|
Post by yanmacca on Aug 25, 2017 19:10:51 GMT
Yes Chuck, E Company and the bunch who died with Keogh, may have lasted longer than Custer.
E were well and truly fixed, especially after their horse were gone, running to the nearest cover could have extended their lives a bit longer.
I agree about how I Company just made it clear before the men on LSH got pinned and killed, this would also add to the fact that they rode right into the broken troopers of L and C.
I would guess that if this did happen this way, then such a situation would be hard to control from a Keogh point of view, as his men would be really shook up at the way the had to get clear, but now they find that it is just as bad further south and at this point they were in real trouble.
No wonder that we see such mess when we look at the markers, they had no chance to form any real defense.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Aug 25, 2017 20:58:32 GMT
It would not be Custer's Last Stand if, in the minds of the tired and huddled masses, Custer (thus the Company F grouping) were not the last to stand.
I do think that the Company E and Company I groupings were the last to go down, and in my mind it was a horse race, where I would put my money on Company E's nose.
I do believe the Company I grouping got out seconds before the roof fell in. I also believe they were most likely pursued closely, which may, emphasis on may, account for that trail of bodies from LSH to the Keogh area. I also suspect you are correct that they ran into people from at least the Company L area. Company C is a little more problematic in my view.
Normally Colt, Mac, and I are pretty close in viewpoint. Mac recently mentioned the four sergeants and Bobo with regard to Company I. Colt expressed his views on the matter some several months ago. I do not agree and I expressed that at the time, but neither do I dismiss something like that happening out of hand. If though Company F was falling concurrent with Company I leaving, and bringing into consideration the relatively short distance between Company F and Company I's final position, I think such an orders grouping becomes less likely, and another explanation probable.
Almost all of us go into this with the idea of Custer's Last Stand being literal and not figurative. I think it effects all of us in some way or other, and in particular our measurement of events from some largely fictional known point.
Defense: There is no indication at all that defense was considered to the point of being put into effect. The first thing those soldiers would have done, if a defense in place were ordered is to grab those saddlebags and turn those horses loose. In a defense horses become a distraction you cannot afford to have.
|
|
mac
Brigadier General
Posts: 1,790
|
Post by mac on Aug 26, 2017 11:15:43 GMT
Montrose makes the point (elsewhere) that Custer should have escaped east. I thought I might run a few thoughts.
First warriors were moving around BRE and that option could be at least partially blocked.
Second is that he knew the route he had advanced on and thought that it was preferable possibly because he thought that the bulk of the warriors in the south would still be occupied with Reno and possibly by now Benteen.
Third he was mindful of how it would look post battle if he had fled east and the balance of his command were to the south.
Other thoughts?
Cheers
|
|
|
Post by deadwoodgultch on Aug 26, 2017 11:46:29 GMT
Mac,
You might wish to remind Montrose, that you, Colt, and AZ never said all 5 companies reached Ford D. Conventional says some remained on the ridge above to cover a movement to a Ford by others. We have simply have moved the location on the ridge and the ford.
Don't let Montrose lead you by the nose. If he does not believe your theory, why should he worry about the retreat. Which way would he attempt in the conventional? The fact is that there may have been only one real way out and that may have been north/northeast. If you wish to take the bait, Custer would probably head back the way he had just come, knew, and the shortest distance to his nearest support. He may have had to bump east as requited while continuing south.
Explain to him this is your theory, shared to one degree or another, by others. Tell him to get off the Chuck by proxy crutch. The only hate being displayed may be his. When he asks you to prove something ask his to definitively to prove his point. He is playing the bait and switch game, tell him to stick to one point and disprove it. You will break him and Fred will have to fight his own fight. Do not let either get under your skin, you have a solid support group with AZ and Colt, I will contribute as I can.
Remember this discussion ain't for the rent or meal money.
|
|
|
Post by yanmacca on Aug 26, 2017 13:20:13 GMT
I just don't know why people think that Custer went from an aggressive commander to a careful commander, because leaving three companies on guard duty in a middle of a battle like this one, just makes no sense. He only had 200 or so men, so even he must have knew that the only way he could make his presence felt was to attack with every man, so why split? Then we have the issue of time, because all the time he messed around on battle ridge would mean that he was no use to the rest of his regiment, who were either fighting or moving into the fight. Another point is the fords, both D and B have no real evidence of a fight. So if he could reach ford D with two companies, just what was stopping him to reach it with all five.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Aug 26, 2017 13:54:56 GMT
Some time ago we discussed a swinging door theory with regards to Ford D. When a left hung door swings, the part of the door on the left side gets closer to the frame faster that the right side. This can be applied to Ford D, where those on the left side of Custer's deployed array would get nearer the ford than those on the right. Reduce this to actual terrain and it means those down near the old Kellogg marker would be near, while those that may have approached over BRE would be much further away, as in, part of an intended attack, part of a supporting element, or elements delayed in transit by some factor that cannot be completely known, like possible opposition.
Ideally Custer would want to attack D with everything he had,all at once, not sequentially. He may have been unable to do that. The inability to bring all these forces to bear in a timely manner to execute that attack may very well be the reason he aborted. It is a good as any other reason.
So then, the Five Companies to Ford D theory does not mean that those forces were all there. I would have trouble with that myself. What it should mean to all of us, and the takeaway for those that believe we are of the Flat Earth Society, should be is that Five Companies to Ford D only indicates the intention of attacking at that place, and not some comic book vision of events.
It is entirely in line with sound tactical principles that Custer's intention was attacking at D, that he got stopped or thwarted in that attempt at one or several places in that area, initially engaged, as per doctrine, gradually fell or was pushed back, and ultimately was either forced or ordered a retreat, and was wholly overrun in the process, by forces to his front and flanks, and ultimately by previously undetected forces in his rear.
Tom's question - Have you ever heard of retreat - no, they probably have not. Retrograde is the obvious answer, or more properly failing in a retrograde attempt, that explains every final position on that battlefield, and the totality of artifact finds to the north, and northwest tell us that the battle engagement space was far larger than that which conveniently fits the conventional scenario.
There is an old bit of wisdom, learned long ago, that nicely fits this episode - You can't win a pissing contest with a skunk - avoid them. I think that is appropriate here. Wagner will not change, and seeks only to pimp and protect his work, future work, and reputation. Montrose, can't change, he has dug his hole far to deep, and his pride will not allow it. My advice then is avoid the skunk works. Nothing good will come of it.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Aug 26, 2017 21:09:45 GMT
Ian: I am going to call once again on your good offices to, either today or tomorrow, post a map or preferably an overhead photo of the area of Battle Ridge extending from Henryville in the south to beyond the gap in the north. Please make it as large as you can, consistent with the amount of territory covered.
Also, if you could manage to find a the late 19th century topographic map you once posted here that shows the whole area, and one whose contours on Battle Ridge show not one, but two gaps. The first of those gaps is where we all agree one did exist, and the second is just north of Calhoun Hill. I mentioned this at the time you first posted it. I think the map was Army produced, and may be in "Drawing Battle Lines"
|
|
|
Post by yanmacca on Aug 27, 2017 19:23:54 GMT
Hi Chuck, I couldn't find that period map on my computer, but if you need it I can scan it from the book tomorrow. I have found a similar map which show those two gaps and I have placed them both on the Bonifides map. I have included all thee images with the main map first, the old map and then the painting; Attachments:
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Aug 27, 2017 20:32:16 GMT
OK
Move the yellow dot just about an eighth of an inch to where it is just outside the contour line for the hill top.
The yellow marking between the Keogh area and LSH is not the one I wanted but leave it for reference. It represents where the north fork of Deep Ravine touches Battle Ridge. There is another gap not apparent on that second map. but if you see where the contour lines for the south fork of deep ravine point to the road use it as a point of reference. If you follow that point to the road, it meets it in a place where the road slightly curves. That is the approximate location of this hidden gap. Please mark it, while keeping the other two yellow lines in place.
I have to hurry with this. Construction on a room in my house starts tomorrow and I have a few last minute things to accomplish, like moving Joan's over two hundred pair shoe collection.
Look at where the first skirmish line for Company L is marked. If you have a Bonafides you can see both the first and second skirmish locations well marked by artifact finds. Note how far down the hill that line is from the military crest.
The military crest for those not familiar is located down the side of any hill or ridge from the topographic crest. It should be high enough to provide both good vision and direct fire, while removing as much hidden area below the hill (defilade) as possible. Use as a reference where the horses are in the painting. That is the ap;proximate military crest of the south side of Calhoun Hill. Also note how in the painting the slope slips further downward in front of that skirmish line. This to my eye then would be the second skirmishing position as noted on the Bonafides.
You do not ever use the topographic crest of a hill or ridge. To do so skylines the user, and fails to eliminate observation of and fire into defilade.
More later when I continue with Calhoun, and go on to the defense of battle ridge proper, but that may be after I move all those damned shoes and again have access to my maps. In case you're wondering, her shoe closet is in my den damn it.
In the meantime take the definition of military crest provided and ask yourself why an experienced commander would deliberately place himself in a hole and not on that crest, if his given job is to observe and defend. The one weapons advantage he has is in longer ranged fire, and you cannot see squat from the bottom of a bucket. Artifacts indicate presence, but they also tell a story, and if the story they tell stinks in light of the conventional, there must be another, and better, story to tell in there somewhere.
Ian: There is another painting of the Calhoun fight that is commercial. The one you posted is from the battlefield. I think the other one illustrates the point better, and it has been posted here in the past. If you have time would you see if you can locate it.
|
|
|
Post by yanmacca on Aug 28, 2017 11:02:42 GMT
Chuck are you sure about that painting? I have searched the world for it and I cannot find another painting that depicts the Calhoun skirmish line. I have amended the map, but I have enlarged the area in front of Calhoun hill and I can see a line of artifacts along Henryville and another group further down the slope which is not so clear, are these OK?
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Aug 28, 2017 13:22:02 GMT
Well I guess I should have been specific in which direction to move the dot, but that's OK, for it is just outside that contour line where the military crest is.
Also I think we should all be aware that the markers on Calhoun Hill have been moved. They would have had to be to put the road in and especially that triangular bit of road on the hilltop itself. Therefore the topographic crest must have been higher at one time too I suspect. I do not know is any care was taken in marker replacement. Perhaps it say something about that in Where Custer Fell. Like my maps and other references I can't get at that at the moment.
|
|
|
Post by herosrest on Mar 19, 2019 14:33:06 GMT
Putting the village depiction on this map aside for a moment. I first looked at the maneuver depicted and said this guy must be smoking bad dope. Then: Remove all the labels (Yates-Custer) and then remove the terrain. Concentrate only of the routes depicted, then move those routes north and center them on the Ford D area. Note the coming together, then the arrow going off to the north. I am going to assume that map is from Gray, and that he probably based it on testimony. Can we take that same testimony and apply it to another place and have some degree of validity? I am not sure if I am being clear. Not sure if I think it may be clear. Ask and I will try and gather something that may make some sense The map discussed, was presented in the first (1993) edition of 'Atlas of the Sioux Wars' from the Combat Studies Institute, USACGSC Leavenworth. It is the work of Dr. William G. Robertson, Dr. Jerold E. Brown, Maj. William M. Campsey, Maj. Scott R. McMeen for the above. A free ebook - Armor, Volumes 104-105, (Sept-Oct. 1996) articles ' The Indian Wars Staff Ride' which was these gentlemens bread and butter. Well.... pork & beans really. Hold the oats...... The Atlas of the Sioux wars was subsequently updated and revised by new authors and thought that the original interpretation represented by the map, might be 'silly' is worthy of debate. The point of the movements of course, is that there was no focus or intent upon lower fords. That's the point of the map and the thinking by battle specialists. CSI Press W ............... BOTCH
An oddity of conflict - Foret de Parroy and a senti'mental' commander.
|
|
|
Post by herosrest on Apr 19, 2019 21:08:04 GMT
|
|
|
Post by deadwoodgultch on Apr 20, 2019 10:38:52 GMT
On your map , two posts above the northern most sharp left turn of the river above the tepees is where Grandma Realbird lives and the Ford D area. The wikiups extended above the tepees.
The photo above was taken before all of the finish fill was put in on the new road prior to it's opening in the 1950's. Local school visit. The gaps in the hills you see on the right is what is commonly called Crazy Horse ravine.
Regards, Tom
|
|