|
Post by quincannon on Sept 12, 2019 18:30:09 GMT
You missed the point again Ian. No one is being critical of you the person or questioning anything about you, including your intelligence.
All that I am trying to get across to you is this
a. Battle is always a mess, and those that engage in battle emphasize the mess and largely ignore the "prime directive" - did you or did you not succeed in what you set out to do. YES or NO, no middle ground, no maybe, just YES we accomplished what we set out to do, or NO we did not.
b. First person participants ALWAYS stress the horror of battle, and that is completely understandable. They have been doing it since man first picked up a rock, and they will do it until judgment day. What they experienced is ALWAYS, the most frightening, the most shambolic. While it is always frightening and shambolic, it is neither the MOST, nor is it indicative of how the battle actually went. It is only their perspective of how the battle went, and their accounts cannot be taken as gospel across the entire spectrum of that part of the battle.
c. Favoring or being critical of an individual is almost always counterproductive. Everyone performs well on occasion, and at other times their performance leaves something to be desired. Unless the error on the part of an individual is so glaring that it cannot possibly be ignored then, you, I, or anyone else, has no business being critical of their errors of commission or omission. Before you ever do it again, ask yourself if you could have done it better, under the prevailing circumstances. If the answer is no, maybe, or I don't know, it is best to keep critical comments to ourselves. Remember when you do that the prevailing circumstances are that, you are having the shit scared out of you, pee is running down your leg, someone is trying to kill you, you have men looking to you for leadership, you may not have the experience required, not to mention the distraction of the noise and smoke of the battle raging, and those around you are looking at you to get them out of this alive. We are all only human. Remember the words of the poem "IF" - "If you can keep your head when all about you are losing theirs and blaming it on you". Don't know if the author of the poem was ever in battle, but those first words of his describe exactly what I am talking about.
d. Pouring scorn on someone without adequate cause is just as bad or worse than heaping praise on them, be it deserved or undeserved. The only one at LBH that deserves all of the scorn, and none of the praise is Lieutenant Colonel George Armstrong Custer.
e. This board is not facing lean days as you put it. There is very little new to discuss about this battle, and until some new theory emerges or new discovery made, you just put lulls in the conversation in their proper perspective, and move on. There is only so much conversation that can be had concerning paint drying. People just get tired. Let them rest, and check in another day.
f. If you do not wish to recognize when you are being told the complete and honest truth, I cannot help that.
|
|
|
Post by yanmacca on Sept 13, 2019 13:22:59 GMT
I tell you what Mac, the Maguire root does match perfectly with the markers, so I guess that Maguire may have used those markers as a guide for a two pronged move from ford B. Not sure if he was just joining up the dots on this one and assumed some of his ideas. See what you all think;
|
|
|
Post by deadwoodgultch on Sept 13, 2019 22:36:45 GMT
From some of the previous I must male a comment without the reading intervening. You may have already solved it. The pilot is the last out of the bomber, the captain is the last to leave the ship, there is doctrine for this as well as a rear guard/covering action. This is not just in our services. I will now go back and read the rest.
The cluster puck regarding the timber is that they were there in the first place. Reno was in the right spot in the breakout.
The cluster puck at Weir was that the all went there not the retreat. you don't do a look see with wounded an a half assed mule train. The withdrawal such as it was handled well by a future general officer.
Regards, Tom
|
|
|
Post by yanmacca on Sept 14, 2019 12:07:06 GMT
Looking at that trail again, I am thinking that Maguire must have either used a trail of shod horses or the markers or a combination of the two.
The trail of marker stones only really begins near FFR and tail back to near deep coulee and veer up to LSH, so any trail before then must have been caused by shod horses.
There has already been debate over this trail and some thing that rather than being a trail from ford B to LSH, it could be a trail from LSH to ford B. So, we could be looking at horse from E and F either being herded or grouping together and heading for the water.
One thought I have is the idea that if they were herded, then why would the Indians take them through the old trail made by any cavalry move from ford B. If so then we could be looking at a natural trail in which men or horses would follow due to the nature of the land.
One other option I have over looked is that Benteen was keen to mark this trail on his map, so maybe Maguire simply used this on his.
|
|
|
Post by deadwoodgultch on Sept 14, 2019 12:38:58 GMT
Regarding Reno's breakout from the timber, sometimes the best defense is an offensive move.
Conversely, at Weir could Godfrey's rear guard action initially an offensive move(he moved forward first) against overwhelming odds was wholly defensive.
Regards, Tom
|
|
|
Post by yanmacca on Sept 14, 2019 12:46:08 GMT
Hi Tom, you are right it was an offencive move but as a commander he should have ordered his company commanders to get their men ready ASAP, that way around twenty men would not have been left behind. As I remember it, Godfrey took the intiative, did Benteen organize a defencive skirmish? How did Godfrey know that the battalion was pulling out? Did Benteen put his battalion first before he left the battle space? Now to be honest, this is all fish and chip paper to me, as I am trying to help out Mac, if you want to discuss this between yourselfs then feel free
|
|
azranger
Brigadier General
Ranger
Posts: 1,824
|
Post by azranger on Sept 14, 2019 16:32:55 GMT
So much to comment on! Ian you ask good questions and have had good answers, we both have been educated over the years one way and another . All I say now is my opinion, based on the archaeology and the warrior accounts, and is subject to change in the light of new evidence. AZ is, rightly, interested in the Maguire map trail he mentions and how it fits into the "what happened" question. I have no definite answer yet, and look forward to whatever further data he can dig up or observe in the future. As to Companies C,I,L; their movements are best treated separately in the other thread but it is enough to say that I believe they left the Ford D area in the order L, C, I. Now to the confusion of battle. For a theory to be viable it must explain all the evidence in a credible manner. From the evidence available I believe Company F were at the northern end of BRE, and around that area they lost the majority of their mounts, and were forced to run under warrior fire along the ridge to LSH. At this time they were given covering fire by Company E who were holding Cemetery Ridge. Later Company F were assaulted on the east flank of LSH where they took losses including their officers. The remaining members of Company F retreated over LSH as the warriors also continued their assault over LSH, with some men escaping down to Company E on Cemetery Ridge. Ultimately Company E and the remnants from LSH were forced off Cemetery and down along the SSL towards the river with many entering Deep Ravine. A check of the mapped body identifications is entirely consistent with this scheme of movements, within the bounds of the confusion of battle, especially the last moments of a tremendous collapse. The evidence for this is contained in the 5 companies thread and is too great to revisit here. Question for AZ Steve does the route shown on the Maguire map, a route I know you see as viable for travel to LSH, overlap with the general line of the SSL? Cheers Mac
What I see is two different events. The first on the way over and joining on LSH. That explains the markers south of the Deep Gully in Deep Ravine. It is further to the south on Deep ravine. The other trail on the map was done latter and I believe it is movement of E from Cemetery Ridge down Cemetery Ravine crossing into Deep Ravine and the toward the Deep Gully. I think they were trying to go back the way they came and went to far done Deep Ravine before cutting over toward the travel corridor. Deep Gully was not where they wanted to go rather where they ended up.
Steve
|
|
azranger
Brigadier General
Ranger
Posts: 1,824
|
Post by azranger on Sept 14, 2019 16:35:21 GMT
I tell you what Mac, the Maguire root does match perfectly with the markers, so I guess that Maguire may have used those markers as a guide for a two pronged move from ford B. Not sure if he was just joining up the dots on this one and assumed some of his ideas. See what you all think;
Ian
There were no markers when Maguire made the map. The bodies were still there.
Steve
|
|
azranger
Brigadier General
Ranger
Posts: 1,824
|
Post by azranger on Sept 14, 2019 16:50:38 GMT
Here is map 4 showing what I believe happened. Those lines fit the travel corridor and the retrograde of E from CR. It clearly shows lines up and back. What he missed was what they did north of LSH. I think the line from CR was created when E left CR. They were supporting F on LSH and there are photos taken of kneeling infantry who were placed on CR by and Indian participant. There are two photos with one facing BRE and the other LSH.
|
|
mac
Brigadier General
Posts: 1,790
|
Post by mac on Sept 16, 2019 11:22:46 GMT
They were supporting F on LSH and there are photos taken of kneeling infantry who were placed on CR by and Indian participant. There are two photos with one facing BRE and the other LSH.
This is fully supported by the warrior accounts for the movement of F from the north of BRE to LSH. They are reported by warrior account as having lost their horses and running under fire along the ridge with E on CR firing to cover their movement.
|
|
mac
Brigadier General
Posts: 1,790
|
Post by mac on Sept 16, 2019 11:41:32 GMT
A few thoughts on the map. The map evolved and the one posted is version 4. Thinking now, I think the signs on the ground after the battle were probably far from clear, hence the evolution of the map. The fight had involved thousands of mounted warriors and I am sure that there were many horses all over the site post battle, both warriors, and soldiers on shod horses, so defining travel lines would be difficult. I suspect a lot was made of the body positions and linking these to supposed movements rather than actually defining travel lines. I doubt there was much gathering of forensic evidence as we might expect today. As Ian says above
I need a bit of think time about previous discussions of the big W of cartridge archaeology and the possibility of a cavalry movement down closer to ford B and around to Deep Coulee to counter the attack. Feel free to kick in on that, as to whether or not it might relate to the southern end of the route on the Maguire map. Cheers
|
|
azranger
Brigadier General
Ranger
Posts: 1,824
|
Post by azranger on Sept 16, 2019 14:28:47 GMT
Mac
I think Curley describes it as illustrated in map 4 and also map 3. As the five companies enter MTC some go straight across and some move down MTC. There are Indian accounts/drawings of the gray horses moving down MTC and then across. I believe Curley moves east and to the location my Crow friend showed to me two years ago. Martin picks up the next part stating he was within 600 yards of the ford. That put the gray horses, Custer and Cooke within 600 yards. Martin shows Benteen where he was sent back an Benteen states it was within 600 yards. It is not a stretch to think that F was with them. Thompson picks up from there with some exchange of fire. That 600 yards could be what Maguire is showing and fits with Butler and Foley marker areas. So if E retrogrades from CR it would at least consider moving the way the came which is the line of current markers and the dotted line on Maguire map 3 and 4.
What I like is that accounts of fighting and travel would be occurring simultaneous at different locations. When looking at Indian accounts this helps in timing and location. I think it was CIL that went straight across and there was 3 groups of Indians that engaged them slowing them as they moved toward crossing Deep Coulée and up to the Calhoun Area. They continued on all 5 companies were united at LSH. From there they moved north and then retrograded due to the Cheyennes. E and F were holding CR and LSH. LSH was fixed and destroyed and E was pushed off CR down Cemetery Ravine at first then crossing to Deep Ravine. They went to far west and ended in the Deep Gully of Deep Ravine. I believe around the Deep Gully area are markers from two different events. Some above the fording place and some from the retrograde movement.
To many Indians fixed and destroyed all 5 companies eventually.
Regards
Steve
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Sept 16, 2019 18:37:00 GMT
Regarding the McGuire Map.
1. Was McGuire able to follow a clearly defined trail still there a few days after the battle?
2. Did McGuire use the body locations, making some assumptions on how they got there, and then "assumed" that the reason they were there was because the route he later drew on his map was used?
3. Did he ever say how he did it for the written record?
I am asking here, not being critical of poor old McGuire, having to carry the like long burden of being the closest thing there is to an 1876 Combat Engineer. Poor fellow.
Well, it is doubtful if any trail remained after that ground being fought over in the last few days.
I am going out on a limb here, and saying that the McGuire trail was constructed by him based upon body locations, and if you take that as being possible, then you also must take into consideration the early opinions formed about the flow of battle, that we see in Benteen's first statements, and the report that got to Colonel Sturgis, contained in the newspaper interview with him. Both of those seem to contradict McGuire's view of how things transpired.
Bottom line is that it is not enough to make an assumption based upon final body locations, REGARDLESS of those bodies being located along a natural travel corridor as both Steve and Ian have pointed out. There must be more to lock that trail in concrete, saying this was it and no other.
|
|
|
Post by yanmacca on Sept 16, 2019 19:54:23 GMT
Maguire does say about his first and second map, that the soldiers retreated in two lines from ford B and he did this by the positions of the dead troopers. Problem is that Maguire himself kept adding stuff to his maps, in the end he had eight attempts before he was finally happy. I think he showed the second map at the RCOI.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Sept 16, 2019 20:46:55 GMT
If the map you draw is based on a bad job of assuming, then it does not matter how many he drew, how long it took him, nor on how pretty they are.
I am not saying he was wrong here. He may very well be right, but there is no independent means to determine what right is, without him going into an in depth report in writing, on how he did what he did, and what he based his information on. I know Steve and others swear by the guy, but I am not going to be led down the garden path by just one guy, McGuire, saying so. If I did that I might as well stop thinking and start slobbering over every word that drips from the mouth of Montrose, Wagner, and Rini
|
|