|
Post by deadwoodgultch on Jul 18, 2015 11:34:15 GMT
|
|
|
Post by deadwoodgultch on Jul 18, 2015 11:39:53 GMT
What time were they using, local or some other? Standard time/Railroad time was still a few years off when the battle took place.
Regards, Tom
|
|
|
Post by deadwoodgultch on Jul 18, 2015 11:47:59 GMT
Fred Wagner and others have offered different timelines. Mr. Wagner's time line can be found in "The Strategy of Defeat at The Little Big Horn" in this Mr. Wagner gives a serious analysis as to why his is correct. This book would make a serious companion book for all LBH students.
|
|
|
Post by Beth on Jul 18, 2015 12:26:25 GMT
Gray's timeline seems to be a good place to begin but it seems that he didn't try to put all the events on the same time table, so there can be nearly an hour's difference between an event that is given by local time (Western Montana) and Headquarter's time. Nor did he back up the times he selected by other sources. It's one of the reasons that Mr. Wagner's book is IMHO superior.
Also Wagner's book is very even handed. He attempts to place no blame or fault on any single party.
|
|
mac
Brigadier General
Posts: 1,790
|
Post by mac on Jul 19, 2015 12:11:06 GMT
The great thing about Fred Wagner's book is it is not only even handed and full of supporting evidence but also allows plenty of scope for one to make their own decisions. His participants book is also a marvelous reference.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 21, 2015 13:18:18 GMT
Perhaps some may recall a series of YouTube videos done by Custer Apollo several years back. Well, he has done another set of videos that present a series of animated maps along with times that suggest how the battle transpired. Can't say how accurate all of this is, but it seems relatively free of partisan conclusions. www.youtube.com/watch?v=0XcLt-iGEog
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Jul 21, 2015 16:23:00 GMT
AK Thanks. An enjoyable way to pass half an hour. I found it logical, and it certainly did cover all the bases.
There were several things I think noteworthy:
CA continues to place great emphasis on non-combatant hostage taking. Don't know what to make of that. Perhaps it is nothing more than a tell on the times in which we live. Certainly food for further debate.
How does he "know" it was Company L that deployed as skirmishers on Luce Ridge, then on N-C Ridge? A shell casing is a shell casing. Logic I think would say the trailing company of Keogh. Everything I have seen suggests that was Company C. Also you might think if only one company were to be used in this effort, that an effort might be made to use a different company at each location in an effort to even out ammunition expenditure. Minor point, but if it were Company L in both places, their on person ammunition availability would be somewhat depleted by the time they reached the skirmish line facing Henryville and to the west coming up Deep Coulee.
You will also note that the "Boston role" includes only the information that Benteen was in place and coming as were the packs, along with passing Kanipe and later Martini (without getting into if they conversed or not) giving Custer information that his back trail was then clear. Notice no mention was made of Boston reporting anything on Reno, which in my mind becomes more speculative with each passing moment.
What did surprise me was little, in fact no mention was made of the Deep Ravine route into Keogh's backside. CH simply appears in CH Ravine east of Keogh, and not a word mentioned as to how he got there, which I find particularly notable in that we know he was also down at the Reno valley area.
One notable thing that stands out most of all to me, is how the terrain had such an impact on the situational awareness between the two battalions.
Don't agree with everything CA says, and neither will anyone else I suspect, but it was obvious that a heck of a lot of time and effort was put in to the presentation, and the story is one of logical flow, and anyone seeking to dispute it point by point has their work cut out for them.
PS: A couple of late arriving thoughts:
CA has Keogh ordering Harrington to take Company C down into Calhoun Coulee to clear away the threat to the Company L right flank. Were that to be solid undisputed fact, one would think that Keogh in his role as battalion commander would keep an eye on that movement, but we see that CA within the next moment or so has Keogh being unaware of Company C's plight and the ultimate effect it has on Company L. To me that brings into question Harrington being ordered. By all rights that should have been a Keogh decision to make, and I don't think CA was far off base making that assumption, but I think we would be caught off base if it was accepted without further exaluation.
CA has Company I remaining mounted during the Company C and L parts of the action. I don't know how that could be verified. Captain Keogh being wounded while mounted is verifiable, but I believe the remainder must still remain unverified assumption.
|
|
|
Post by Beth on Jul 21, 2015 17:23:31 GMT
Perhaps some may recall a series of YouTube videos done by Custer Apollo several years back. Well, he has done another set of videos that present a series of animated maps along with times that suggest how the battle transpired. Can't say how accurate all of this is, but it seems relatively free of partisan conclusions. www.youtube.com/watch?v=0XcLt-iGEogI will have to check it out. I truly enjoy his tour of the battlefield videos and refer to them often when I want to remind myself about how different locations look and relate to each other. I can't say I agree 100% with his theories, but that is the beauty of LBH, everyone can have their theories and there will never be a concrete answer to why thing happened the way they did.
|
|