|
Post by yanmacca on Jan 21, 2024 19:42:06 GMT
Elwood, the theory that Keogh was third in line to move back south was a major topic here, the Custer Battalion tried to disengage in stages in an effort to get back to the high ground to the south. Fred Wagner also said that Crazy Horse hit Keogh from the west through a gap in Battle ridge.
Ian
|
|
|
Mac Map
Jan 21, 2024 20:59:35 GMT
via mobile
Post by Elwood on Jan 21, 2024 20:59:35 GMT
Well being the “new guy” here, I’ve tried to read the massive amount of info on these other threads. Haven’t read everything yet obviously. Saw the “Company Positions” thread and read that. Your post makes sense, Keogh and I caught by CH during a retrograde south. I do remember learning about the original gap in BR used by CH here on this board.
I apologize, hope I don’t slow you guys down waiting for me to catch up. I appreciate all I’ve learned here.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Jan 22, 2024 16:31:47 GMT
Mister E. The legitimate question is why was Company I found where they were. I don't really think much of Keogh as a commander, but for goodness sake no one would occupy that position as a reserve given the known positions of Companies C and L. That same position might well be useful as a position for a reserve BP of a larger force of say four or five companies deployed forward, but not for two.
I often disagreed with Fred, but in the matter of Company I being hit through the "gap" I am in complete and total agreement. On the issues surrounding the "hit" I will disagree with him though. As I recall Fred had it that Keogh was either on the crest of the ridge and driven back, or that he was stationary, approximately where Company I fell. I forget which but a quick check of Fred's book would be in order to determine which is correct and how faulty my memory can be.
The most logical answer to the Company I position though is being hit in transit. Had they been in reserve, it was long past time to deploy that reserve to aid Company C and L. The fact that there are indications that members of both companies fell back toward Company I is indicative that those members knew Company I was following or back there, but give us no clue as to what Company I was doing. At least if there is a clue I have failed to see it in sixty years.
|
|
mac
Brigadier General
Posts: 1,790
|
Post by mac on Jan 23, 2024 5:10:23 GMT
A wise man once asked me “if Custer sends Company L south in a retreat, then why does he break Rogers Rule and retreat along his approach?” Thinking on this, can we know Custer was intending to move back to the South? With our hindsight we know he should have been moving South, but what does Custer know in the moment of decision? There is one Indian account that says that Custer waited after he left the Northern Valley, and that if he had ridden off instead of waiting, he could have escaped. Why send off one Company back along the approach route and wait with the others. I will propose the possibility that Custer sent Company L off from the valley to back track and make contact with Benteen who Custer thought would now be not far away. Perhaps Custer thought he could break through at the Northern Valley with additional forces. Think on it and I will add more thoughts later.
Elwood Hold tight and I will get there soon. Cheers
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Jan 23, 2024 18:55:44 GMT
Don't have a clue who that wise man was, but if you are going to break Robbie's Rule LBH is the place you are most likely to get away with it. I still would not have defied sacred writ. It is an article of my faith, right up there beside redemption for my many sins if I play my cards right.
The lone rider adds credence to what you say Mac. Company C and Company I coming behind though, I would think detracts from that credence. Waiting for what amount of time, and by how many? That account needs more meat on its bones. Dragoon tactics in a withdrawal are the same now as they were then.
|
|
|
Post by Elwood on Jan 24, 2024 2:32:54 GMT
I often disagreed with Fred, but in the matter of Company I being hit through the "gap" I am in complete and total agreement. On the issues surrounding the "hit" I will disagree with him though. As I recall Fred had it that Keogh was either on the crest of the ridge and driven back, or that he was stationary, approximately where Company I fell. I forget which but a quick check of Fred's book would be in order to determine which is correct and how faulty my memory can be. The most logical answer to the Company I position though is being hit in transit. Had they been in reserve, it was long past time to deploy that reserve to aid Company C and L. The fact that there are indications that members of both companies fell back toward Company I is indicative that those members knew Company I was following or back there, but give us no clue as to what Company I was doing. At least if there is a clue I have failed to see it in sixty years. I looked at my Wagner book, seems he has Keogh's troops on top of the ridge with horses being held north east of the ridge. He believes that Keogh was covering Custer's rear and awaiting Benteen's arrival. Not sure how well this holds up, just more dangerous separation of forces. The "Hit while in Transit" certainly makes the most sense.
|
|
|
Post by Elwood on Jan 24, 2024 2:46:14 GMT
I will propose the possibility that Custer sent Company L off from the valley to back track and make contact with Benteen who Custer thought would now be not far away.
Elwood Hold tight and I will get there soon. Cheers
I think Benteen's (potential) arrival had to be foremost on Custer's mind. I always thought that when Boston Custer showed up, he told his brother that Benteen was basically right behind him, thus influencing some of Custer's actions (or inactions). Holding tight.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Jan 24, 2024 2:49:44 GMT
Fred was a splendid researcher. He was originally commissioned in the Regular Army as a distinguished graduate from Georgetown ROTC in the Infantry Branch attending the basic course at Benning then on to Ranger School. Think he went to jump school too but am not sure. He was a couple of years ahead of me at Benning, maybe five, but Benning never changes. The world changes but not Benning. Something, I am not sure what it was with his eyes forced a transfer to the Transportation Branch, and his combat tour was in TC.
This is but preface, and as I mentioned Benning never changes. I could never understand therefore how all those lessons from Infantry Hall and Harmony Church he seemed to forget in his writings and in the opinions he publicly expressed. Some were so far out from what he was taught, and I am talking doctrine and tactics here, that I doubt if he had expressed them at the schoolhouse that he would have graduated. Ninety percent of the things we vehemently disagreed on were things we both had drilled into our heads in our butter bar youth. Never could figure that out. The world though is much worse off for his passing into Valhalla.
On further thought, maybe it was the Jesuits. The Society of Jesus' official motto is "My Way or the Goddamned Highway". Georgetown is their fortress on the Potomac
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Jan 24, 2024 3:02:28 GMT
Poppycock Mister E: Boston Custer is speculation through and through. George Custer despite his numerous faults had just ridden over that country, and his eyes would have told him Benteen was not going to be up for quite a spell, and he was not going to be up with those trains in tow for a couple of dozen spells. Now I do not know what Boston Custer had to say to his brother if anything. What I do know was Boston Custer was a snotty nose kid who did not know his ass from a hole in the ground about movement rates of cavalry over broken terrain.
In war you do not gamble with time if you wish to play with your grandkids. You either have it or you don't. If you must wonder if you have it, you don't. There is no middle ground.
This in no way infringes on Mac's theory of Custer trying to make contact, by the fastest and most practical means.
Not scolding you here old son, but you must dismiss the hundred and forty some years of bull shitting, bed wetting, and fairy tale telling, and get down to examining these matters through the only prism that matters, your own common sense. Therein you will find what answers there are to find. So, apply this basic dictum to your studies --- If it looks like shit, smells like shit, and tastes like shit, then it is probably shit, but not necessarily, it could be a death burger from the Trading Post. Fred did not that dictum either, and Rini got the vapors every time I sent that in his direction too.
Who is Rini you may ask. You do not want to know. Fred was a good man. God rest his soul. Rini is one of those people who makes you want to take a bath immediately after meeting him.
|
|
|
Post by yanmacca on Jan 24, 2024 10:55:13 GMT
The thing is, did Boston actually speak with any officers before leaving the pack train? Did he stop and talk to Benteen on his way? Did he know that Reno was defeated?
If the answer is no, then what info could he give Custer which would make him change his plans.
To the best of his knowledge all he could really say is he left the packs miles away and he passed Benteen, the only thing certain was they are heading north.
Would Custer try and hold the whole of battle ridge with two companies on the southern end and two on the northern end, plus one in the center, I dont think so. That would be handing your arse to the souix and Cheyenne.
Last time I heard the name Rini, he was in forced exile in Thailand.
Ian
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Jan 24, 2024 12:26:56 GMT
There you go again Ian, using your common sense. You are of course correct. The conventional scenario force fed over the last century and a half is just poppycock pure and simple. There must be another, far more plausible answer. The heroic vision of a last stand is just a myth to mollify the great unwashed, while the unvarnished truth would be hard for them to swallow, just as I am quite sure that Isandlwana and Khartoum were a bit hard on the digestion of the British populace in their time
Rini could be in exile at the South Pole and that would not be far enough.
|
|
|
Post by miker on Jan 25, 2024 13:45:57 GMT
To my knowledge, no one, other than Martini, reports seeing Boston Custer after he traded horses and departed the trains.
The final company positions are what they are. Given that I see three possibilities.
1. They arranged themselves in the five-pip structure of a six sided die and died there. Some fled north as they ran away from the Indians moving North. If so, they did not think about mutual support. They threw the dice and lost.
2. They attacked south trying to link up with Bentsen or Reno, not knowing where anyone is. C and L got the farthest. I think this is pretty much poppycock because I have to think Custer would be leading.
3. They attacked North and Custer got the farthest.
I still don't buy they got to Ford D. There does not appear to be any hard archeological evidence and there still is no published report I have found of last years lecture.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Jan 25, 2024 16:51:11 GMT
What is the proper position of a commander during a withdrawal? It is not with the leading elements of that withdrawal. It is with the trailing, preferably the last or next to last that attempts to break contact. That is where the action is and that is the most likely places where critical decisions need to be made. That is locked in concrete doctrine.
What is the proper place for the commander to be in an attempt to breakout? It is in the front, because a breakout is in fact a highly focused narrow front attack. That is where the critical decision are likely to have to be made. That too is locked in concrete doctrine.
Now while both of those statements are unimpeachable, the fact remains that for our purposes they still do not get us anywhere given Mike's Number 2 above. Was it a withdrawal or a breakout? I don't know, and for that matter don't give a healthy crap. It could have been either depending upon how the observer looks at it. I don't give a healthy crap about how an observer looks at it either. That observer is entitled to their opinion, just as I am. What matters, the only thing that matters is how Custer would have viewed the situation, and what actions he would take and where he would position himself based upon that view. The only thing we have to go on is that he was not with C,I, and L, and instead remained with E and F. I believe if breaking contact and linking up was his objective, the indications are that he viewed it as a withdrawal, and had no idea that a breakout was the proper course of action under the circumstances. You can only act upon the information you have, or sometimes don't have and wish to hell you did.
|
|
|
Post by miker on Jan 25, 2024 17:50:18 GMT
He would also be with E and F if he were attacking North.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Jan 25, 2024 18:47:20 GMT
True. a splendid response, to which I would say if he is attacking northward, what were 60 percent of that attacking force doing training a mile or more behind him?
Let us imagine for a moment that attacking north is exactly what he was doing, and the three companies in trail were cut off, and forced to fend for themselves which is a distinct possibility. Why would Custer continue the attack northward instead of returning south. Firing to his rear, even if he could not observe what was happening, would certainly tell him his rear was compromised and the regiment split asunder. Benteen, Reno and the trains miles to the rear, and he facing stiffening opposition from both front and rear. You know people say Light Infantrymen are crazy, but we ain't frigging nuts.
Review the attack of the Union Brigade at Waterloo. That's what happens when some Murat pretender uses the brains that are immediately above his saddle, rather than the brains that are supposed to be between his ears.
|
|