|
Post by quincannon on Nov 5, 2022 13:56:38 GMT
It is not sarcasm. I asked you if that is what you intended to say. I also said that I missed any mention of what you had said in my reading. You made your statement sound like Company L was being fired on or attacked from Greasy Grass Ridge.
As it turned out you had no intention of saying what I thought you said, so my question to you was indeed well founded
You're a big boy now. Grow up emotionally and act like one, and/or express what you meant to say in your writing more clearly so clarification will not be sought.
Yes there is a lot of artifact evidence on Greasy Grass Ridge, and the closer proximity of Company C on F-F Ridge probably made C the target.
Getting back to what you said though that it must have been L that left first because the Indians were attacking them then does not hold water, does it? Company L was attacked but you, or no one else, has any idea of what that Henryville attack's sequence was in relation to the attack on Company C
Either C or L could have been first out from the north. There is nothing in the way of artifacts, or stories, or positioning of forces that mandate that one or the other was first. Both could have been.
Who is SOME SAY? Is he an Indian teller of tales? Did he write a book? Was he a witness to events? If you intend to say that someone made a statement about the battle, or multiple someones, then name them, and I assure you their names are not SOME SAY. If you wish to be taken seriously your communications skills must improve. Had you written multiple Indian sources say, or Red Hawk says, or Tommy the Tinker says, there is a means for those who read you to access the validity of what they have to say. They are identified by name or grouping. Some say could include your next door neighbor, or the checker at the grocery store for all anyone knows. So how is anyone able to evaluate some say? Please tell me.
|
|
|
Post by yanmacca on Nov 5, 2022 15:47:13 GMT
You're a big boy now. Grow up emotionally and act like one, and/or express what you meant to say in your writing more clearly so clarification will not be sought. QC, Please
Its seems like you enjoy picking holes in my posts, much more than in HRs or Mac's, fair enough thats you choice, now I know how the others felt.
Mac, you do a good job here, but in future if I can in help you in some way, I will do it via PM, good luck
Ian
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Nov 5, 2022 19:34:40 GMT
I don't like it at all. I am not picking holes in something that does not deserve to have holes picked in it.
I do not mess with anything Mac or HR have to say, because I understand what they are saying, and they can back up what they have to say with something more specific than "some say"
|
|
mac
Brigadier General
Posts: 1,790
|
Post by mac on Nov 6, 2022 5:38:41 GMT
Thanks for the map Ian and for the references. I am happy to admit I make judgement calls on the accounts. I give the most credence to those that, as clearly as I can tell, come from eye witnesses rather than those passing on hear say. So to the point.
I agree that Company C did get a bit further .
Why was L first to arrive?
Gall (and Red Hawk) saw them and says they were first, and described them stopping and confronting Gall. Calhoun Hill not Finley Finkle Ridge.
The archaeology says that there were at least 2 skirmish lines lower on Calhoun Hill prior to the last position on the top. Those 2 skirmish lines would not exist if Company C were already on FF Ridge.
Accounts say that the movement to FF Ridge came after the fighting on Calhoun Hill had been going for some time.
The collapse of the position on FF Ridge was virtually instantaneous by the accounts.
This is backed by the archaeology; The mass of fire from Greasy Grass.
The relative absence of battle traces on FF Ridge until one reaches the position occupied by the markers for the two Sergeants. I read this as the Troopers closest two Greasy Grass being assaulted virtually as they arrived. So there is no resistance close to Greasy Grass. These men make the line of markers retreating North from the end of FF Ridge in front of Greasy Grass. Trooper Mike is shown on Ian's map and could, based on his remains physical characteristics, possibly be Nathan Short of Company C. I will return to this later.
Sgt Butler Company L, is found past FF Ridge and is almost certainly a messenger. Unlikely if Company C is leading the way.
Any one of these is arguable but when you add them all I vote for Company L as the first to leave. Cheers
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Nov 6, 2022 14:27:21 GMT
I fully agree that most signs support Company L. Where I will not agree though is that Company L leaving first is in any way conclusive, meaning beyond doubt. Remember leaving first, and making first contact in the south are two different things. We have no idea of exactly where they left from, although it was most likely the Cemetery Ridge/Battle Ridge Extension complex. So leaving first may have entailed an intermediate stop somewhere, with the second to leave bypassing the first, which would indicate some sort of initial movement by bounds or an attempt to.
Another factor that must be considered I believe is that the direction Company C was heading would bring them to the Wier Point area. The direction for Company L was toward the Luce-Nye-Cartwright complex. Company C was taking the shortest route to where the might find help and Weir would be much better for defense than L-N-C. Now Company L's direction may very well be the direction intended, and Company C's direction might have been an accident of circumstances, but I am not in any position to say one way or the other, and I do not believe anyone else is either.
Remember here that being conclusive is the only way that you will ever convince the majority of the Little Big Horn community that those of us that subscribe to some alternative away from the conventional theory of the battle are not inhabitants of Cloud Cuckoo Land. Presently they think that we most assuredly are. The only thing that will turn them in this direction is complete specificity, and we don't have that yet
|
|
mac
Brigadier General
Posts: 1,790
|
Post by mac on Nov 6, 2022 22:04:18 GMT
Remember here that being conclusive is the only way that you will ever convince the majority of the Little Big Horn community that those of us that subscribe to some alternative away from the conventional theory of the battle are not inhabitants of Cloud Cuckoo Land. Presently they think that we most assuredly are. The only thing that will turn them in this direction is complete specificity, and we don't have that yet I gave up trying to convince anyone of anything a long time ago.
The evidence for the final positions of each Company may come later, that too could be fun. Next some thoughts on Company C. Cheers
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Nov 6, 2022 23:23:11 GMT
I suppose I have too, but then again I DO live in Cloud Cuckoo Land, and don't give a crap about anyone who thinks there is something wrong with that
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Nov 8, 2022 21:05:05 GMT
Mac: Know you wish to go to Company C next, but do you have any definative opinions on Company I as it pertains to the position they occupied as Custer was about to start his assault?
|
|
mac
Brigadier General
Posts: 1,790
|
Post by mac on Nov 9, 2022 9:17:06 GMT
Short answer is no I don't have any hard data.
|
|
azranger
Brigadier General
Ranger
Posts: 1,824
|
Post by azranger on Nov 9, 2022 11:08:32 GMT
I believe Company C was in the lead of the retrograde. They stopped near Deep Coulee and MTF. There is some evidence that Keogh may have been in that area. If true, I believe that it may be where he was shot. At that point, they moved back toward Custer. A short duration, with Indians coming from all directions. C was attempting to hold F/F covering the movement of Keogh back toward Custer.
L was under attack from Henryville. The steepness of the area allowed Indians to close in on the Calhoun Area. A soldier located on Calhoun, you must stand to shoot down toward Henryville. It wouldn't take much for some Indian shooters to keep those soldiers from being able to engage.
Regards
Steve
|
|
|
Post by yanmacca on Nov 9, 2022 14:15:42 GMT
Well that is a new one of me Steve, three companies heading south and being stopped in the deep coulee area.
I cant find anything regarding "I" company soldiers being found this far south, maybe they took no fatalities during this move. I suppose that the lack of really defensible places was an issue and both "L" & "C" simply choose the highest points they found.
If all three moved south together, then we cant really rule out that this may be another point of attack at ford B, they could be chasing any hostiles around the ford back west and into the camp, this would buy time for others to cross deep coulee unmolested.
Ian
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Nov 9, 2022 17:33:22 GMT
Interesting theory Steve. Might be something to it. To be valid all three C-I-L would have started south at about the same time. Could very well be.
I would not put too much money on that Keogh theory if its genesis is from where I believe it is. That is just poop personified if it has to do with a boot being found.
Company C's postion on F-F Ridge has always looked to me to be a delaying or rear guard position, and while it is difficult to determine why any unit did anything under these prevailing no survivor circumastances, I have just always had this nagging feeling that C was not there totally because of stopped forward movement. Just a feeling, nothing at all solid.
Anything said about Company L and Henryville has to contend with L's skirmish line evidence at the bottom of Calhoun Hill. That answer is the key to unraveling what happened in the entire area, specifically the sequence of events.
Another interesting observation Steve regarding Company L. What you say about L on the hilltop is quite true. Surpressive fire from Henryville would have kept them down, and the face of that hill is moderately steep. What I find very surprising though is that Calhoun, with long service in the Infantry did not position his people on the military crest of that hill instead of the top. While there is evidence of two skirmish lines existing prior to the hilltop final position, neither is on the military crest. Such a line on the military crest would have mitigated the fire from Henryville. It would have still been hot mind you, but just not as hot. No one chooses to fight from the top of a hill first, always from the military crest. There is a reason for this as well and I am just not seeing it.
I disagree with Ian here. The Company C position on F-F Ridge was ideal if the intention was delay or rear guard. That is the exception to the rule about the military crest expressed above.
|
|
|
Post by yanmacca on Nov 9, 2022 19:55:49 GMT
I disagree with QC here: The FFR position was open, it had high ground to the east which the enemy held in strength. To the south it had a large ravine which gave it a lot of ground to cover. To the north is had a another ravine which snaked right behind it.
The position would be held by 30 odd men and that is not counting any horse holders. Any skirmish line would be fully exposed and open to attack from three sides, so any defense here should have been conducted from horse back in an effort to get out quick, but this didnt happen, and as the defense of Calhoun and Cemetery, it fell with their numbers being driven off and ran down.
This was not WW2 and Harrington didnt have a couple of M1919A4s and his men in fox holes.
Ian
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Nov 9, 2022 20:33:30 GMT
I think you are missing my point in your disagreement
I happen to agree with you that F-F Ridge is not a place that should, or could be defended successfully. Never said it could. What I said was dealing with its usefullness as a delay (not defensive) position. From that viewpoint a position on the spine of that ridge, which is where the skirmish line was located gives those trying to delay or guard a longer range of view, which is exactly what you want if you are trying to delay the opposition for a bit. Observation in this instance is your friend, much more than firepower. Were firepower the deciding factor, there would be no need to delay.
So, If my bit of speculation, coupled with Steve's theories and observations, are even remotely correct, the thing that upset Company C's apple cart was not a poor defensive position, which it was, but rather the Lame White Man and friends sudden and violent attack, which preventing the delaying force from withdrawing in a timely manner.
The suddeness, speed, and violence of Lame White Man's attack was exactly the text book method of defeating a delay or guard force. His leadership in making and executing this decision was the decisive factor in winning this portion of the battle. Once any delay was scattered, the rest was relatively easy pickings, as indicated by Red Hawk's testimony of the three companies collapsing upon themxelves. He was the battle winner. Unfortunately his leadership and courage cost a splendid tactician his life. That was a pity.
To make it clear for you, the spine of that ridge is a very good place for the delaying force to be and a piss poor place for a force intending to defend. Defend and Delay are not only not the same thing, they are not even companion pages in the same chapter of the book. Surprised that you seem to still not know the difference. I would think you would.
|
|
|
Post by yanmacca on Nov 9, 2022 20:58:49 GMT
Once these soldiers dismounted, they were toast, that’s why I said to engage from horseback, doesn’t matter if they missed as apparently they couldn’t shoot anyway, mounted shots would have been just as good, at least they wouldn’t need any horse holders so more carbines to aim with to cover a withdrawal from deep coulee. Don’t be daft QC , I know the difference and you know I do, so no need for the last paragraph, it only causes friction as you very well know. So it did no good at all to even write it because it shows a clear lack of tactfulness on your behalf
|
|