| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Rich |
Posted - June 11 2006 : 07:22:01 AM
Which of the five companies of cavalry that met their demise with Custer do you feel represented itself best at the Battle of the Little Bighorn? |
| 25 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| joe wiggs |
Posted - July 02 2011 : 5:36:15 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Cloud
There is no - zero - Indian testimony. Testimony is under oath where he can be questioned. Nothing like that occured. Accounts through translators, and sometimes others, and generally way after the battle aren't testimony. I understand that laymen like us use the term "testimony" to mean contemporary accounts, but when we use it also to mean actual, legal testimony, it tends to elevate those tales not really testimony to the same level as actual testimony in the minds of the unwary, and grant it the same assumption of having survived fire by questioning. That's why I think this important: there is no Indian testimony.
quote:
Webster's dictionary defines three categories for the term "testimony" one of which entails stories after an incident. There was "testimony" by Josephus regarding the "War of the Jews." much of what was written by him has been substantiated by subsequent historians. That's why I think it this is important:
There is Indian testimony.
You can follow the cases of weapons by firing pin signatures, or at least reasonably hypothesize one, but we have no idea in which direction the weapon traveled or who was carrying it, and this assumes no salting or movement since, and reflects only the activities of the battle and not Indians shooting corpses in turn after, perhaps long after.
quote:
Try this hat on, say rifle round "1 (with a identified pin signature) is located at Calhoun ridge, the same pin signature is again located in the Keogh sector, lastly, the pin number is discovered at the crest of last Stand Hill; guess what!
There is testimony that L and I looked like they were running north in spots and were shot in line. It's "evidence" that does not conflict with that theory, rather than speaks "for" it. I think that too is important.
quote:
Evidence that does not conflict with theory supports theory.
A competent investigator builds on that type of evidence until disproved
.
|
| joe wiggs |
Posted - November 20 2010 : 6:50:46 PM
quote:
Originally posted by wILD I
The positions of the troops on the field would indicate a sudden calamity leaving Custer with no time to react other than a headlong retreat to LSH.I believe Keogh and Calhoun had a few minutes warning and might have gotten away but choose to stand and fight.This action denied history witnesses to the desaster but saved the 7th from ignominy.
Nice to see you are still alive and well Joe.Regards
It has been a long time my friend and I miss you! |
| AZ Ranger |
Posted - July 19 2006 : 12:58:32 AM
Prolar-- I wish I had the answer to your question but after MTC it is hard for me to figure out what happened. My reason for the run to LSH is based upon the markers and who was found at LSH. The collapse of which wing first I don't know. My theory is it would not matter just that it happens. At a point where it looks like total collapse and defeat for the battalion only a rapid withdrawal would save anyone. Certainly it appears that Calhoun put up a skirmish line which could be used to block the Indians from the retreating body.
I do not believe that it is only panic that causes the run to LSH. It may be the only option. I do believe that it was not recognized until too late how surrounded and outnumbered they were. |
| prolar |
Posted - July 17 2006 : 3:19:25 PM
AZ, I agree with all that.Since you see a panic run I'm curious about your opinion as to where it started from and what they were doing. |
| prolar |
Posted - July 17 2006 : 12:05:27 PM
DC, At the Reno COI, Reno testified that he believed that when he came out of the timber that Custer's command was all dead.Benteen testified he was convinced that Custer and his whole command was dead by the time Martin reached me (Benteen}.This has been gone over, and I am not going to hunt chapter and verse for you.As for who agreed, you stated on this thread that it was possible the battle was over by four pm. |
| AZ Ranger |
Posted - July 17 2006 : 10:20:53 AM
quote:
AZ, agreed that life experiences influence our opinions and preduices.I suppose that is why we have so many different conclusions drawn from the same evidence. I had the impression that you were trained to evaluate evidence on its own without being influenced by personal opinion, but maybe I was wrong.
Prolar-- You are correct I am trained to evaluate evidence on its own. I also supervise investigations. As a scene to be investigated LBH has its location(outdoors),time, and contamination working against anything being true evidence. Identifying something as human remains is one thing but saying this is where they died is not the necessary conclusion from applying forensic techniques. Finding cartridge cases fired from the same rifle does not tell you direction of travel or who was holding it when fired. There is a big difference between testifying that it could only happen one way and being consistent with that way (trooper movement) or maybe some other other way (Indian with captured rifle) also.
Once we leave the arena of an uncontaminated scene many things influence ones perception. |
| Dark Cloud |
Posted - July 17 2006 : 10:04:05 AM
Did Reno and Benteen claim the battle was over BY 4PM? Where? And who agreed with them? |
| prolar |
Posted - July 17 2006 : 05:48:30 AM
AZ, agreed that life experiences influence our opinions and preduices.I suppose that is why we have so many different conclusions drawn from the same evidence. I had the impression that you were trained to evaluate evidence on its own without being influenced by personal opinion, but maybe I was wrong. When we have people agreeing with Reno and Benteen that Custer's battle was over by 4pm while there are numerous witness who testified to hearing sounds of battle much later;I think we see personal bias.
I was refering to the frontier army in general and I guess you mean the 7th in particular, but lets leave that for another time. |
| wILD I |
Posted - July 17 2006 : 04:11:53 AM
HA Sorry AZ thought your question referred to worldwide historical battles. |
| AZ Ranger |
Posted - July 17 2006 : 12:37:20 AM
Wild-- I don't see the 7th Cavalry listed on the winners side at Agincourt? |
| wILD I |
Posted - July 16 2006 : 1:58:44 PM
Agincourt |
| AZ Ranger |
Posted - July 15 2006 : 6:09:15 PM
Prolar When it comes to LBH. experience is not the issue for me. I think most people on the board have enough life experience to formulate good opinions.Truth both in evidence and "historical statements" would be a good starting point. Sorting through some of the available data and accounts is frustrating sometimes.
I agree with you that going back would get to the best location to survive. Obviously LSH was not. My opinion is if there was any order among the troopers than going to LSH might have been just a rallying point. My actual belief is that it was a panic run to get out of danger that failed. Since either results in the same outcome it is up to debate.
As far as getting the job done, what major decisive battle did they have where the odds were even or against them?
|
| prolar |
Posted - July 14 2006 : 9:20:54 PM
AZ, your background and experience entitles respect for your opinion. The 7th like other Indian War outfits was lacking in training and experience.Still they managed to get the job done from the end of the Civil War to the end of the century. If the 7th was withdrawing from the bad terrain, where were they going? The logical way would have been back to rest of the outfit, not to LSH. |
| AZ Ranger |
Posted - July 14 2006 : 10:10:44 AM
Smcf I believe the number of Indians was sufficiently large to give the troopers and even the officers the thought there is no way to win this battle in this terrain. Whether panic or not a withdrawal became necessary and was to late in time to be accomplished.
Once on the run tunnel vision sets in, get out of here now,and it would take fewer warriors to actually finish them off. |
| Smcf |
Posted - July 14 2006 : 08:19:37 AM
How many did Crook's 1000 men face in a day-long series of skirmishes, when there was no direct threat to the Indian camp (which was by accounts much less in size then)? Hard for me to visualize a small band attacking crook, harder when there was an immediate threat to the encampment. |
| AZ Ranger |
Posted - July 11 2006 : 10:06:55 AM
Wild I don't disagree with your figure that 300 could possibly run through a line of cavalry strung out. I don't believe that 300 warriors would caused them to get in the line in first place. I believe it would take overwhelming odds which anyone would recognize as an impossible task. |
| wILD I |
Posted - July 10 2006 : 12:51:42 PM
Just for the sake of arguement as few as 300 could have done the job provided they had surprise on their side and the column was strung out in line of march.300 Charging warriors could just have rolled right over them.
If Custer was caught in line of march as it seems he was it was as disasterious as being outflanked.Just imagine a mob [no disrespect intended]of howling warriors hitting the head of a column which was strung out over 1/2 a mile. |
| AZ Ranger |
Posted - July 10 2006 : 10:29:29 AM
How many less than 1500 could accomplish what appears to me to have happened? 800 would still be 4:1 so it could be that low. At a 1:1 ratio i don't think the troopers would be strung out. They would be in clumps or if maintaining discipline then a skirmish line. |
| Smcf |
Posted - July 10 2006 : 09:01:54 AM
Still seems to me that all roads lead to LSH. There doesn't yet appear to me to be a more logical reading of the initial impressions of Benteen and Godfrey, irrespective of how one might feel about the marker issue. I agree with wILD's impression that the Deep Ravine action may well have been one of the earliest parts of the engagement. The WCF book has an intriguing early photo which places the "ford" there. |
| Dark Cloud |
Posted - July 07 2006 : 7:10:30 PM
It certainly IS possible. As I say, Native Americans and Custerphiles found Love over that issue. It allows the Indians some cover for being surprised and unnecessary civvy deaths and it allows the Custerphiles to blame Reno and Benteen for an utterly doable operation. And everyone on the Custer field brave and true, of course, Indians as well, duty as they saw it. Etc. Harump.
Hampering that is that second huge trail. The scouts and everyone thought 1500 was a reasonable estimate of warriors heading in with Custer, and after the battle when they followed the tribes south, they found another huge trail heading north about the same size and about a week previous. That suggests around 3k warriors, but we don't, of course, know.
The other aspect is the Custerphiles must have battle firing past the assemblage on Weir Point. This, to blame the 7th's other officers for not rescuing Custer and to cover for Custer collapsing in nanoseconds, this bronze god with golden curls as you can see by this painting over my fireplace/bed/Custer shrine. Conversely, it could all have been over by 4, for all anyone knows, and the firing heard celebratory body desecration. Not claiming that, just saying. It could. |
| wILD I |
Posted - July 07 2006 : 1:23:09 PM
Is it possible that not only was there no last stand but Custer was wiped out by a force numbering far less than the estimated 1500 warriors?
Martin left him at 3.34 in Cedar Coulee.Curley leaves him at 4.50 near Calhoun Hill one hour 16 mins later and only 2.5 miles further on.It took Custer 76 mins to travel 2.5 miles??What was Custer doing?
Gray conviently suggests maneuvering and skirmishing.What the scholars are trying to do is allow enough time for 1000 warriors to see off Reno and then race back 4 mile to join their comrades for the main event.
I would suggest that the main event was over with Gall arriving just in time to hear the fat lady sing.Thus Gall and his mates not wanting to be deprived of their share of the glory let it be known that it was his arrival which doomed the 7th.This of course fitted nicely with what the army and LBH chroniclers wished to think---only overwhelming odds could have defeated the gallant 7th. |
| AZ Ranger |
Posted - July 07 2006 : 10:51:49 AM
prolar-- I understood what you meant.Sorry for poking a little fun at last stands. I just felt if Fox is correct then it would be called Co. E's last stand or run not Custer's. Each person that died on the battlefield had their last stand somewhere.
AZ Ranger |
| prolar |
Posted - July 07 2006 : 10:21:46 AM
AZ: I'm simply saying that in his 1993 book, Fox claims that the last of the fighting was not on LSH ,but in the deep revine area, by soldiers who had fled from LSH. Like you , I think that some of Fox's conclusions are unwarrented, because of the contamination of the battle site. |
| AZ Ranger |
Posted - July 06 2006 : 11:12:53 PM
prolar-- Are you saying Fox didn't believe Custer died on LSH? Or that other troopers were alive after Custer died? Of course if they did it wouldn't be Custer's last stand since his last stand is where he died. For whatever reason no cares to much about any others last stand. |
| wILD I |
Posted - July 06 2006 : 09:27:12 AM
prolar
This is an example of what I mean.From Red Sabbath----I think no thoughtful and unprejudiced man could have examined the last positions held by Custer,as marked by the dead,without being convinced that he was thinking clearly,fast and courageously.
With the exception of Connell's S.O.T.M.S any other authors I have read have all attempted to construct a battle of tactical manoeuvre culminating in a gallant last stand.They just cannot face the reality
that the Custer and his troops met a bloody ,sweaty, turd filled breeches terrifing and mercifully swift end. |
