mac
Brigadier General
Posts: 1,790
|
Post by mac on Jun 1, 2021 11:05:02 GMT
My contention is that Custer took all 5 companies with him to Ford D. His intention there was to cross the river and rejoin the battle by being North of the village. He did not do this. Why he wanted to cross the river is not important, and is probably unknowable as anything other than an opinion, so let's not worry about that. The fact is there could be no purpose to him going North other than to cross the river. So why didn't he?
In Indian culture the prime responsibility of warriors is to protect the women and children.
When Reno attacks the village the first response is from warriors from that end of the village, mainly Sioux but others too respond to the danger. At the other end of the village "old" warriors will gather to protect the women and children as they move out and away from the Reno attack. There are a large number of Cheyenne warriors who have not committed to the battle in the North.
By the time Custer reaches MTC he has certainly been detected. In the village there are criers warning of his movement towards the women and children. Messages are going to the Reno fight telling them of Custer's presence.
Knowing this the "old" warriors go to Ford D and begin to set up a defense. They almost certainly know the mostly likely crossing place. They cross the river and conceal themselves behind the mounds and in the folds of the riverside terrain. When Custer arrives he is not coming to an unprotected crossing. These initial responders are not sufficient to stop Custer but they may have blunted his momentum. Cheyenne warriors are quick to arrive and reinforce this defensive line. The distance from the Cheyenne village to Ford D is much shorter than Custer's journey from MTC to Ford D. Custer must see the growing enemy presence at the ford and also note that warriors are moving North along the river and past his right flank. Is there any trained officer who would attempt to cross in this situation? Is there any other tactical solution for Custer than to retire to the high ground of BRE and Cemetery Ridge?
|
|
|
Post by yanmacca on Jun 1, 2021 12:16:56 GMT
Hi Mac, enjoying your free time.
One main feature I always fall back on is "out flanking", all military men will consider it with the up most importance, "don't get out flanked", "don't let your lines of communication get cut"
Look at the western desert campaign of 1941-42 and see how quick the British had to withdraw when Rommel compromised their southern flank.
So once the cavalry momentum was stopped by Indian fire, the prospect of being hemmed in like Reno was, would be enough to force a withdrawal.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 1, 2021 14:43:19 GMT
You limit your approach by assuming that Custer took five companies with him. While you people have convinced me it is highly likely he did and there appears to be some, but sketchy evidence for it, we do not know that he did. 2 or 5 companies makes a difference. Did he even go North?
Yes, yes. I understand you all are more versed in the whole battle than I, place great faith in various Indian accounts, and your own analysis. I do not think there is enough physical evidence to prove things one way or the other, due to limitations about where people can dig, who can dig, and how much they are allowed to dig. The Indian reticence to provide and share knowledge as reported by AZ factors into my saying this. Much evidence could have been removed and now are just interesting trinkets and if you can't get access, you can't prove things one way or another. Since the land is Crow and they were not heavily involved in the fight and they probably don't much like the Sioux anyway, they may not attach the importance of settling these issues one way or the other that historians (and perhaps the Sioux and Cheyanne) do. Indian accounts have drifted from accuracy over the years. Not because of deliberate mistruth but because stories shift over time.
Also note known of us are trained historians, anthropologists, or archaeologists. We approach the problem and pursue our theories with various approaches. My BA is in history but I would not be regarded by any historian as a professional. Some of us are soldiers, but that does not give us perfect insight. Some of use are scientists and policeman with high degrees of disciplined approach to problems, but none of us are experts. At best we might be gifted and enthusiastic amateur's and some for longer periods of time than others.
Here are my thoughts, in no particular order.
1. Custer did not cross the river because he (1) left 3/5ths of his force behind and was only looking to see if it was feasible. If it was, he would call the reset of the battalion forward. If not, he would go back and establish a defense. It was not feasible either due to not being a good ford and/or the opposition was too much to force a crossing.
2. Custer was killed or wounded with two companies up and they retured to the main body.
2. Custer did not cross when he took five companies because was killed/wounded as he approached the river and the battalion withdrew without effective command.
3. Custer did not cross when he took five companies because he was repulsed by the Indian defense and withdrew to attempt to find a defensive position.
4. Custer did not cross when he took five companies because he determined he could not force a crossing, even though he was not heavily engaged.
5. Custer did not accompany the two forward companies to the River, remaining with the main body, and when they returned, they reported they did not think they could cross at the ford either due to physical conditions or enemy strength.
6. Custer never went North because he was killed/wounded near/at MTC.
7. Custer never was going North and was caught spread out by an Indian counter attack.
|
|
|
Post by yanmacca on Jun 1, 2021 18:54:22 GMT
Mike, I have ruled out 6 & 7, because if he was killed, why did they go to LSH, surly they would have gone back south, then being overwelmed due to being spread out, well the cartridge finds on Nye-Cartwright show that a large portion of the Custer battalion, kept well away from the ford(B), plus what good to Custer would these 120 men be if he wanted to attack at B, they are a mile away on a ridge line. Then we also have a defensive line on Calhoun Hill, which by the sounds of it was well established.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 1, 2021 19:11:34 GMT
Regarding 6 and 7. Dunno. It could have happened.
Calhoun Hill. Previously shown not to be defensible, perhaps unless the whole Battalion had formed 'square' there. They had no idea where Reno or Benteen was. Going to south for Ford A they may have come across Reno/Benteen and successfully defended at the Reno BP. I guess the last they knew, Reno was still fighitng in the valley. I guess Custer's nephew went by before they went to the BP and they weren't there when Martini went that way to find Benteen.
|
|
mac
Brigadier General
Posts: 1,790
|
Post by mac on Jun 2, 2021 12:41:17 GMT
Thanks for the list Mike. You have hit all the usual arguments.
To be clear, my comments now address the list and not you personally.
I do not like the idea that Custer was killed and so the whole thing fell apart. In fact I dismiss it. I see that as the sad Custerphile response, designed to put the blame on all but Custer. I have too much regard for the officers Custer had with him to believe that Custer's death would result in disorder. As I am sure we all know there are so many historical examples of this sort of thing not being true, with junior officers, sometimes even NCOs, competently taking command when the senior officer is incapacitated.
Certainly if Custer took only E and F then he obviously had no intention to cross. However if this is the case then the question changes. We need a tactical explanation for this action. If that is, Custer went to Ford B and so on then the question I put, call it a sub thread, is this.
What is the tactical purpose Custer had in approaching Ford B with at least two companies?
My problem is I have never seen a sound reason proposed. I had high hopes that Fred had one in Strategy of Defeat but alas, no. His proposal that there was a need to observe the activity at the North end of the village is weak. If you are trying to move around the Indians left flank to surprise them in the rear then you do it, you do not announce your presence half way and then expect to still surprise them later. You should expect them to be waiting for you later if you have given the notion any thought at all.
So who has a tactical answer to the new question? Cheers
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 2, 2021 13:55:54 GMT
I am drawn, almost alone in the group, to Ford B. The approach looks good to me and the river looks fordsble. The saw women and children and no warriors. It looks ripe for the picking. Cross. Turn left. Attack toward Reno.
Doing something constructive at once is berrtwr than the right thing hours later or not at all.
My mind may change if I ever get there. For various reasons, it looks like it is slipping away.
Edit. Clusters officers appear capable. But loss of a commander has resulted in panic. It was hard to rally Reno’s troops. Only Godfrey covered the withdrawal from weir point.
I can see clusters wounding or death repulsing the recon or attempt to cross.
If Custer took two companies somewhere they are in a better position to support MTC. Yet it appears at least two companies went meandering north after whatever happened or did not happen at zmTC.
On my phone. Can’t read or type well.
|
|
mac
Brigadier General
Posts: 1,790
|
Post by mac on Jun 3, 2021 12:41:07 GMT
Ford B would be a good crossing point Mike but the Cheyenne sources I have seen, AZ or Tom might like to chip in here, say that the Cheyenne village was opposite the ford. No left turn required, but entering the village not a good idea for me. I think this is why Custer was forced to go on to Ford D.
As for Custer killed at the river, here are two paragraphs from a longer piece on that idea by Gregory Michno.
One of the major misconceptions of the Little Bighorn fight is that Custer was shot down in a midstream charge while crossing the river. The idea stems from two sources: one was the Lakota White Cow Bull, and the other was two Crow scouts who were not there. Many other Indian eyewitnesses who were there never said anything of the sort.
and
It is only White Cow Bull who supposedly said that he and Bobtail Horse shot a buckskin-clad soldier in the river. Neither Bobtail Horse nor any of the other Indians who were there mention anything of the sort – they don’t even say White Cow Bull was there. Yet, White Cow Bull says that he, almost single-handed, stopped a full-scale cavalry charge in midstream. No other Lakota or Cheyenne saw it. They were not fighting on the river, but east of it. White Cow Bull’s story is just that – bull.
Cheers
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Jun 3, 2021 16:02:31 GMT
Being of a certain age, when some of us were kids, some numb skull, usually with a snotty nose and bad breath, would come up to us and ask - Why did the chicken cross the road? It was an exercise in basic logic. The chicken wanted to get to the other side. So it is with Custer. He wanted to cross the river to get on the other side. Why did he not succeed? That is also an answer of basic logical deduction. He met opposition at the river's edge, or more likely met it on the east bank, but close to the river's course.
Why then one might ask why did he go north in the first place. The obvious answer is that he could not for some specific reason, unknown to us, cross the river at the first available crossing (Ford B). There are two possible answers here. Either he went there and met opposition, or he saw from a distance that the crossing place at B, was congested with village infrastructure on the immediate west bank, as Mac points out. Of the two the latter seems most likely, based upon what we know of the village layout. Tom hit the nail on the head, the best map available was in between Boyer's ears. Therefore they knew that there was another crossing place just ahead, and at that point that place became the only viable choice.
Meanwhile the Indians knew their ground. If there was a crossing to be made it would be in the north, and they had most likely pre-planned for that eventuality. Their response to the threat was much faster than Custer's offensive movement to that place, and the winner's victory cup went to them. From that point forward, it was just a matter of time until Indian opposition built into overwhelming force, and Custer was defeated.
Nothing that can be determined from what we do know suggests that Custer was killed or wounded at any ford. The movement north of Ford B was pure Custer, and had he been killed or wounded at B, there is a better than even chance that whomever assumed command would have withdrawn southward. Under no circumstance can I see anyone going north after Custer got whacked. Were Custer killed at Ford D, he was just so much dead meat and would have been left where he fell. Certainly not a romantic statement given the era which it occurred in. I still recall the painting of the Death of Wolfe at Quebec, being such an example, but this was not Quebec, and the circumstances were dire, and would not look kindly on romantic gestures.
So the WHY, I think, is fairly obvious.The other guys had a vote on Custer's intentions, and they voted NO.
|
|
|
Post by Beth on Jun 3, 2021 16:59:31 GMT
Okay refresh my mind. Is there any proof that Custer was wearing buckskins that day and is there any proof that only Custer was wearing buckskins? I seem to recall that a lot of those considered in Custer's inner circle emulated his style.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Jun 3, 2021 17:19:01 GMT
Custer was known to have removed his jacket earlier in the day, before the regiment split.
Several others where known to have worn similar buckskin jackets. If they all had any common sense they would have removed them because of the heat that day. While the temperatures on the prairie can get very hot that time of year, the hours of darkness usually bring with them a chill, where a jacket feels pretty good. You see a lot of that in pictures taken during the campaigns in the Western Desert of 1940-43 as well. It gets pretty darn cold in the desert at night and that's why you often see pictures of Rommel and others wearing overcoats. Of course you see just as many pictures taken during the same era with these same people in shorts and short sleeve shirts.
The only one that I would think may not have taken his jacket off is Smith, and of course it is fairly well known he needed some assistance in dressing himself due to being wounded during the ACW. That leaves the mystery of Porter's jacket found in camp supposedly with a bullet hole in it. Call me doubting Thomas, but that still does not mean Porter was wearing it when he was killed. Maybe yes. Maybe no.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 3, 2021 17:23:35 GMT
The only reason to turn left at Ford b is to attempt to link up with Reno.
Regarding Custer getting wounded. Unlikely. Both hits were mortal and it was said that there were his sporting rifle cartridge under his body. Do not mortally eouldrf at the crossing.
I did not prioritize my list. I just write down reasons he may not have crossed.
I think one of the officers who was killed but body was not recovered was on buckskins. I think Custer was wearing them at some point but took off his shirt due to heat and was wearing a blue shirt underneath.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Jun 3, 2021 17:57:17 GMT
Mike: If you cross at Ford B and turn left, then you have the Cheyenne Nation in your rear. If you cross and turn right you have the Sioux Nation in your rear. The moral of the story is do not cross at Ford B, if you intend to live for 20 minutes more.
Crossing at Ford B would have transferred the location of Last Stand Hill to the gift shop at Garry Owen Post Office, with Company L laying out by the gas pumps.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 3, 2021 18:14:35 GMT
Hm. And not even high ground to speak of.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Jun 3, 2021 20:06:14 GMT
Mike the only high ground in the area in question is the cash register on top of the check out counter.
|
|