|
Post by yanmacca on Mar 11, 2016 11:03:28 GMT
Mac, I have pondering with the idea of Keogh and his company being apart of the Custer/Yates group (along with C), but I know that this will be ridiculed by certain people as being a load of tosh.
But imagine this, the whole group of four companies + HQ came down from Crazy Horse ravine and Keogh's company was last in line. things get messy with E company being the vanguard and getting repulsed, this causes some confusion which turns to panic as Indians begin to cross and fire at the soldiers on the high ground, Custer orders a general withdrawal and Keogh takes his company back the way it came and up through Crazy Horse Ravine and gets caught by Indians coming from deep coulee. C being the next in line was the head of the group as they cross to cemetery ridge, and this company his attacked as it sweeps past the western bank of the river and takes casualties, it carry's on and reaches Calhoun's position. Custer and the other two companies pull up as they saw what has happened to C company and decide to stay put.
Well there's a take for you, and if anyone thinks it is rubbish, then at least I hoped you found it entertaining. Yan.
|
|
|
Post by deadwoodgultch on Mar 11, 2016 11:21:42 GMT
Ian, That is the north/south battle flow scoffed at by most. I don't find it impossible. In essence what you have laid out is a south/north scout, as GAC would have not been heavily engaged until repulsed in the environs of Ford D. As he wheels his troops, CIL become the lead, only to find the NA's have backfilled the terrain using fords and gullies that had been passed during the scout. I guess I could be more expansive, but you get the idea. I do have one question for the professionals. How do you tell which way a trooper was fleeing when he was shot down. Regards, Tom
|
|
colt45
First Lieutenant
Posts: 440
|
Post by colt45 on Mar 11, 2016 14:38:47 GMT
About the only way I know of to tell which way a trooper was fleeing when killed is circumstantial evidence. The archaeological evidence is all we have after 140 years. I believe using the sites where bullets, shell casings, and other artifacts are found is the only way to make a stab at determining the flow. The 1984-85 excavation went a long way toward showing how it could have occurred using the artifacts found, which showed various positions of both sides. It seems a pretty safe bet to say that L company started on the slope of Calhoun hill, and was forced back up the hill, as the finds indicate from the hill and from Henryville. The same logic is used when surmising that I company survivors fled toward LSH.
Could Yan's scenario have played out as he describes? Absolutely. C company could have been fleeing away from Calhoun hill at the end, rather than initiating a charge from Calhoun hill. We just don't have a way to know. Had we been on the battlefield on the 28th of June, 1876, and used modern analysis techniques, we might very well have been able to tell which way a man was fleeing when killed, as there would be tracks and other perishable evidence at the scene. Since that is not the case, what physical evidence was found must be used along with the NA accounts. I believe the overall battle flow was south to north, but once Custer was repulsed at ford D, the flow takes on a more north to south flow. This jives with the JSIT account and isn't refuted by any other evidence.
|
|
|
Post by yanmacca on Mar 11, 2016 14:51:29 GMT
This map is not my work but shows up the markers quite well, it was probably the work of Capt. C Conz and it is rather good. Now look at the map and try to fathom out a flow, it is difficult, but could there be a claim that the markers for Sharrow and Kellogg could be due to race from ford D to cemetery ridge? because in the case of Kellogg, he was a civilian reporter and I cannot see him fleeing the protection of the soldiers and doing a back door boogie. Foley was a C Company man and could have carried on south instead of turning towards Calhoun and Butler, well he was the 1st Sergeant to Keogh's Company and if he made it that far from ford then then he was riding Seabiscuit.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Mar 11, 2016 16:35:19 GMT
I did find it entertaining, but I also saw the plausibility of it, and the plausibility of those same moves being made by direction, IF it was initially perceived that the opposition were not in great numbers and Companies C and I could easily shoo away opposition and return to the main body when done. It would be sort of a two company variation on the widely accepted purpose for the Company C foray in two different directions.
Worth further examination I think.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Mar 11, 2016 18:02:49 GMT
Before the casual visitor to this site, seeing these proceedings, determines that the inmates have gained control of the asylum, it might be well to say that we often examine alternatives here for their possible viability. The rules are simple, such examination must be based upon some bit of evidence or testimony, such as here the JSIT narrative.
None of this precludes the fact that most of us generally follow the conventional narrative of the Custer portion of the battle. If that was all we were to discuss though this site would be boring as watching grass grow and paint dry together.
|
|
mac
Brigadier General
Posts: 1,800
|
Post by mac on Mar 12, 2016 12:26:01 GMT
Imaginative solution Ian! The problem that first strikes me with this is why would C not fall back to Custer rather than head on towards Calhoun? The other thing is Keogh all bunched up in low ground when he is retreating...seems odd to me, but happy to be shown otherwise. I will post later on some thoughts re tactics and the traditional battle flow solution. Cheers
|
|
|
Post by deadwoodgultch on Mar 12, 2016 13:57:17 GMT
Mac, Two things: 1. C would have been in their order of march, if the command did an about face when confronted in the Ford D area CIL would find themselves in the lead. The troops that had been the lead would now be in the rear. 2. Keogh's I company, could very well have been hit broadside by the NA's coming up the gullies and pushed via the gap to where they were found.
Regards, Tom
|
|
mac
Brigadier General
Posts: 1,800
|
Post by mac on Mar 12, 2016 14:39:43 GMT
Fair enough Tom! I do like the idea of the companies being tactically isolated. I am now worried about the few men from C,I,L left with the Custer group at LSH. Cheers
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Mar 12, 2016 18:57:22 GMT
I think that as we deliberate on these matters we should be guided by one or both of two principles.
If we conclude that the placement of these companies were deliberate actions, we must assume that that placement was a result of rational action, i.e. a countermove to face and eliminate a threat.
If we conclude that the final placement was exclusively a result of enemy offensive action, then even under those circumstances there must be rational reaction.
What would a reasonable man order, even under conditions of great stress?
|
|
|
Post by yanmacca on Mar 12, 2016 19:13:10 GMT
I know it looks like I throw my ideas together while I am washing the dishes, but I swear that’s far from the truth, I have been reading about how the Indians hugged the gullies and ravines after they crossed the river and these natural avenues would unintentionally lead them to areas of the battlefield which would place the cavalry on the back foot.
The same could be said about the cavalry, if they did hug the reverse slope of battle ridge and then go down Crazy Horse ravine, then why wouldn't company “I” retreat back that way. One Indian account does say that a company did break near the ford and was fired on by their own men and this company was Keogh’s men, so they must have been rather jumpy and if they were at the rear of march then they could have broke and rode back along the line of march and finish up behind BR.
Yan.
|
|
|
Post by deadwoodgultch on Mar 12, 2016 20:51:25 GMT
Ian, Are the dishes clean? Does your bride approve?
Regards, Tom
|
|
|
Post by Beth on Mar 13, 2016 0:31:34 GMT
I think that as we deliberate on these matters we should be guided by one or both of two principles. If we conclude that the placement of these companies were deliberate actions, we must assume that that placement was a result of rational action, i.e. a countermove to face and eliminate a threat. If we conclude that the final placement was exclusively a result of enemy offensive action, then even under those circumstances there must be rational reaction. What would a reasonable man order, even under conditions of great stress? Can't the placement of companies be a mix? That Custer left Calhoun and journeyed on then everyone was forced back from Ford D?
|
|
dave
Brigadier General
Posts: 1,679
|
Post by dave on Mar 13, 2016 2:11:19 GMT
Beth I believe it was SNAFU from 3411 on and that Custer was just playing out a bad hand. His failure to scout the Indian camps left him playing catch up on horse back looking for the end of the village. His ineptness allowed the individual Indians as well as larger groups to take a bite out of the middle of the snake that was the 7th. The head was not near so no worry about being bitten.
You know I have very no idea of how to plan or prepare for battle and absolutely no idea of any military maneuvers but I do know enough that you don't start a fight unless you really believe you can win. Custer rides into the middle of the largest concentration of Indians ever seen and just fumbles his way into a massacre. Very little military expertise displayed and no indication of adjusting properly to the force of the hostiles. He strewed his command all over the dusty Montana hills and screwed the pooch.
Just the empty headed ideas of a civilian noncombatant. Regards Dave
PS Yan since I am 79% British I better start drinking Fuller's London Porter and going to Captain D's for fish and chips.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Mar 13, 2016 2:45:26 GMT
Absolutely Dave, they can be a mix and probably are. The only thing that must be entered into it is that either the collective or separate action(s) must be either a rational action or reaction.
An example of the irrational is the Captain Pretend pet theory that Custer left three companies behind and took two forward to look for a defensive position on low ground (mind you), and then diddled and fiddled until it was too late to call those three companies forward. A lunatic would find that an irrational justification for the final placement.
|
|