|
Post by quincannon on Sept 1, 2018 4:22:59 GMT
It seems that each thread deals with a specific subject, or at least it is supposed to. Being human though all of us stray from the pathway of thread righteousness, and bring up something that may be on our mind at the moment, and that we want to talk about, but what we want to talk about at the moment we feel is not worthy of starting a thread to discuss.
Well this thread is free forum, and designed to discuss anything that does not make sense to you.
I am going to start with two:
How did Gall manage to lose five family members (two wives and three kids) to small arms fire from Reno's troops in the valley, when other reporting suggests that Indian casualties were relatively light in the valley fight? Now I could well see them clustered together in a group and being taken out with indirect fire, where the blast radius got them all, but small arms not so much. I can't recall anyone questioning this story in the fifty odd years I have been paying attention.
Then the great king daddy of all does not make a bit of sense questions:
How is it that those who most defend Custer, and all that is Custer, hang the poor son of a bitch out to dry as an incompetent boob in the course of their defense, while at the same time are unwilling to accept or even listen to any alternative theory, that presents Custer in a different and better frame of reference? That never will make sense to me.
Now feel free to answer, and also feel free to present your own questions where the conventional answers have never satisfied you
|
|
|
Post by yanmacca on Sept 1, 2018 11:09:37 GMT
Chuck, concerning Gall’s family; I have had a look around the joint and it seems that the many accounts can’t decide if it was from army fire or Indian scouts fire.
If it was from fire from Reno’s men, then it must have been unobserved long-range area fire, basically by accident. Though some soldiers managed to reach the out skirts of the village, I doubt if these did the shooting.
The names of a couple of Indian scouts have come to light and these are Red Star, Strikes Two, Little Sioux and Boy Chief, these scouts apparently saw Indian non-coms heading away from the valley, but they denied this and their main objective was the pony herd. Some say this was correct and some they did fire on a few women and kids, so you can take your choice.
Apparently, Gall didn’t know the deaths of his family until he went to find them in squaw creek, he then went to his tipi and saw that this was empty.
I don’t actually know were these people got killed, but Gall found their bodies south of the Hunkpapa circle, so it was in the southern end of the village and in a patch of trees.
So either they all got hit from the same volley from Reno’s skirmish line or the got shot up by Indian scouts.
|
|
|
Post by deadwoodgultch on Sept 1, 2018 11:15:53 GMT
Answers, well maybe.
1. As I am sure you know the Crow scouts with Custer sat on a bluff overlooking the village lobbing shots into it. This act was taking place while Reno was still in the valley. If the bluff is the one I think it is you can see part of the Reno Battlefield and into MTC.
2. Much like political partisans, these people hear about the warts, but dig their feet in and continue to support the party or their hero. For nearly 60 years after the battle only whispers were heard disparaging any of GAC's actions or short comings. A very sold wall was built up to protect their hero. Very little is known or can be proved about the actions after Varnum saw a portion of one troop heading north during the Reno action, and even less about mindset or any plan.
Artifacts can tell us where actions took place, not how or why they got there. Markers can tell us where the dead fell but which way were they going, not to mention, how many were spuriously placed, due to construction and animal movement.
We could drag this thread in many directions, interesting. Was Tom Custer attached to HQ(probably) or did he retreat there along with all those markers in the swale on the way to LSH. Who was that guy, you always remind be of, down towards the Ford D area, why was he there, and what company was he attached to?
|
|
|
Post by yanmacca on Sept 1, 2018 11:16:17 GMT
How is it that those who most defend Custer, and all that is Custer, hang the poor son of a bitch out to dry as an incompetent boob in the course of their defense, while at the same time are unwilling to accept or even listen to any alternative theory, that presents Custer in a different and better frame of reference? That never will make sense to me. Chuck, you see this in politics, as people just dig a hole for themselves, rather then holding their hands up and say 'well you have a point there', you just have to look at the shed load of books out there by various authors who virtually tell the same tale. Now I don't claim to have a lot of books on this subject but as far as I can see, there is only two that go with the theory that we are working on. In fact I myself had never considered it, even though I never felt comfortable with the Custer scout north and the Benteen battalion left behind sketch. If I can recall, it was Tom Tubman who mention this years ago and then finding the JSIT map virtually put the cat among the pigeons.
|
|
|
Post by deadwoodgultch on Sept 1, 2018 11:17:37 GMT
You beat me to it Ian, I should have typed first an then got my coffee!
|
|
|
Post by yanmacca on Sept 1, 2018 11:18:38 GMT
Tom, I had considered the Crow scouts, but to find such a group dead in the one place and in soft cover, then I thought that a few rounds from single shot carbines would not achieve this result, but who knows mate, who knows.
|
|
|
Post by yanmacca on Sept 1, 2018 11:20:27 GMT
Sorry Tom, I had my coffee, cereal, toast and marmalade before I turned on my computer. I had to fortify myself before logging on.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Sept 1, 2018 15:28:27 GMT
Tweed, Company L.
If you were in your living room with four friends, and a bullet came through the living room window, and struck one of the people sitting there, I would think the other four's first and natural reaction would be to seek whatever cover there was and not present themselves as targets. I would be extremely surprised if the remaining four in this group would not do exactly that. It does not make sense not to.
You both are telling me the history surrounding the event, the cover up so to speak, which all of us are quite familiar with. That's not quite what I am asking. I want to know why people in this day, who claim great affection for Custer, and find no fault with him insist on telling the story that is nothing but faulting Custer. As far as I am concerned, the only tactical mistake the man made was going onto the bluffs PERIOD. After that we do not know what the hell he thought or did, but we must then presume that his actions were governed by norms, and normalcy. Those norms for instance mandate that he would attack with his whole weight of force intact.Those norms would reject leaving behind anyone for any purpose. Those norms would dismiss the idea that his forces would be locked in place by decision, rather than be fixed by circumstance. They would reject the idea that a mobile force would not retain their mobility, until they were forced to give it up. Those norms would find it laughable that key terrain would be attempted to be held, when there was no key terrain.
All these things, the rejection of normalcy for one reason or the other are their food and drink, the Big Rock Candy Mountain of Custer worship. Even Montrose thinks all these norms were violated because of gross incompetence on the part of everyone. Well to the fan boys of this world I would say, in the course of your worship, you make your hero look like a two bit schmuck, and it says more about them than it ever did about Custer, and to the Montrose's of this world, no one is that goddamned stupid or incompetent, so where is the brain you are supposed to be using
Think deep folks. This is not about Custer, or history. It is about human reaction.
|
|
|
Post by yanmacca on Sept 1, 2018 18:12:32 GMT
I think that these people that you are referring to, have seen too many westerns and believe that cavalry simply ride unmolested without fear and that the Indians simply charge their guns and die in droves.
I think that doing what the majority thinks he did, is really dumb, why would he break up his battalion and leave so many troopers to guard a location which in real terms is valueless, but they think he did and what’s worse is that he scattered his command by choice.
It seems that Custer simply skirted the village to get to a place in which he could cross and from this place he had options to either advance back south or to try and attack any non-coms in the area. Plans however do go awry and this one did.
Another thing I want to add, is the that the chances of these companies breaking ranks would be high, and that is also a human reaction. Being up high and seeing themselves getting surrounded plus watching your commanders looking helpless would be terribly demoralizing to these men. So this would be the cause of why the various groups of men were found where they were.
|
|
|
Post by deadwoodgultch on Sept 1, 2018 19:27:02 GMT
I think everyone is aware that the proper tactical move was to send a messenger to Benteen, while Custer remained in in the Reno creek drainage, preparing to follow up the Reno charge. It did not happen. Neither was proper scouting done, sending Herendeen through Tullock's to update Terry or giving Reno explicit orders. We could go on for hours in this vein. The man had an agenda, not a plan. When you fail to plan and share that plan, you generally plan to fail. Had he lived he would have been reduced to finger pointing and his military career over. Now his worshipers are reduced to finger pointing, GAC never knew what he was up against even after his trip to Weir.
Regards, Tom
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Sept 1, 2018 20:52:32 GMT
Yes, there is a lot of the second rate western movie contained in the space normally reserved for critical thinking - the brain - but you must consider that these are second rate people thinking that way.
Other than that though, you guys are still not hitting the mark.
Why would so many people, who worship at Custer's feet as if he were the Virgin Mary, express themselves, and point to things and events which are against their own self interest to build up Custer?
It's like OK, you point out all the bone headed actions and events which supposedly took place, and with the next breath you express love and affection for the bone head. It's like saying I love you to someone, although your breath smells, your feet stink, you have the manners of a pig, you have not bathed since birth, you pick your nose, and fart in church.
The only answer that I can come up with is that these people are so ignorant that they don't know what a bone headed play actually is, thinking what their version of what Custer did is normal, just fine. The conclusion then is that they are so ignorant, they don't know what ignorance is.
Pretty much the same with the Montrose's of this world. They go in believing that Custer and everyone else involved were ignorant and incompetent, but instead of sitting back for a moment, and saying to themselves - no one with half a brain would do this there must be something else or another answer. The Montrose's of the world just puff themselves up, by running all those participants down. What the Montrose's of the world should be doing is using their knowledge and experience, to point out just how far off base these battlefield actions are from the norm, and possibly conclude that if they are that far off, maybe they did not happen at all.
|
|
benteen
First Lieutenant
"Once An Eagle
Posts: 406
|
Post by benteen on Sept 1, 2018 23:18:22 GMT
Gentlemen,
When the legends die, the dreams end. When the dreams end there is no more greatness. To these people Custer is their legend and they are not going to let their legend die no matter what facts or evidence is presented. They need Custer for their own sense of well being.
Be Well Dan
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Sept 2, 2018 4:09:46 GMT
We have disagreed over many things over the years Dan, but when one speaks as much truth as you have above, I can only applaud you, and your service to that truth. Out of that truth must then come pity for those whose lives are so shallow, that they feel their only personal road to glory rests in the manufactured light of another.
|
|
|
Post by deadwoodgultch on Sept 2, 2018 10:48:29 GMT
I once had season tickets to the Baltimore Orioles, gave them up and abhor the new owner. My childhood hero's were long gone from the game. Brooks Robinson, Jim Palmer, Teddy Ballgame, The Mick, Whitey, The Say Hay Kid, Yogi, Hammering Hank(and Harmon Killebrew), Stan the Man, Yaz, Pete Rose, and many more. They were great and many had their flaws, still in all we tried to emulate their game. They were never as great as their best game, nor as bad as their worst. Some did not know when to walk away from the game. Lose an inch on that fast ball, a step, or some bat speed, some never see it. Glory Days, is a great song.
So Chuck, you are probably right, but I still play Fantasy Football and I have won my leagues 4 out of 6 years. Maybe that is because I have lost my fandom, it has helped me learn the game. It is better to let go of that star a year too soon than a year too late.
A man has to know his limitations, such as never attempt to clear a drain pipe during a flood. The leg is doing better.
Regards, Tom
|
|
mac
Brigadier General
Posts: 1,790
|
Post by mac on Sept 2, 2018 11:40:58 GMT
I cannot be definite with respect to Gall but......
My take is the family were off south of the village by the river together; this is why Gall had to search for them. When Reno came in they were all "discovered" there and killed...soldiers combing the river bank? Scouts? I do not know. Perhaps no one does.
This quote after the battle from Flying Hawk
"It was hard to hear the women singing the death song for the men killed and for the wailing because their children were shot while they played in the camp. It was a big fight. The soldiers got just what they deserved this time. No good soldiers would shoot into an Indian’s tepee where there were women and children. These soldiers did, and we fought for our women and children. White men would do the same if they were men."
Cheers
|
|