| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| joseph wiggs |
Posted - September 02 2005 : 9:34:40 PM
History has been altered in a parallel universe where the following has occurred;
A. Reno charged into the southern portion of the village with a vim and vigor to be envied;
b. Benteen receives Martini's message and, immediately, gathers his troops and charges towards the village in Reno's wake;
C. General Terry arrives at the battlefield 24 hours earlier;
Based upon the above described scenario, how do you surmise a change, if any, in the final outcome of this battle? |
| 25 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| joseph wiggs |
Posted - October 07 2005 : 9:37:30 PM
"Permission to go the the sound of the moaning"
Now that is funny! Only a true genius could have come up with such a gem! Hunk, you get a gold star. |
| hunkpapa7 |
Posted - October 06 2005 : 09:45:42 AM
quote:
Originally posted by movingrobewoman
Imagine the scarring ... she might have to turn to that Weir fellow.
"Permission to go to the sound of the moaning" |
| movingrobewoman |
Posted - October 06 2005 : 09:34:54 AM
Imagine the scarring ... she might have to turn to that Weir fellow. |
| joseph wiggs |
Posted - October 05 2005 : 9:20:31 PM
quote:
Originally posted by movingrobewoman
Joe--
Choice d): "In private, Libbie has expressed some anxiousness about my arrow wound ..."
Hoka hey!
If the arrow was shoved where I think it was shoved, Libbie has a right to be concerned. |
| hunkpapa7 |
Posted - October 04 2005 : 7:46:11 PM
d]proclaims he is the "messiah"and sells his story to the highest bidder
Then does a world tour and coins it in[dont know if Libbie is with him] |
| movingrobewoman |
Posted - October 04 2005 : 6:17:49 PM
Joe--
Choice d): "In private, Libbie has expressed some anxiousness about my arrow wound ..."
Hoka hey! |
| wILD I |
Posted - October 04 2005 : 6:07:18 PM
d/ Now do you believe me Benteen. |
| joseph wiggs |
Posted - October 03 2005 : 9:28:27 PM
Terry has arrived upon the field of battle. Dismayed beyond belief, he cringes at the ghastly scene that lies before him, a scene reminiscent of Dante's Inferno. The gallant 7Th. Cavalry has been destroyed. The reeking, bloated bodies emit a stench that is beyond human endurance. What could have happened to bring about such a complete tragedy.
Terry bites his lower lip as he silently contemplates the moral and political ramifications of such a disaster. Suddenly, a barely audible human moan comes forth from a pile of slain soldiers. Men frantically dig threw the horrendous mound of decaying flesh to retrieve the one who, amazingly, still lives. Against All Odds, although severely wounded, a man has survived!
In utter amazement, men rush to the poor soul to comfort and assist the fallen comrade. Tears coarse down their stubbled beards as they forced water down the parched lips of this fallen hero, the only survivor of the battle. Suddenly, one man shouts out in utter and complete amazement, "It is Custer!" The remaining incredulously stunned soldiers shout out in a hysterical glee, "He lives, he lives, Custer lives."
Approximately two weeks after the battle, the grievously wounded Custer held a "press conference" in which he told of his perspective of the battle. What do you thing he would have testified to?
A. You may not believe this but, we simply got our butts kicked;
B. You know, I don't know what possessed me to go rushing into harm's way like that, I guess I'm just an idiot;
C. I will have Benteen and Reno brought before charges for dereliction of duty;
D. (insert your opinion here.) |
| movingrobewoman |
Posted - September 15 2005 : 9:59:44 PM
Don't apologize, Joe.
I think you come closer to the *disgusting* physical truth about the 1876 campaign than most. That said, I think I must reiterate that early last year, I made a concerted decision to leave mean-spirited postings behind. However, when I see someone flaunt the bounds of acceptable historical arguments to the extreme that West has, I feel honour-bound to speak up, and speak up LOUDLY. His furtive attempts to read into the mind of Marcus Reno at the COI are nothing but fiction. It's sad that he cannot or will not see the errors of his ways, i.e., author intrusion; I'm kind of afraid of the response he and his m/s will get from legitimate editors ...
Hoka hey, y'all ... |
| joseph wiggs |
Posted - September 15 2005 : 9:18:39 PM
quote:
Originally posted by movingrobewoman
Joe--
Eeeeyuuuuck! Don't let West over at the LBHA board see that great and absolutely hilarious description; he'll have your hide!
Hoka hey!
To West and any others who may have been offended by my post, I apologize. I was being facetious. A special and public apology to my good friend Lorenzo. Sometimes we get so wound up in these posts that we loose our genuine and heartfelt perspectives. |
| Benteen |
Posted - September 15 2005 : 8:16:30 PM
Some of those people at LBHA just like to argue. Especially if they know who is on the other end of the arguement. I like to get them all riled up and then drop out. Usually you have several of those people who wouldn't ever be caught dead agreeing with "some peoples" over there. Because, when I drop out, sometimes they find themselves in a sort of wierd agreement with those "strange" bed fellows ~ over there! tehee!  |
| hunkpapa7 |
Posted - September 15 2005 : 7:42:25 PM
You can bet the book he is writing[in French]wont disclose anything like that.
He will be pristine clean and smiling when he breaths his last !!
|
| movingrobewoman |
Posted - September 15 2005 : 6:25:05 PM
Joe--
Eeeeyuuuuck! Don't let West over at the LBHA board see that great and absolutely hilarious description; he'll have your hide!
Hoka hey! |
| joseph wiggs |
Posted - September 14 2005 : 10:17:51 PM
quote:
Originally posted by movingrobewoman
I wouldn't spend too much time wondering about Custer's "vanity." He cared about his appearance when necessary, but when he was on campaign, he could let himself go--bragging to Libbie he didn't even use a mirror!
Hoka hey!
How true, on this arduous campaign, his prematurely balding dome was sans the golden curls. His armpits were probably probably guilty of emitting an offensive aroma to any who would dare venture to close. His habitual habit of constantly washing his hands was probably hampered by a possible lack of available soap and water on this mandated excursion. His dashing, buckskin ensemble was, mayhap, reduced to mediocrity when he removed his buckskin jacket in deference to the heat. Thank goodness the paparazzi was not there to witness his horrendous fall from the eloquent standards of GQ. |
| Dark Cloud |
Posted - September 14 2005 : 3:59:05 PM
It's so touching, Wiggs, that you think the dead should be treated fairly......now. After all, in the Benteen's Order thread, you provided us with this:
"Benteen failed to render aid to 10 to 12 soldiers that HE obsevred being slaughtered in the valley." Followed by "I did not charge Benteen with failure to render aid to the troopers left behind on the valley floor." You want to libel Benteen, thinking you'd get board approval and then be excused by denying it. Noble.
After arguing this for months, then revealing you didn't know what Custerphile meant, now you reveal you still don't. A Custerphile is a Custer partisan, and as such is not capable of objectivity. It follows that seeking objectivity couldn't make you a Custerphile, doesn't it? But nobody has ever said that anyway. Should anyone forget your grasp of these issues and our language, I invite them to read the Benteen's Order thread and judge you by your own words, for which you admit no error nor apologized. It's absolutely hysterical.
But in fairness, not as hysterical as over at the LBHA forum, where a noted fashion designer was allegedly seen on television with a painting of Custer over his fireplace, and is, in seriousness, congratulated for facing against the PC wind. You can't even satirize this. Talk about missing the point. Do they think heterosexual men buy these dreamy Custer paintings? (See: "Thoughts of Libby" et al on the LBHA site) They couldn't possibly think that, could they? Of course, they can't state the obvious, either. Bad for business, one supposes, if Custer were revealed to be a gay icon to the Custerphile mob. And these guys? They're not playing dress up. They're re-enactors. (They're not dolls, they're action figures.....) And they wonder why CusterLand became such a pariah state in Western academia. Harsh, but start with the truth, since everyone talks about it all the time. |
| movingrobewoman |
Posted - September 13 2005 : 10:45:01 PM
Terri--
You make an interesting point. I spend more of my time researching Custer's character over battle intracacies, and although we can never know for certain about some psychological traits--short of putting the subject on a couch under DSM IV standards and criteria--I think I've gleamed that if anything, Custer might have had ADHD. I've read parts of Holliwell's "Driven to Distraction," and there are some patterns to GAC's personality that fit: the inability to sit still, a lack of concentration (until he started writing and learning taxidermy), tendency to addictive behaviours (gambling, drinking), poor scholarship, obsessive qualities (especially in regards to Libbie and Sec'y Belknap). I have tried to tie these common behaviours to first person accounts of Custer's personality and actions. Now, it's been two years since I've reviewed the material--so I'm a bit rusty on the subject.
I wouldn't spend too much time wondering about Custer's "vanity." He cared about his appearence when necessary, but when he was on campaign, he could let himself go--bragging to Libbie he didn't even use a mirror!
Hoka hey! |
| joseph wiggs |
Posted - September 13 2005 : 9:39:41 PM
Hello to you Terri and, thank you for your kind words. When we read of Custer's civil war actions and the extraordinary bravery he displayed time, after time, after time, we are somewhat puzzled as to what could have possible motivate him to perform such antics. Was he abundantly brave or simply foolish to constantly risk his life the way he did? What we can be certain of is that the average individual would not have subjected him/herself to such outlandish possibilities of being killed. Self-preservation prevents such activities in the "normal" person, right?. Therefore, it is assumed, Custer must have been nuts, crazy, demented, bi-polar, or simply insane. When we thrown in his ludicrous attempt to defeat a village, the size of a small city, with his comparatively meager force the case is closed! Verdict? Guilty as charged.
Terri, here is the root problem with such an analysis. Whenever we pluck a historical figure from his/her own time and space and, attempt to judge him or her with our own contemporaneous standards the judged individual will suffer terribly in the translation. Alexander The Great is deemed "great" only because he won. His actions (world dominance) was far more irrational than Custer's ambitions.
In Custer's era, every able bodied White male was indoctrinated in a belief that the Red man was nothing more than a "savage" incapable of rational thought and bereft of any ability to wage war in the manner of "civilized" society. As such, the vast majority of that society was convinced, along with Custer, that a trained contingency of soldiers could cut through the Sioux Nation like a knife through hot butter.
I have always been fascinated by the popular misconception that a lowly, Lt.Col. had the authority to create and initiate U.S. Government policy. It was the powerful War Department that dictated the policy that the recalcitrant Indians must be punished. Custer, Reno, and Benteen were merely pawns in a needless and immoral war.
At the end, when the proud and superior U.S. military was soundly trashed by the red "heathens", when the soldiers performed poorly (to put it mildly), when the survivors found themselves chastised by an unforgiving public, only then was the need for a scrap goat defined and created. Conveniently, dead men are incapable defending themselves,thus they were chosen to wear the Albatross of responsibility.
Today these brave men who believed (rightly or wrongly) they were on a honorable quest, sanctioned by their government, are labeled and remembered by today's standards as mere simpletons for their misguided, but courageous efforts. What is particularly ironic, to me, is that any objective attempts to discern the true responsibility for this fiasco condemns one as a "Custerphile" by a clear minority. As such, I find myself stepping on the "toes" of some. Oh well, such is life. "Lo siento mucho." |
| terri |
Posted - September 11 2005 : 10:05:37 PM
quote:
Originally posted by joseph wiggs
quote:
Originally posted by terri
Personally, I still don't envision Custer surviving the battle. Now is that wishful thinking on my part or just a coldness seeping through to a man I find to be a vain, egocentric glory hound? He is reported to be discovered with "clean wounds" - not mutilated. Did he shoot himself? Warriors did not touch a suicide. Sorry if my opinions seem mean spirited. But I'm of the opinion that in any senario Custer died fairly early on MTC and that it was highly likely Miles Keogh being the last of the command to parish in the fighting.
Your personal feelings about any participant in this battle should not be construed, by any reader, as"mean spirited" at all. What you post is reflective of what you truly feel, your "gut" reaction to a specific stimuli. You have expressed your honest feelings and, no one should be condemned for such honesty. While there are many who will disagree with your supposition, there are many who will find your position reasonable.
However, like Movingrobewoman, I disagree with you supposition that Keogh was the last to die on LSH. It has been adequately documented and, essentially authenticated that this gallant "Irish Man" fell with "I" troop in the slight, ravine west of Custer Ridge.
Hi Joseph,
Thanks for the kind words. I'm new to the board and sure don't want to step on any toes, at least for a while yet. 
Yes, Custer had a "personality". Have you ever given thought to perhaps he might have been bipolar? I make note due to his grandiose vanity, and his utter lack of exhibiting exhaustion - even after full days in the saddle - two traits of the illness. Now this does not mean the man was bipolar, nor am I posturing this argument. However, some of the traits seem to fit his documented personality.
Also, I'm still curious as to why his body was not mutilated. Why? Or could it have happened and the survivors hushed it up for Elizabeth's sake?
In the end, my guess is that he took his life knowing all was lost, living with the creed of the frontier Indian Fighter, Save The Last Bullet For Yourself.
 |
| joseph wiggs |
Posted - September 11 2005 : 1:36:41 PM
Your comments bring up a very interesting point that, somehow, has escaped me for many years. I am referring to the testimony describing Custer's remains after the battle.
Lt. Godfey - "He had been shot in the left temple and the left breast. There were no powder marks or signs of mutilation."
Lt. Bradley (Helena Herald) "Probably never did hero who had fallen upon the field of battle appear so much to have died a natural death. His expression was rather that of a man who had fallen asleep."
After two days in the searing heat of a Montana summer, I would imagine that all of the bodies would be bloated and festering which would pretty much discount any images of "restful sleep."It would also be difficult to discern between Indian caused mutilation and the normal sequence of body deterioration under such circumstances.
I do not believe Custer committed suicide. His type "A" personalty and established record of "charging the enemy" no matter the cost do not support such a notion. He may have spent his last moments directing a defensive parameter behind the dead mounts facing east and south when one,of many,Indian rounds struck him from a distance. We will never know. |
| terri |
Posted - September 10 2005 : 9:43:30 PM
quote:
Originally posted by movingrobewoman
I find a GAC suicide problematic. For one, he was right-handed. Although he could be ambidextrous in battle situations, how would warriors recognize a suicide upon LSH if it hadn't occurred in front of them? Don't get me entirely wrong; I'm not saying it's beyond belief that that GAC received a "helpful" shot from a member of the family or a friend ... in the fine "save the last bullet" tradition. Maybe he even requested one (that idea always gets all kinds of hate mail from certain philes), though I haven't any proof to that effect. We also have to note the lack of blood or powder wounds around that head wound--if we are to believe the burial party. He bled out from the chest hit, it seems.
How did Keogh get to be one of your last survivors? I'm curious. I've always thought TWC one of the final ones, considering the treatment his maybe-not-quite-dead body received.
But no, I find no mean-spiritedness to your thoughts. None at all.
Hoka hey!
Hi MRW,
I do think Custer could have committed suicide. Powder marks would not necessarily show on bodies badly blackened in the sun and bloated. He was not, not, mutilated when the overwhelming vast majority of his unit were. It is understood that warriors did not touch suicides. As for being right handed, well that too can be argued. He could have used his other hand very easily - I'm left handed and just tried it with my mouse. (So much for scientific experimentation). :)
As for Keogh, ahhh.... I think I read a couple of accounts where either the enemy praised his fighting skill or mentioned he was one of the last to die. So I may in fact be mistaken in that assumption. |
| joseph wiggs |
Posted - September 09 2005 : 10:44:34 PM
quote:
Originally posted by terri
Personally, I still don't envision Custer surviving the battle. Now is that wishful thinking on my part or just a coldness seeping through to a man I find to be a vain, egocentric glory hound? He is reported to be discovered with "clean wounds" - not mutilated. Did he shoot himself? Warriors did not touch a suicide. Sorry if my opinions seem mean spirited. But I'm of the opinion that in any senario Custer died fairly early on MTC and that it was highly likely Miles Keogh being the last of the command to parish in the fighting.
Your personal feelings about any participant in this battle should not be construed, by any reader, as"mean spirited" at all. What you post is reflective of what you truly feel, your "gut" reaction to a specific stimuli. You have expressed your honest feelings and, no one should be condemned for such honesty. While there are many who will disagree with your supposition, there are many who will find your position reasonable.
However, like Movingrobewoman, I disagree with you supposition that Keogh was the last to die on LSH. It has been adequately documented and, essentially authenticated that this gallant "Irish Man" fell with "I" troop in the slight, ravine west of Custer Ridge.
|
| movingrobewoman |
Posted - September 08 2005 : 9:39:08 PM
I find a GAC suicide problematic. For one, he was right-handed. Although he could be ambidextrous in battle situations, how would warriors recognize a suicide upon LSH if it hadn't occurred in front of them? Don't get me entirely wrong; I'm not saying it's beyond belief that that GAC received a "helpful" shot from a member of the family or a friend ... in the fine "save the last bullet" tradition. Maybe he even requested one (that idea always gets all kinds of hate mail from certain philes), though I haven't any proof to that effect. We also have to note the lack of blood or powder wounds around that head wound--if we are to believe the burial party. He bled out from the chest hit, it seems.
How did Keogh get to be one of your last survivors? I'm curious. I've always thought TWC one of the final ones, considering the treatment his maybe-not-quite-dead body received.
But no, I find no mean-spiritedness to your thoughts. None at all.
Hoka hey! |
| terri |
Posted - September 08 2005 : 9:11:00 PM
With Terry arriving 24 hrs early, I believe that greater remnants of the 7th would have been saved with historians comparing the outcome to Crooks stand off at the Rosebud on June 17th.
Personally, I still don't envision Custer surviving the battle. Now is that wishful thinking on my part or just a coldness seeping through to a man I find to be a vain, egocentric glory hound? He is reported to be discovered with "clean wounds" - not mutilated. Did he shoot himself? Warriors did not touch a suicide. Sorry if my opinions seem mean spirited. But I'm of the opinion that in any senario Custer died fairly early on MTC and that it was highly likely Miles Keogh being the last of the command to parish in the fighting.
GUYS FOOTBALLS KICKING OFF!!!! GOTTA RUN! GO CHIEFS!!!! (Oh they play Sunday against the Jets....)
|
| joseph wiggs |
Posted - September 08 2005 : 9:05:10 PM
You have the "key" to what this discussion is all about, learning and sharing. Unlike other thoroughly documented cases, the BLBH is stuffed to the gills with "what ifs" and "how cums" that go far towards the facilitation of books, movies, documentaries, and magazine articles galore. It is almost unbelievable that the interest in this battle continues to motivate so much interest over a hundred years after its advent. Amazing isn't it? If any future answers, regarding this battle, are to be discovered it will be through the efforts of those who are "open minded" and not closed to new ideas. |
| Benteen |
Posted - September 08 2005 : 2:01:57 PM
Why thank you Joseph. That'so very nice of you to say. I have changed my mind sooo... much about this subject. And what usually really bothers me is those who think they really ~ really know. Like it's set in stone or some such thing. To me it's all a matter of perspective. One can try to understand. Or one can think he/she doesn't have to understand, they know. I know i'm still learning, trying to understand. Trying to find the answers too. To me I think that there isn't, in most cases, enough to justify rock solid answers. That's why I like this forum so much more than the others. Most people here seem to have an open mind. |
|
|
