|
Post by deadwoodgultch on Sept 16, 2019 21:49:58 GMT
One thing that hurts here is that there were no debrief, or first hand after action reports. I am sure they were done for the southern end of the battlefield, such as could be. We rely on these today, when we have participants. Shod hoofs at B? Action or battle rewards to the winners? I think the latter. Steve and I are divergent on which company lead south, we have our own reasons.
Regards, Tom
|
|
|
Post by deadwoodgultch on Sept 16, 2019 23:13:14 GMT
Another thing that is little if ever discussed, that is Henryville. A late poster and others from another board seem to think that the native Americans did not do battle planning and fought as individuals. If so, how come there was Henryville? How many repeaters were in the Indian's hands? How come there were so many arrayed against L&C? Is it possible someone or more than one directed those south to cut off a retreat? Were all 5 companies in the northern environs? Did the Cheyenne cut them off and chase them south? Was that fire a planned concentration to collar the lead elements of the 7th moving south?
Awe hell, the Indians didn't bate Fetterman, or attempt to do the same to Custer, on the Yellowstone Expedition, did they?
Steve and I have to finish an interview next Summer.
Regards, Tom
|
|
|
Post by deadwoodgultch on Sept 16, 2019 23:35:14 GMT
One more question, did the half hour delay at CR allow the NA to set this ambush?
This was another time when the Sioux cutoff the front and decimated the rear.
The Massacre Canyon battle took place in Nebraska on August 5, 1873 near the Republican River. It was one of the last hostilities between the Pawnee and the Sioux (or Lakota) and the last battle/massacre between Great Plains Indians in North America. The massacre occurred when a large Oglala/Brulé Sioux war party of over 1,500 warriors led by Two Strike, Little Wound, and Spotted Tail attacked a band of Pawnee during their summer buffalo hunt. In the ensuing rout more than 75–100 Pawnees were killed, men with mostly women and children, the victims suffering mutilation and some set on fire.
The Quaker agent John W. Williamson stated that 156 Pawnee were killed. This massacre ranked among "the bloodiest attacks by the Sioux in Pawnee history. Cruel and violent warfare like this had been practiced against the Pawnee by the Lakota Sioux for centuries since the mid-1700s and through the 1840s. Attacks increased further in the 1850s until 1875. Historically the Pawnee chose to give up what remained of their Nebraska homeland to the US Government after the incident and moved away because of it. The Pawnee villages and Quaker agency near Genoa were attacked by the Lakota months and years prior.
According to Indian agent John W. Williamson of the Genoa Agency, who accompanied the hunting party, On the 3rd day of July, 1873, the Indians, to the number of 700, left Genoa for the hunting grounds. Of this number 350 were men, the balance women and children.
The Pawnee were traveling along the west bank of the canyon, which runs south to the Republican River, when they were attacked. "A census taken at the Pawnee Agency in September, according to Agent Burgess 71 Pawnee warriors were killed, and 102 women and children killed, the victims brutally mutilated and scalped and others even set on fire although Trail Agent John Williamson's account states 156 Pawnee died.
Principal chiefs at the battle were: Pawnee: Sky Chief, Sun Chief, Fighting Bear, Ruling His Son. Sioux: Spotted Tail (Brulé chief) Little Wound (Oglala chief), Two Strike (Brulé chief). Chief Charging Bear (John Grass, Sihasapa)
Among the Pawnee dead were Sky Chief (Tirawahut Lesharo) who was surrounded and killed by the Sioux while skinning a buffalo, the wife and four children of Traveling Bear, a former sergeant in the Pawnee Scouts who served under Maj. Frank North and a Medal of Honor recipient.
Again, fought alone and did not plan!
Regards, Tom
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Sept 17, 2019 0:17:51 GMT
That "late"poster, God rest his soul, had his head so far up his ass that he is probably still that way, while taking his extended dirt nap.
Here is the thing. When an individual is so sure of himself, some would say so arrogant, that he believes his intellect so far superior to the rest of humanity, that person tends to always underrate everyone.
Three things you and I, and all the rest who have ever worn the suit, DO, ALWAYS DO, is think the other guy is BETTER, SMARTER, and their force FAR MORE WELL DEVELOPED than you are. It may turn out you are wrong, but you always keep on thinking that way. Keeps you on your game and alive.
|
|
|
Post by yanmacca on Sept 17, 2019 11:17:22 GMT
Maguire's first map has only one trail, but this soon changed to two, so what made him add an extra trail, did he totally miss something only to re-think it through later? Map #1 and a later one;
|
|
mac
Brigadier General
Posts: 1,790
|
Post by mac on Sept 18, 2019 12:00:37 GMT
On neither map does the line of transit go all the way down to the river at Ford B. Am I right? Cheers
|
|
azranger
Brigadier General
Ranger
Posts: 1,824
|
Post by azranger on Sept 18, 2019 16:19:11 GMT
The bodies tell a story and they had to get there. So looking from above they form an almost straight line. Looking from the ground you can not see this line due to the rough terrain. I doubt there would be much fighting in between markers or else there would be multiple markers. So we can only deal with probabilities for sure. Some want to believe this is skirmish line where soldiers are over 100 yards apart and can not see each other on their flanks. We can't eliminate the 1000 yard skirmish line where soldiers remained online to the last man standing without being able to see each there but in my opinion it is more likely they were moving across the drainages rather than down them.
What is clear is that a lot more action took place near the crossing at Deep Ravine if the markers are an indicator. The route by markers on the way over turns east before traveling to the Deep Gully you can see the markers on the south side of Deep Ravine. The markers on SSR appear to be the collapse of E on Cemetery Ridge and that path starts close to the outdoor theater behind the visitor center. It moves down into CR and crossing the ridge separating it from DR and then moves down DR and into Deep Gully.
At this stage we don't have absolutes so consistent with what we know is good enough for me. I think E was trying to return to MTC and went to far down DR and ended in Deep Gully.
Regards
Steve
|
|
azranger
Brigadier General
Ranger
Posts: 1,824
|
Post by azranger on Sept 18, 2019 16:28:40 GMT
On neither map does the line of transit go all the way down to the river at Ford B. Am I right? Cheers
Martin states he went within 600 yards of the ford which appears close to the maps. There is also an Indian drawing showing the gray horses moving across that western travel corridor.
Regards
Steve
|
|
|
Post by yanmacca on Sept 19, 2019 10:43:12 GMT
On neither map does the line of transit go all the way down to the river at Ford B. Am I right? Cheers
It looks to me like it stops short Mac.
|
|
|
Post by yanmacca on Sept 19, 2019 11:00:07 GMT
Regarding the Maguire trail, the single trail which moves along the south skirmish line, does look like the one used by Big Beaver, in drawing battle lines, Big Beaver says that he crossed the river at ford B and went along this route to LSH.
If BB, used this trail, then many more could also have, maybe it is a natrual rout to take and was well trodden during the battle and after.
|
|
mac
Brigadier General
Posts: 1,790
|
Post by mac on Sept 20, 2019 11:10:13 GMT
On neither map does the line of transit go all the way down to the river at Ford B. Am I right? Cheers
Martin states he went within 600 yards of the ford which appears close to the maps. There is also an Indian drawing showing the gray horses moving across that western travel corridor.
Regards
Steve
Which drawing Steve?
|
|
mac
Brigadier General
Posts: 1,790
|
Post by mac on Sept 20, 2019 11:11:30 GMT
I am having trouble finding the discussion about the big W of archaeology traces, can anyone point me to it please? Cheers
|
|
|
Post by yanmacca on Sept 20, 2019 15:37:54 GMT
Mac, I have tried a few threads which that discussion could be, but no luck, just a head ache trawling though stacks of stuff. It also puts you in a somber mood, when you start finding post which are written for you by members who are not longer with us. Not longer with us, but atill remembered. I even found posts by Hunk, Fred and Montrose, which seems like years ago now. I actually forgot that William was a member once. Found posts by a few arse holes too, thank good they are gone!
BTW; If it is maps of the area you want, I still have those.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Sept 20, 2019 16:28:05 GMT
Mac: Since I believe the W was my own coinage of phrase, by stating the obvious that the artifact field as portrayed on the Bonafides' Map looked like an elongated W, I will attempt to field any questions you had about it. I will probably have no more luck in finding it that Ian did, but if there is anything I can do to help I am at your service
You're sad Ian? WHY
Each of them left because the general thrust of this board was in disagreement with their own views. Leaving under those circumstances is the act of a coward --- You won't play marbles the way I want to play marbles, so I will take my marbles and go home. That is sixth grade playground shit Ian, and I thought the three you mentioned were passing themselves off as adults these days
I don't agree with at least half of what Steve has to say initially. We discuss it thoroughly to the point where he may come to agree with me, I may come to agree with him, or at the end of the day we find ourselves at an impasse and move on. That's what adults do.
I am going to digress from this thread for a moment regarding these three. Each of them felt they had something to protect.
I don't know what drove Hunkpapa's train, but I suspect it had something to do with the lukewarm response he received in the authorship of the last chapter of Harper's book. He, in my view did Harper a great disservice, undoing in one chapter, the lifetime of work that Harper put into his writing. It's like saying the Red Sox's outscored the Yankees 16 to 1, but Hunkpapa believes the Yankee's still won. or that black is actually white. Attitudes like that will eventually bite you in the ass.
Montrose, like most special forces soldiers is a blockhead. That does not mean that they are not very, very good, at what they do. Not at all. What it means is that many hold in contempt the service that spawned them in the first place. If you go back through Montrose's writings what you will first see is that he left the ordinary Army behind as a young officer, because of the then deplorable conditions he found in the regular part of the establishment. He migrated then, instead of being part of the solution for those ills. Sound familiar yet. He then goes on many times to say that irregular wars are history's norm, and the big war is the exception to the rule. What he forgot is that the reason that an Army exists is to fight the big wars, the ones that endanger the nation's life, and only fight the little ones when they must, In saying that he forgot our purpose, but kept himself on the shinning path of military purity. In short Montrose holds in contempt all not like him. That too will bite you in the ass.
I am not even going to take a deep dive into Wagner, other than to say that he copies the work of others, and only tries to put a coat of wax on a car that someone else has already built. That is perfectly OK of course., nothing wrong with that at all, EXCEPT, before one puts on that coat of wax, he should first critically examine the design and construction of the car he is waxing, to discover if the car itself is worthy of the wax job. He also tries to over fine tune the engine, to the point where the damned car won't start. There is nothing wrong with Wagner that a good book of tactical principles and a dose of humility would not cure. Pride, the Good Book tells us, goes before the fall.
The one thing that my many years on this planet has taught me is when you believe in your heart you are right, you stand and fight whatever the cost personal or otherwise. To do otherwise is the way of the coward, and a sure sign that one day you will have great difficulty looking yourself in the mirror. The mantra today it seems is to avoid confrontation. Why? Confrontation with someone or about something is how the world was built. Are we to stop building?
"Our hearts so stout have won us fame, for soon tis known from whence we came" Does no one remember the words to "Garryowen" but me?
PS: This post was written before I became aware of the thread on the other board concerning John Chapman. What was done in that case and the aftermath was a cowardly act, but it is also very human. Unless you have some formula to change human nature you must deplore the action, while recognizing the cause. It took 100 years Dave for Teddy Roosevelt to be recognized with the award of the Medal of Honor for action on San Juan Heights, all because the Secretary of War and Teddy despised each other. This stuff happens, because we draw members of the armed forces and Secretaries of War from the very imperfect human race. That does not make it right, but understanding humanity, makes the action understandable even if wrong. To illustrate, Montrose still stings from Eric Shinseki having told him that he was a traitor to the Army. Those are harsh words in anyone's book, but consider this, the project (i don't know what it was) that Montrose was sponsoring was obviously very dear to him. Shinseki on the other hand had to consider the whole Army, which was very dear to him. Sometimes the welfare of the whole is more important. Get over it Montrose, no one weeps for you, and were the postitions reversed I suspect you would have done what he did, and for the same reasons. Never expect human beings to be anything but what they are - human. Were we as perfect as some wish us to be there would be no need for redemption, and Jesus Christ would be out of a job.
|
|
|
Post by yanmacca on Sept 20, 2019 19:40:55 GMT
Chuck, I was talking about David, I read a few of his posts as I was searching for the 'W' stuff.
All the other three left for personel reasons, so that is that, nothing to be sad about them as it was their choice, but I don't believe in never say never, so I guess that we will come across the other three some time in our lives, just forgot that Montrose was a member of this board thats all.
On the other hand, we will never see David on this board again and that is what I was sad over as he had no choice in the matter, the others did.
|
|