Company Locations discussion

[quincannon]

No I do not know that you do. The two, defense and delay, look similar. The difference is in intent and method

The intent of a defense is to deliberately hold ground, against all comers. You organize that ground that you intend to hold much differnently then you would organize it for a delay.

The intent of a delay is to first observe.  Second, place long range fires on the advancing force.  Then third,  move off quickly before they can advance on you and pin you to the ground you are delaying from.

There may be something in what you say about remaining mounted. That would mitigate for a quick exit which would be a very major concern. Mitigating against that though, is the requirement for fires. I have never fired a carbine from the back of a horse, but I would think it a tricky proposition if you wanted to really hit something. For fires, dismounting is a far better method.

I don't believe my last paragrapph was daft as you refer to it. My impression of your total post is that you do not know the difference in technique between defense and delay, as evidenced by your previous post. I still don't believe you do, but I do not have the inclination to light the candle that will show you the way.  You are not at all receptive to anything I have to say, so why waste my time. You believe what you wish to believe, and I will believe what I both know, and have practiced.

[mac]

OK let's go with Company I.

I said I had nothing earlier since I was planning for C but I have now gathered some thoughts on Company I.

Archaeology says there were hardly any traces of Cavalry/Indian firing at the region where the Company I markers are grouped. The only archaeological interpretation here is that the fighting was hand to hand.

Indian accounts say the firing was light and only at the start of the action.

Indian accounts say the fighting was hand to hand.

Indian accounts suggest that the troopers were out of ammunition for their pistols.

As a general observation from accounts, here at the Company I position, and elsewhere on the battle field, the Cavalry was forced to go to pistols as the Indian attacks closed and intensified. Presumably because the Carbine rate of fire became too slow for troopers as their stress levels rose. Important point I think.

Clearly from what I have said earlier I believe Company I were returning from the Northern Valley.

It makes sense to me that Custer sent his biggest company (Company L) back first, then followed with Company C. Company C because it would be controlled by 2 Lt Harrington, its senior officer Capt Tom Custer was wounded or dead on Last Stand Hill. Harrington would follow Calhoun and be backed by Keogh.

Company I is next as Keogh is the most senior officer, after Custer, and can take control of the "front" of the retrograde using Companies I,C,L.

Here is some data to consider as we look at the positions.

Order of Rank
Lt Col Custer
Cpt Keogh(I) (1866)
Cpt Yates(F) (1867)
Cpt T Custer(C) (1875)
1 Lt Smith (1868) (E)
1 Lt Calhoun (1871) (L)

1 Lt James E Porter (1872)

Lt WW Cooke (1867)
2 Lt Henry M Harrington (1872)
2 Lt W V W Reily (1875)
2 Lt James G Sturgis (1875)
2 Lt J J Crittenden (1875)

Cheers

[yanmacca]

Well I find it insulting that you think that I don't know the difference.
A group holds a position in a mission to cover another group then retires a group holding a position to denigh it to the enemy.

You are correct though about the atmosphere between me and you and I can't see it improving. So I am calling this my last year on this board, So on new years eve I will wish all the founders a happy and safe 2023 and terminate my account.

Our life is changing and we are both due to retire, we have an extended family and new horizons to explore, so duelling with you is not on my list.

Ian

[quincannon]

I have no intention of insulting you or anyone. I still don't think you know the difference, except superficially, and not in the detail required. I point as evidence to what I am saying at your own posts on the matter. There is not anything wrong with not knowing the detail. As far as I know you never received any training that would provide that information to you.

What you described in your last post is movement by bounds, not a delay. I said nothing about movement by bounds.  Movement by bounds has some aspects of delay folded into it, but it is not a delaying action per say. They are both conducted differently. Delays are also conducted a bit differently from ane another, and those differences are influenced by the overal objective of that delay. They may involve time, or they may involve positioning of other forces, they may just have nusence value, or they may contain all three factors.

I am going to give you an example of what I mean:

First off you started your post saying that you disagreed with me. Yes, but you were disagreeing with me on a subject that I had not even addressed. I took that to mean that you either did not read and understand what I said before you disagreed, or that you did not understand the difference between what I had said, and what you thought I said. I don't mind you disagreeing at all, but don't you think we should be in disagreement regarding the same subject?

Then re-read the post I directed specifcally to Steve. In that portion of the post I talked exclusively about F-F Ridge looking to me as if it were a delay position.

In your first post on this matter you gave in great detail just why F-F Ridge was a very poor defensive position. As far as I can tell you were correct in every respect. Then you used the words hold and defense. Hold is a term normally associated with the defense. In your post you did not mention even one word about F-F Ridge being a better than average delay position, where you have no intention of defending or holding anything. Therefore, what I had to say was based entirely on what you said. The subject at hand was delay, not defense.

Now if you compare that to the Calhoun Hill position, there is no question at all that Calhoun was deliberately defending that area. How can you tell? He moved at least three, and most likely four, times, adjusting his troops, to hold the same area. Had he been trying to delay after meeting the hostiles near Henryville at the bottom of the hill, he would have moved back to the top as his first move then further north away from that hill on his second. 

I should also add that despite Steve's views on the entire matter of the retrograde, and keeping in mind what we do know of Calhoun's movements, the Company C foray to F-F Ridge could still have been a measure designed to delay, Supposing Company L did arrive first, followed by C and an Indian build up was detected in the Ford B area, Company C could well have moved to F-F Ridge to delay that Indian build up of forces so that Company L could consolidate its defense and allow Company I to get up and join them. In that instance, once a little time was purchased C would fall back on its brothers.

In short there are differences in intention between defend and delay, and while they might look superficially alike, the intention, disposition, and subsequent actions must be taken into consideration to determine the difference. 

The atmosphere between you and I is on you. I hold no bitterness toward you. You seem to enjoy dueling with me. I take no perverse pleasure in it on the other end. All I do is say what I have to say, and let it go. If I believe you or anyone is correct. I say so. If I believe they are in error, or that they are not completely accurate, I say that too. Is that not why we are here? If you expect me to agree with you for the sole reason so as not to hurt your feelings, well you should not think that. I am a lot of things, but a hypocrit kiss ass is not one of them

That is a shame. I would ask you to reconsider

[quincannon]

Well thought out Mac. Quite complete. The apparent hand to hand nature of the fighting in the Keogh sector is quite revaling in two ways, I think. The lack of carbine artifacts suggest it was very close and very quick, and the empty pistols you mention also speak to close in fighting a bit earlier in the contest at a different location.

[mac]

Company C

Reading my previous posts Company C finish spread on Finley Finkle Ridge, in the retreat line away from FF Ridge in Calhoun Coulee below Greasy Grass Ridge, and in the mix of men around Calhoun Hill itself.

Where were they in the Northern Valley?

There is no way to know, however, there is one clue.

In 1984 a Colt Revolver case was found in Calhoun Coulee below Greasy Grass Ridge (FS1605).

In 1994 matching cases (FS 8049) (FS 8050) were found in a ravine just out of sight of Last Stand Hill below Battle Ridge Extension. These cases also matched (FS1605)

The possibility is that these three shots were fired by the same member of Company C. The last (FS1605), fired in the retreat from FF Ridge, in front of Greasy Grass Ridge.

Prior to that (FS 8049) (FS 8050), fired during the fighting as Company C exited from the Northern Valley.

Indicating that Company C were perhaps just North of Last Stand Hill prior to leaving and following after Company L; towards Calhoun Hill and thence moving to Finley Finkle Ridge.

Cheers

[quincannon]

That makes complete sense. These two places are about a mile apart maybe a little more, when you consider route distance, and not straight line distance.

What is not known though, based just upon the evidence, is when the three shots were fired. Were the two before the one, or the one before the two. On the surface, providing it was a Company C soldier that fired the weapon on all three occasions, the two up north would predate the one in the south. That argues well for Company C being very much involved in the northern fight, then moving south where they met their fate.

Another possibility exists though, in that an Indian picked up that abandoned revolver in the south, went north, and discharged it again. This seens quite unlikely in that where the revolver round was found in the south, is considered the first part of the battle in the south, so time would seem to argue against an Indian coming upon an abandoned revolver early on in the south, and then making his way north to participate in any way in the northern portion of the fight. That, and where those two northern cartridge cases were not relevant to the LSH portion of the fight.

Cartridge cases being found on the ground also indicate reloading was taking place at both of those locations. Those Colts were not automatic pistols that eject cases. Empty cases from a Colt revolver indicate that the weapons was being emptied of those expended cases at or near where the cartridge cases were discovered, and reloading taking place

[yanmacca]

Sorry Mac, but these cartridge cases;

FS 8049
FS 8050
FS1605

Are not on my finds map.
I have a map of all the cartridge cases plus Indian stuff too on one large map, but they are numbered in a different manner, they are listed like this;

AWC: Army Weapon Cartridge
AWB: Army Weapon Bullet
IWC: Indian Weapon Cartridge
IWB: Indian Weapon Bullet

As with most of my work on here, I like to post maps and illustrations to aid others to get involved in your work, but I cant work with the numberings you have.

Ian

[quincannon]

I don't know where either of you are getting these notations from. I suspect it is from a source I do not have. That's OK because I also suspect that most of the others do not have these reference points either.

The important thing though is that the three casings in question were found a mile apart, and there is more likelyhood than not the weapon in question was fired by the same person, at these different locations. It is even more telling than that. We do not really know where the weapon in question was fired. All we know is the place where this weapon a Colt Model 1873 (I suspect) revolver was reloaded. Perhaps the place of firing and reloading was the same, and that seems more likely than not, but it does not mean that you could not also conclude that the revolver was fired at some other place, and the place where the cartridges were found was the location where the first opportunity to reload occurred. So while it does tell us that in all likelyhood Company C or parts of it were in both locations, and we can conclude that in light of other evidence that the northern location was the site of the first reload, and the single cartridge in the south was subsequent to the reoad in the north.

I must say though that the information Mac supplied is valuable, but it sure would have been nice had they been carbine casings, where the point of fire and the point of cartridge ejection would be the same

[yanmacca]

That is why I wanted to post up a map, it will show on screen all the locations of the cartridges to give people a grasp of the areas and distances.

I have reverted to an older map with less detail and I have found number 1605, it is part of a small group five army cartridges plus Indian ones too.

[crowsnest]

How do we explain GAC’s location not being at the head of the retrograde movement?

[quincannon]

CN: The commander's place is where he can best exercise command and control, OR, at the critical place, OR, where his presence is mandatory for any number of reasons, including showing the people that must be sacrificed how to die.

There is no one place, but under these circumstances it might be for any of the three reasons I listed above. If the theory is correct, and three companies were moving southward in an effort to withdraw and break contact, the place fior the commander to be is with the two companies left behind. The commander's critical job does not lie with the three, but to direct the extraction of the two.

[crowsnest]

While I can understand that explanation, I have to play devil’s advocate.

Do we have any examples of GAC acting in this manner previously. We also see the other ranking commanders acting contrary to this is other parts of the battle, Reno in the valley and Benteen returning from Weir Point specifically.

[quincannon]

The devil needs an advocate

Reno in the valley- If you are referencing the part of what happend in the valley that had to do with the breakout from encirclement Reno in the lead was exactly where he was supposed to be. He was leading an attack, for a breakout from encirclement is an attack. Not a retreat, an attack

It could also be argued that Benteen left behind his best company commander, Godfrey, as a rear guard in the withdrawal from Wier Point. In that instance Benteen was more valuable with the main body taking advantage of the time Godfrey was buying for him, which in turn allowed Benteen to set up a perimeter defense, into which Godfrey could withdraw. Benteen did exactly what he should have done.

I see no fault with either persons actions or orders in those two specific instances, None whatsoever

George Custer was by any modern estimation was a piss poor commander CN, but the one thing no one dare fault him for was not being where his people needed him to be in action. You can throw brickbats at the man all day long for many things he did, but lack of courage, and not being where he thought he must be can never fairly be targets of those brickbats.

[mac]

Nov 18, 2022 19:46:48 GMT yanmacca said:

Sorry Mac, but these cartridge cases;

FS 8049
FS 8050
FS1605

Are not on my finds map.
I have a map of all the cartridge cases plus Indian stuff too on one large map, but they are numbered in a different manner, they are listed like this;

AWC: Army Weapon Cartridge
AWB: Army Weapon Bullet
IWC: Indian Weapon Cartridge
IWB: Indian Weapon Bullet

As with most of my work on here, I like to post maps and illustrations to aid others to get involved in your work, but I cant work with the numberings you have.

Ian

Thanks Ian.

I note your later post also.

My guess is that some attempt has been made to unify the 1984 and 1994 and other data in one system.

CN I think QC has covered the options for Custer's position. I would just point out (anyone feel free to correct me) I think that Last Stand Hill has been leveled by construction work and at the time of the battle Custer may well have been able to see back to the South along Battle Ridge. I also tend to think he would feel the need to stay at what was then the point of contact. I think he felt the way back South was probably still open.

Cheers