the area where the storm is slated to come ashore this evening, and it is flat as a pancake. With a twelve foot high storm surge on to of a normal three foot tide you are looking at a fifteen foot wall of water. That area, will probably be washed away.
I am really concerned about Mike. He is not in the direct path, but will get very heavy rain, which in Florida can be very bad.
It is not well known, but in your area of interest, that when the British Army burned Washington in 1814, it was a hurricane hitting the area that night that stopped the burning. Had it not been for the storm the entire city would have been burned.
|
|
azranger
Brigadier General
Ranger
Posts: 1,824
|
Post by azranger on Sept 28, 2022 15:28:13 GMT
Over to you, AZ (Steve), you have looked more in Thompson's account than anyone I know, plus didn't you visit parts of his escape route? Ian Ian I think the definitive paper was done by Gerry and presented in Hardin, Montana. But, first, let's deal with Thompson's writing. He writes what he saw but also what others said they saw. That is easy to track if you dig into it as Gerry did. As far as Thompson's movements, it's hard to beat Gerry's 94 location points found in his published paper. You are not making informed comments if you haven't read the article. One of the things I looked at is Thompson's statement about Custer riding down from the bluff to the river. As an investigator, I would look at where Custer could be to have been able to do it in a timely manner. Clair once said that Custer was not close enough to go and return. He would be close enough if Custer moved down Middle Coulee instead of Cedar Coulee. Two witnesses stated that Custer moved down Middle Coulee. Curley says soldiers moved straight across MTC. Middle Coulee is the only place to do that and go up to Luce and on to NC. The second witness, another scout, drew a map showing the route down Middle Coulee. From Middle Coulee, it is not far to the edge of the bluffs. For Thompson to be correct, there must be a way down to the river area. There is, and I have physically seen it. There is also a ridge going to the flat that would obscure Thompson's view of Custer's approach and departure. The physical terrain is consistent with Thompson's account, and the movement of Custer down Middle Coulee makes the timing possible. Neither of these is conjecture, and it would be hard to believe that Thompson made it up. That is only one example of what Thompson states are consistent with facts. Gerry also did a viewscape of what Thompson could see, consistent with known locations and artifacts. Regards Steve
|
|