|
Post by quincannon on Jan 12, 2017 23:05:02 GMT
3411 is a Wagnerism. Wagner has no earthly idea where Custer viewed that valley from, nor does anyone else living today, or that was not in that valley at the time, and there is a very good chance none of them know either.
The gap was discovered by running across a comment made about road fill. Actually if you look at a large scale topographic map there are two places that could be in need of fill, the gap, and another place south of it on the same road, closer to Calhoun Hill. The gap has little if any tactical significance to the Custer attacks at Ford D with all five scenario. It only has significance if you go with the conventional theory, and only then to excuse Company I from being so far out of place.
In all probability Custer, looked at that valley. It would have been early. I think there is a possibility also that the people seen by those in the valley may have been the Crows with Mitch. I have lost my enthusiasm for Custer at 3411 or whatever you choose to call that high point on the bluffs. If Custer wanted to see Reno he would need to go to the edge because of line of sight. If Custer wanted to see the village, and the herd, he could have done that I believe from Sharpshooter or another high point back from the edge of the bluffs and higher.
Let me digress:
The tactic Custer used would be called - Contain - Bypass - Haul Ass. Given the proper resourcing this would be in my opinion the optimal tactical solution. It is incumbent upon the C-B-HA tactic though that two things occur.
1) You must weight the supporting (containing) attack so it has the capability to contain.
2) When you haul ass - FOR GOD's SAKE HAUL ASS - That means get going and keep going, run over what gets in your way, don't take a potty break, and don't halt to see what you can see half a mile away from your axis of attack.
Let it be fully understood that I am not endorsing C-B-HA attack given the circumstances Custer found himself in. He did not have the resources to pull off this maneuver. Those who have said that there was but one real option are correct - Up the gut in the valley with everything you have. Optimal tactical solutions are only as good as what you have to pull them off with. If you don't have the stuff, optimal is still optimal, but it is not correct for the situation you find yourself in.
WE AND I MEAN ALL OF US INCLUDING ME - must not take these things we read, hear from Aunt Sally or anyone else for granted. Example - Custer went to the edge of the bluffs to view Reno's progress. We don't know that, but yet it has become holy writ. Did you ever think that the guy who first said it was a complete moron? I am sure you did not, nor did anyone else who has repeated it or written it for 140 years. Of course that does not mean that the guy who first said it may still have been a moron.
|
|
|
Post by yanmacca on Jan 13, 2017 12:03:22 GMT
I am not sure but..I think that more soldiers saw E Company then those who supposedly saw Custer. DeRudio is the main instigator of Custer waving from a high point but he saw these figures when he was taking cover in the timber, which I would guess by that point that the skirmish lines had started to fail and all of this would be in full view of those men on the high point.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Jan 13, 2017 12:46:51 GMT
Ian: Neither of these alleged incidents seem right to me.
I have stood in that valley, and I have looked toward the bluffs from the Reno position, and while I grant you I could have seen horses moving and perhaps men standing, I will be double damned if I could say with 100 percent certitude what color the horses were, or precisely identify the men.
Now I think it may be possible to more clearly determine the color of the horses from further south in the valley, along Reno's route to his skirmish line positions, I am just not buying any such precise sighting from his point of dismount.
That would lead me to speculate that the horses may have been sighted while in route, and that any men seen while dismounted could be Custer, or some scouts, or Donald Duck with Huey, Dewey, and Louie.
I think the most probable answer is some scouts and some horses from an unidentified company. Then you must ask yourself the question, if they saw Company E, why didn't the see the rest, or at least some of the rest? My answer would be that they thought they saw what they wanted to see, not what they actually saw, if anything.
|
|
|
Post by yanmacca on Jan 13, 2017 13:05:28 GMT
It was early on in the piece Chuck, a few of Reno's men spotted Custer's column only minutes after crossing the river at ford A, Varnum claimed he saw E Company some 15 to 20 minutes later.
|
|
|
Post by yanmacca on Jan 13, 2017 13:16:10 GMT
SSR is a fairly high position, now I know that google earth can distort things but here is what it shows you of the valley from SSR.
|
|
|
Post by yanmacca on Jan 13, 2017 13:26:27 GMT
If Reno's men saw the Custer column just after they crossed at ford A, then that would suggest that Custer kept to the ridge lines and not the drainage's, so giving that Reno was on the valley floor, then that would mean that Custer stuck to either one of these routes, because if he moved along the coulees running down to Reno creek, then he would be out of view.
|
|
azranger
Brigadier General
Ranger
Posts: 1,824
|
Post by azranger on Jan 13, 2017 14:29:48 GMT
I think the picture we are using here is taken from what I now call fencepost. bc and I tried last year with GPS units to find 3411. The ridge adjacent the pull out near the gate going from private land to NPS is that location on a map marked 3411 but the GPS has it higher significantly.
In 2009 I was at the battlefield courtesy of my younger son Scott. We both went on that trip. I asked him to stop at fence post based upon what I would look for when horseback and attempting to be see as much as possible. I did not see any other choices along the bluffs between Weir and Reno that met that requirement.
Last year when talking with Fred I think fence post is back as a possibility.
The difference of viewing someone on the bluffs and someone on SSR is over 1,000 yards. I would hope soldiers could tell that difference. If the background is the sky objects could appear closer. When you are along the highway it is hard to discern that SSR is not along the bluffs.
There should be no one calling SSR as being on the bluffs if they were actually riding there. Bluffs have a cliff component which does not describe riding on SSR. The bluffs in my opinion are only along the river drainage.
I agree with Colt Those worms observed were some of the horses. In fact I think only the Indian horses were observed. Smoke was also observed by wind could move the smoke. I also think they would know that a campsite or village would have to be in a wide valley area along the river. I think there is a good chance that scouts knew the exact location.
From: The Fights on the Little Horn
"At the same time that this move (the one Custer followed) was made, the van of a very large contingent of agency-roamers was reaching the Rosebud about ten miles south of Davis and setting up thier own camp circles there.... It is probable they had also obtained additional information about the movements of the military, and were seeking safety in numbers. The larger group consisted of about 2500 people, but they had not all reached the Rosebud. So a short 10 mile ride would have discovered evidence. It would have also discovered evidence of warriors without other people and infrastructure moving along the Rosebud. Custer's options could include following further by the scouts to Rosebud battlefield. Custer would also know that this number of Indians riding without family and possession indicates fight rather than flight
"A third group, made up of hostiles and free-roamers, with a few agency-roamers attached, was approaching the divide between the Upper Tongue and the headwaters of Lodge Grass Creek from the south and east. having kept a few jumps ahead of Crook's column for the past couple of weeks....This aggregation numbered almost 2,000and included some Pains Cree warriors down from Canada to keep a promise made in previous years to help their Lakota friends in time of danger."
If Terry's idea was to recon while moving past the turning point from the Rosebud to Davis Creek,Terry would be right. In 10 miles of scouting evidence of another large group would be discovered. In 20 miles the battlefield on the Rosebud would be discovered.
Would this have changed what Custer did? Custer could have sat on the Rosebud near the junction of Davis Creek while the scouting up the Rosebud continued. This would buy time for Terry to get to location where they knew the river boat would stop. seems to me that Gordie shows an additional 4,500 people with the second smaller group having 500 tipis for 2,000 people which is group Crook was after. So Custer is going up against the Big Village with almost 4 times as many tipis with fewer soldiers than Crook.
Anyone know anything about the Cree that came to fight with the Lakota?
Regards
AZ Ranger
|
|
azranger
Brigadier General
Ranger
Posts: 1,824
|
Post by azranger on Jan 13, 2017 14:43:37 GMT
SSR is a fairly high position, now I know that google earth can distort things but here is what it shows you of the valley from SSR. You comment is right on that it is not the view from SSR other than a direction. That view is possible because of the elevation of the camera. Sitting on a horse you cannot see the river and parts of the valley. What you see is close to the red roof of "Fort Custer" and the interstate. Weir is higher than SSR so it is impossible to see in that direction unless you go higher with the satellite view.
From fencepost you are on the edge of the bluffs and can look past Weir because of location. If you swing far enough Weir blocks your view there also. As far as what you see from fencepost as compared to SSR is amazing. Two years ago we walked on top it with the Friends organization and the view was similar to when we rode up there. That is my problem with Google maps. You would need to tilt the view to be approximately 5-8 feet above the height of SSR. At that point the bluffs along the river block the view of the valley floor.
Looking from the highway you have to know where SSR is to discern it. It blends in so well that you can not tell it is 1,000 yards from the bluffs.
I think what Gerry did for Thompson viewscape from his river location would be an appropriate way to see what could be seen from the valley floor and also the reverse from the SSR.
Regards
Steve
|
|
|
Post by yanmacca on Jan 13, 2017 16:08:51 GMT
I thought so Steve, so where did the incident take place were the column spotted the village and the horses got excited, someone lived to report that incident and what Custer said at that time, so they must have been on an location which allowed the whole column to view the valley and not just a few riders, that’s why I said that it could be SSR.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Jan 13, 2017 18:06:57 GMT
Ian: You are making the assumption that the hold your horses incident happened. Who reported it, Martini or Kanipe? Both indicated the Indians were running as well, and we know how that all turned out.
Hold your horses is also a term we use to indicate that someone or someone's should not be so impatient. It does not necessarily mean that horses are literally getting out of control.
Steve is correct about the helicopter view from above SSR. Down lower you view would be much more restricted. It may have been enough though to discern what Custer was looking for, if anything. We just don't know what Custer was looking for, from the information we have. If he were going to check on Reno's progress he would have had to go to the edge of the bluffs, to see Reno, as he was close to the river and that is the only way he could be seen. On the other hand were he just getting an idea of the extent of the village, he could see some of it from SSR, and get a fair idea of how far it extended from the smoke and haze, which would be visible Weir or no Weir.
Now do not interpret this as me saying that Custer did not go to the edge of the bluffs. I did not say that. All I am saying is that we do not know the reason he would have done it. There are three possible reasons, 1) check on Reno, and, 2) get an appreciation of the village, or, 3) both. What I am saying is that his trip to the bluffs, if he made one, is inconsistent with the need for speed on the march to get up north. Another one of our quaint colonialisms - You beat the iron while it is hot.
Believe none of what you hear, and only half of what you see.
|
|
|
Post by Beth on Jan 13, 2017 21:13:58 GMT
Ian: Neither of these alleged incidents seem right to me. I have stood in that valley, and I have looked toward the bluffs from the Reno position, and while I grant you I could have seen horses moving and perhaps men standing, I will be double damned if I could say with 100 percent certitude what color the horses were, or precisely identify the men. Now I think it may be possible to more clearly determine the color of the horses from further south in the valley, along Reno's route to his skirmish line positions, I am just not buying any such precise sighting from his point of dismount. That would lead me to speculate that the horses may have been sighted while in route, and that any men seen while dismounted could be Custer, or some scouts, or Donald Duck with Huey, Dewey, and Louie. I think the most probable answer is some scouts and some horses from an unidentified company. Then you must ask yourself the question, if they saw Company E, why didn't the see the rest, or at least some of the rest? My answer would be that they thought they saw what they wanted to see, not what they actually saw, if anything. I would like to point out being able to make out who was on that high point would depend on where the sun was in the sky--just go outside and take a picture of someone backlit by the sun and see how much details you lose or if you pose someone with the sun in their face how washed out they become. I am sure those men who survived wanted it to be Custer taking one heroic wave as he road on to his fate but it doesn't mean that it's true.
|
|
|
Post by Beth on Jan 13, 2017 21:44:43 GMT
Ian: You are making the assumption that the hold your horses incident happened. Who reported it, Martini or Kanipe? Both indicated the Indians were running as well, and we know how that all turned out.
Hold your horses is also a term we use to indicate that someone or someone's should not be so impatient. It does not necessarily mean that horses are literally getting out of control.
Steve is correct about the helicopter view from above SSR. Down lower you view would be much more restricted. It may have been enough though to discern what Custer was looking for, if anything. We just don't know what Custer was looking for, from the information we have. If he were going to check on Reno's progress he would have had to go to the edge of the bluffs, to see Reno, as he was close to the river and that is the only way he could be seen. On the other hand were he just getting an idea of the extent of the village, he could see some of it from SSR, and get a fair idea of how far it extended from the smoke and haze, which would be visible Weir or no Weir.
Now do not interpret this as me saying that Custer did not go to the edge of the bluffs. I did not say that. All I am saying is that we do not know the reason he would have done it. There are three possible reasons, 1) check on Reno, and, 2) get an appreciation of the village, or, 3) both. What I am saying is that his trip to the bluffs, if he made one, is inconsistent with the need for speed on the march to get up north. Another one of our quaint colonialisms - You beat the iron while it is hot.
Believe none of what you hear, and only half of what you see. I understand how Ian may be feeling, there are so many statements and stories that exist around LBH that it is about impossible to separate what is true, could be true, mistaken or just a dang lie. It's going to take a lot of work and rethinking to decide which ones are more valid and which ones aren't. I did a quick check to find out when Custer said "hold your horses" could he have been speaking figuratively or literally. There are sources that actually tell you when a phrase came into being and where. It's an American term from the 1840's so Custer could very will have been advising his men to calm down.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Jan 13, 2017 22:42:19 GMT
There was a poster once in a land far away that took Doctor Porters relating that Custer said to him on the eve of battle "Porter there will be great killing today" as indicative of Custer desiring to kill and by implication being in a state of mental imbalance. Perhaps he was, but it is far more likely that he meant that a large battle was in the offing.
If you take statements like that one, or hold your horses as always being literal, you are led down many a false trail.
I know exactly how Ian feels. There is nothing about this that is straightforward, and that has been made so, by so many people, with so many agendas over the years, that it is nearly impossible. When I say Hail to the Redskins does that mean I am supporting the delay of that Dakota pipeline or supporting the football team in the city of my youth. I guess that would depend upon if you see me marching in protest in front of a Federal building or pouting in the corner sucking my thumb about their substandard performance this year. Still you could not be sure, could you
|
|
|
Post by Beth on Jan 14, 2017 1:33:34 GMT
In Idaho, Hail to the Redskins might be a unneighborly wish towards your neighbor's crop.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Jan 14, 2017 5:54:50 GMT
Don't you think Beth if all those people saw that company of gray horses on the bluffs, saw "Custer" waving from the bluffs, had information from both Kanipe and Martini that Custer traveled that way, and were still confused as to where he was, something was amiss. Don't you think that if Weir and his company had viewed something so horrible that the secret had to be told to Madam Fluffy when the doors were closed and the curtains drawn there would have be no doubt in anyone's mind that Georgie got whacked a little further north, and as they sat on that hilltop about 9:00 PM on 25 June that they knew they were the next item on the menu.
Perhaps none of these people ever talked to each other during the battle, or perhaps some of this valued information only occurred to them in after years, as people would ask them what LBH was "really" like.
I know I am a cynic, but none of this stuff has the ring of truth about it to the point where I would not question any of it.
I understand that myth busting is hard on many. I also know that some of those myths may not be myths at all. I know there is more fiction than fact out there concerning this whole episode. I further know that we in a modern age cannot place ourselves in the Victorian era and share those same values, therefore cannot fully understand the viewpoints they had. That is the main reason we must, if we are to be true to ourselves, question everything we hear, or that is written about this subject. If what we hear and read is truth, it will stand up to every test applied to it. If it is false, or fluff, the sand it is built upon will soon show.
Chesterton tells us in the "Blue Cross" that Father Brown knew that Flambeau, The Colossus of Crime, who posed as a member of the clergy, was not a clergyman, because in a discussion of theology with him Flambeau questioned reason. Everything else in theology was fair game, but not reason itself. We must not make this same error. We must never question reason. Reasonable men make decisions that turn out to be wrong, but they do them thinking they are correct at the time. Therefore you cannot reasonably conclude that Custer would do something deliberately to upset the plan that he himself had put in motion. Two things come to mind in that regard on the move to the north, going to the edge of the bluffs, and going to Ford B. A reasonable man would proceed with all dispatch, knowing that speed was essential, and delays in route were intolerable. If speed were not essential, and delays tolerable, then the very action taken , moving north, was not a reasonable act.
|
|