|
Post by quincannon on Jun 3, 2017 14:15:26 GMT
I could not agree with you first paragraph any more than I do Ian.
The reviewer inserted his opinion in that review, based upon what I do not know, and it was not based upon anything Michoe wrote in his book. It was therefore just the same as the Malevolent Musketeer insisting that supporting distance was in excess of three miles, something not based upon fact.
Actually what the man wrote was very easy to tear apart.
I don't even doubt that they may have been occasions where bodies had to have ropes tied to them to pull them out of Deep Ravine. Note here I said Deep Ravine.
If there was an organized position down there the best place for it from a tactical perspective was on the lip of ground that separates Deep Ravine from Cemetery Ravine. While the line was technically on that lip, and facing toward Cemetery Ravine, there is still a very good chance that some bodies could have slipped down the slope on the Deep Ravine side. I find that both completely logical, and consistent with the story Michoe is trying to tell.
I also think that you are fast approaching truth about body identification as well.
I was once an enlisted soldier in a rifle company, who would recognize the people in my own company under normal circumstances. I would be hard pressed to know those in HHC, A and C though. Some maybe, but not well. I can assure you that were I put under the same conditions of 27 June 1876 I would not have a clue.
|
|
|
Post by Beth on Jun 3, 2017 15:47:30 GMT
Chuck if I read something that I personally have never seen before [even though I don't buy it], then I feel compelled to post it, if it turns out to be a load of tosh, then fair enough, but if things are written and they are relevant [like I thought my post about the reviewer] then it needs to posted. Hell, there could be plenty of people reading that review and believing that story by that guy, so lets see if it has some validity and this is the place to do it. Beth, I wonder if the reason why they couldn't identify the enlisted men was because that the men from most of these companies never knew each other. They previously started out on this campaign as a fragmented regiment which had been serving all over the shop. Example, the five companies which went with Custer's battalion all died, except for a hand full of men detached to the packs, so really it was only these trooper packers who could identify their buddies, plus this was a big battlefield and if six men from C company were trying to find their friends, then it is no wonder the identification level was so low. I agree totally the reason so many of the enlisted men where not identified was because a lack of familiarity with the men. I think though there probably would have been a bigger effort put into identifying all of the officers, especially since so many were later removed from LBH and shipped home or to where they wanted to be buried. I'm not sure if this was because officers family generally were a bit more plump in the pocket over an enlisted man's family when it came to bearing the costs or was it based on sort of ingrained tradition that enlisted men should be left where they fell and officers sent home.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Jun 3, 2017 16:07:00 GMT
I suspect you are correct on all counts Beth.
There was a caste system in the Army of that time. It still exists but not nearly to the extent it once did. I think WWII was the beginning of the end of the old ways, and such things as the special operations community that grew up during that war and after that have greatly contributed to the tearing down of those societal barriers that once existed between officers and enlisted personnel. Montrose can speak to that directly, but in the SO community you find that the enlisted soldiers were just as well educated or more than the officers that commanded them. That makes a complete difference in the former outlook and that outlook has since been much reduced through the rest of the Army. The old system is not gone, nor should it be, but it had moderated considerably.
|
|
|
Post by Beth on Jun 4, 2017 20:52:00 GMT
True. I will need to figure out where it needs to go, but it isn't Deep Ravine.
|
|
|
Post by yanmacca on Jun 5, 2017 12:53:15 GMT
Beth I can delete my posts if you wish, as most of them are just aimless chit chat.
|
|
|
Post by Beth on Jun 5, 2017 14:59:29 GMT
No, I want to put an area in the other battles area for battlefield preservation, cemeteries and the like but I am experiencing computer problems. Hopefully I will get to it later to day.
|
|
|
Post by Beth on Jun 5, 2017 19:31:55 GMT
|
|
|
Post by herosrest on Apr 19, 2019 20:53:20 GMT
|
|
|
Post by crowsnest on Jul 7, 2021 12:09:35 GMT
Ok, so does this scenario make any plausible sense.
E Company is stationed in a skirmish line on Cemetery Ridge. 1/4 of the men are in Cemetery Ravine as horse holders. The line from E Company to F Company which is stationed in the vicinity of LSH is not flush, but with a gap of some measurable space. The suicide boys target E Company but on the flank close to this gap. As they over run (and begin to actually run through the skirmish line) the E company line on the right begins to falter and begins to bunch towards the center. While the attack continues on that flank, the horse holder contingent is noticed by the attackers and becomes a target as well. Horse holders respond by letting go of horses to defend themselves. Seeing this development Sturgis (who I assume is in charge at this stage) has his men begin to fall off the ridge on the right under pressure to attempt to reform his line in a more East to West orientation (away from a NE-SW orientation) This reforming increases the separation of contact from F company. This increasing gap allows for the natives to attack F Company from the SW starting their envelopment. As damage in inflicted on E Company, a route begins, having to run through the attackers to get to LSH it is no longer an option. The route runs in the only direction (somewhat) available and that's south. (Especially if they see the LSH contingent faltering) While many are picked off in their flight, some continuing on that track until it takes them all the way to Deep Ravine. Just as Reno ran to the timber the handful of men left probably significantly less than 28 at this point jump into the Ravine and attempt to take some cover attempting to hide, but to no avail.
|
|
|
Post by yanmacca on Jul 7, 2021 13:55:54 GMT
You could have hit the nail on the head there Crow!
No matter which way we look at this, E and F got fix on the northend of battle ridge whilst the other three got overrun to the south. The way all of these companies met their fate was down to one thing, isolation, the Indians could and probably did, simply out flank and cut off many of these companies, and then panic set in and they broke, probably closly followed by Indians.
Ian
|
|
|
Post by deadwoodgultch on Jul 9, 2021 10:23:37 GMT
Crow, your theory feeds somewhat into what Steve/AZ has been saying for years.
Regards, Tom
|
|
|
Post by Elwood on Dec 26, 2022 15:00:39 GMT
Who was the reviewer? The words "So I think" is the reviewer thinking. Did Taylor in the memoir say that the bodies were in Deep Ravine? If so - no problem at all. If not then the words - :all the bodies were pulled out onto the ridge for closer inspection" - is the reviewers opinion based on his preconceived idea that they were in fact in the ravine in the first place. Just for info, I have Taylor's book here. He does not even mention Deep Ravine, or any other ravine. Does mention about officers feeling palms of bodies attempting to identify Lt. Sturgis. Talks about viewing GA and Tom's Custer's bodies.
|
|
|
Post by yanmacca on Dec 26, 2022 15:18:39 GMT
Hi Elwood; Here is what Fred said about E Company and bodies in a ravine.
Smith was the only E Company member found of LSH. Few people know this, but before the visitors centre and the National Cemetery were put in place, there were six markers on Cemetery Ridge. I believe all six were E Company men, especially since HQ personnel were accounted for and F Company was likely sent into the basin area. Then we have this:
1SG Ryan (M): 18 or 20 men of E Company. CPT Benteen (H): 22 bodies. CPT Moylan (A): 20-odd bodies of E Company. LT Godfrey (K): 28 men of Smith’s troop. LT Hare: 28 bodies of Smith’s troop in a coulee in skirmish order. SGT Kanipe (C): rode along the edge of a deep gully and counted 28 bodies in the ravine. LT Richard Thompson (6th Infantry): maybe 34 bodies in a gully [Camp]. LT Edward Maguire: drew a map showing 28 bodies in one particular ravine. LT Edward McClernand (2nd Cavalry): 28 bodies of Smith’s troop were found at the lower end of the line in a deep coulee. COL John Gibbon (7th Infantry): 40 or 50 bodies were found in a valley running perpendicular to the river. LT/Dr. Holmes Paulding: 28 bodies found in a deep ravine by the scouts.
These 28 + the 6 = 34. There were 36 enlisted personnel in E Company. We also know only something between 6 and 12 bodies were found between LSH and its ridge line and the ravine. McDougall said there were only a few bodies between the deep gully and where Custer lay. He was sure there were less than twelve and might not have been more than six. I would venture to say the missing 2 were part of those few. That accounts for all of E Company.
Ian
|
|
|
Post by Elwood on Dec 26, 2022 16:32:37 GMT
Thanks, don't know if I've ever seen those statements in one spot, together. But was it DEEP or Cemetery Ravine? Michno's book, which I've read has them in Cemetery. My thoughts, when I was there a couple of months ago was that Cemetery wasn't much of a ravine, certainly not deep. But I couldn't see further down towards the river, could've been deeper, plus maybe it was deeper in 1876. The geography of the ravines there, I've read, is that sediment accumulates in many actually filling them somewhat over time. Plus Michno also believed that there was much more resistance put up by the soldiers there (Cemetery Ravine) than many other researchers. When did the actual name "DEEP RAVINE" come into use? The troopers and officers making those observations only used the word " a deep ravine" or just a ravine or gully, no? Michno makes a good argument I believe. Not really sure where I fall. Still studying it. You?
|
|
|
Post by johnson1941 on May 30, 2023 13:49:54 GMT
"There are 17 or 18 too many markers in the group at the monument, too many in the group around Keogh’s marker, too many between the monument and the river, and none in the big gully where about 28 ought to be. I discovered these dead in the gully with Capt. McDougal in 1909, and he was clear that there were only 9 dead between the end of the ridge and the gully (not counting the group that lay around the body of Gen. Custer) - only 9 dead between the end of the ridge and the gully, and 28 in the gully. As the markers now stand, there are more than 50 where there should be only 9, on that side hill, and not enough at or in the gully. WALTER MASON CAMP: A LETTER TO EDWARD S. GODFREY, NOVEMBER 6 1920, Harper, Gordon. The Fights on the Little Horn Companion: Gordon Harper's Full Appendices and Bibliography (p. 2249). Casemate Publishers (Ignition). Kindle Edition This also seems pretty specific... "Deep Ravine curves to form a prominent bend...it was at this bend where Captain McDougall pointed out to Walter Camp in 1909 as the location where he buried 28 soldiers in 1876..." Would love to find the author's source from Camp as to this specific "bend" comment. And also his reference to Gall indicatig Deep ravine in 1886 a few pages later. Attachments:
|
|