| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| El Crab |
Posted - August 11 2003 : 03:10:50 AM
Another thing popped into my head tonight. In 1866, Captain William Fetterman led 80 men to their deaths. In 1876, Lt. Colonel George Armstrong Custer led 210 men to their deaths (or was it 209, with him being 210?). Yet the Fetterman Massacre has produced but a few books and paintings, and Custer's Last Stand has so many. Granted, Fetterman was an inexperienced moron with bars on his shoulders, and Custer was a national hero, one of the most popular humans in the US at the time. But that aside, there's still a discrepancy, and the difference in the commander may explain it.
Fetterman's fight is pretty much figured out. The Cavalry moved faster than the Infantry, both lured into an ambush. The horsemen then retreated, falling back past the poor Infantry, who tried to fight and fall back. Two civilians with repeaters by a tree sold their lives dearly covering the retreat, and the troopers were slaughtered in a very small circle, with Fetterman and his subordinate officers possibly committing suicide, surrounded by their men.
What's the difference between this and the Custer fight? The "facts" of the Fetterman Massacre aren't debated, despite no white survivors. What are the reasons? I think some of it is due to the grand scope of the fight. The Fetterman Massacre was a small battle, fought quickly and in a small area. Indian accounts would roughly be the same, one warrior fighting in one area would probably have a similar tale as one on the complete opposite side of the troops. The actual fight probably lasted 15 min. But the Custer fight involved five companies, moved over several miles and cannot be summed up in just one account. Plus, HE was killed there, and that means the fight just can't be left alone. But it seems weird that one fight with no survivors is practically forgotten, no mystery or confusion over the fight's course, while the other one is probably the most studied and written-about battle in American History... |
| 25 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| BJMarkland |
Posted - May 28 2005 : 1:18:57 PM
For crying out loud. The original question when Paul used that phrase, "finest cavalry, blah, blah" was where did it come from. Hopefully, someone may have access to the book by Mills which the phrase is purported to derive from and confirm the web page's accuracy. If not, I will check CARL's library and see if they have it.
Now as far as the statement being accurate, no matter who said it, I am taking that with a grain of salt. Dave, in my opinion, hit the nail on the head with his post. DC, perhaps Mills was "fluffing" the opposition but by the time he said that, the wars were over and the winner was the U.S. Army.
Rereading Utley's Frontier Regulars is enlightening. The Indians were not the only enemy the Army faced. Perhaps they were the more lethal but Congress ran a close second by a just a whisker.
Later,
Billy |
| Dark Cloud |
Posted - May 28 2005 : 09:45:27 AM
It's not an emotional issue for me, either. Except, it's an example of how things elbow their way into history. Everybody repeats "best (light) cavalry", apply it to Indians in general or specific tribes (I know I've seen it applied to both Cheyenne and Commanche as well as the Sioux) without asking if it's true because an officer said it AND because it makes the Army look good (....and we beat them!"). Further, if dropped into the debate at key points, it protects Custer. Outmanned and gunned against the "Best" (Light) cavalry in the world!!!" although "best light dragoons" would be better, fighting as they did mostly on foot.
The officers who are credited with this phrase had no opportunity to see competition in action, or at all. I have no problem believing it, but the "best light cavalry in the world" - whichever tribe it was - lost all their wars against the US and most of the battles with Army troopers.
So, it's been conclusively proven that all the claptrap about the Army sending Heroic Custer to fight Death with reworked weapons is absolutely false? Huh. |
| dave |
Posted - May 27 2005 : 11:34:14 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Cloud
Well, not for me.
I've read what I could find on Mills, and except for a brief period in Paris, he never seems to have left this continent. What other cavalry has he seen? Further, this exact quote has been attributed to other people, sometimes saying "light cavalry."
I don't have any strong feelings about this argument, but my thoughts are that its a debatable point which can't be clearly proved right or wrong.
If you were to compare the plains Indians with any of the other great horse peoples (Huns, Scythians, Mongols, Cossacks etc) I don't believe that skills of the Indians as far as pure horsemanship goes would have been greatly down on any of those tribes.
After all by 1876 they had, had at least 3 or 4 and possibly more generations to hone their horse riding skills, and the Indians of the post 1865 period had the added benefit of modern firearms. The only contemporaneous horse people to have used modern firearms seem to have been the Cossacks, and whether the Cossacks were truely light cavalry is of some debate.
quote:
It seems to be in the nature of saying they were great horsemen, and terrific individual mounted warriors, but is that the same as being great cavalry, which is distinguished from the mob by discipline, a characteristic the Indians lacked? This is fluffing the opponent to make your side look good.
I think thats a fair point - to some extent. But its probably in the nature of light cavalry to be on the wild side. I hardly believe that the Mongols for instance were highly disciplined light cavalry. Its more probable that by trial and error they evolved a set of tactics which worked for them, and then because every warrior worked on using the same tactic that they gave the appearance of being highly disciplined.
quote:
I note the referenced url says the 1873 Springfield was NOT a converted muzzle loader.
That is no longer a point of debate, it was proved conclusively by Billy Markland that the 1873 was manufactured using only new parts. The only Civil war material used was for the accessories (bayonets and possibly slings). The only Springfield built from 2nd hand parts in the post 1873 period was a shotgun, manufactured from 1880? 81? |
| Dark Cloud |
Posted - May 27 2005 : 10:32:34 PM
Well, not for me.
I've read what I could find on Mills, and except for a brief period in Paris, he never seems to have left this continent. What other cavalry has he seen? Further, this exact quote has been attributed to other people, sometimes saying "light cavalry."
About all that can be said, is he certainly was qualified to compare the US forces arrayed against the Sioux with them, and he found his side wanting. No shock.
It seems to be in the nature of saying they were great horsemen, and terrific individual mounted warriors, but is that the same as being great cavalry, which is distinguished from the mob by discipline, a characteristic the Indians lacked? This is fluffing the opponent to make your side look good.
I note the referenced url says the 1873 Springfield was NOT a converted muzzle loader. |
| BJMarkland |
Posted - May 26 2005 : 3:12:26 PM
I found this which rekindles an old argument but at the same time, extinguishes it.
"he adoption of the horse and gun by the Plains Indians created the possibility for an Indian power never before imagined on the North American continent. Armed with this capability, the Lakota Sioux became well armed, fast, agile, mobile, capable of ranging far—in short, superbly suited to their climate and terrain. Brigadier General Anson Mills, a veteran of the Indian wars who served in the U.S. Army for fifty-five years, said of them: they are "the best cavalry in the world; their like will never be seen again"11"
Footnote 11 references:
11. Anson Mills, My Story (Washington, D.C.: Byron S. Adams, 1918), 406.
The entire article may be found at:
http://www.leavenworth.army.mil/csi/research/ComWar/comwarbrown.asp#11
Best of wishes,
Billy |
| BJMarkland |
Posted - September 28 2004 : 04:57:58 AM
While going through the Post Returns of Fort McPherson, NE, I spotted this which greatly appealed to my sense of irony.
"Bvt. Maj. Genl. G.A. Custer in Command of 7th U.S. Cavalry (Expedition after Indians) arrived in vicinity of Post June 10, '67, and left June 15th, 1867." [M617 roll 708; Ft. McPherson, NE June, 1867 Post Return]
What is ironic about that you ask?
The Post Commander at Ft. McPherson at that time was none other than Henry Beebee Carrington, Commander of the 18th U.S. Infantry Regiment, former commander of Ft. Phil Kearny and Bvt. Lt. Colonel William Judd Fetterman.
I would have loved to have heard the conversations between those two. One common ground I am sure they both had was a dislike for the system by which Post Sutlers obtained their position.
I spotted in a web search last week a reference in the Custer Papers at, I believe, either Huntington or Yale, were Custer refered to being treated hospitably by the "General" (Carrington had been brevetted General after the war) and had wondered where that had occurred.
By the way, the expedition that the 7th was on led to another "massacre", the Kidder fight of July 2, 1867.
Just thought you would be interested.
Best of wishes to all,
Billy |
| Anonymous Poster8169 |
Posted - August 31 2004 : 5:12:07 PM
quote:
Originally posted by BJMarkland
Hello, did anyone get information from HistoryChick regarding her thesis on Fetterman? Her post is on page 3 dated 10/5/2003.
No. In Wyoming though, I came across a book about the people of Fort Phil Kearny which contained a lot of stuff about Grummond's past that she was apparently referring to. Grummond comes out of it pretty badly. In the Civil War he was accused more than once of behaving recklessly and disobeying orders, which may explain why a former general like himself could get a rank no higher than second lieutenant in the reorganized Army.
It also said that before marrying Frances (who later married Carrington), Grummond had wed another woman who divorced him for drunkenness and abusive behavior. Grummond married Frances before this divorce was finalized, which made him a bigamist (and their marriage unlawful), and after his death there were pension problems which were resolved, eventually, by giving both wives government money. Grummond never told Frances of this other marriage.
quote:
Larsen, you are right, that Vaughn book is excellent. I only stumbled upon it a couple of months ago.
The best thing ever published on the Fetterman Massacre. The one spot where I think Vaughn misinterpreted the evidence is his claim that 49 men were killed on Massacre Hill where the monument now is; the accounts by those who were there make it clear that about 65 --- nearly everybody --- actually died at that location.
quote:
2) In the Sanborn testimony, Carrington appears all sanctimonious regarding corporal punishment of the troops. Was this a ploy or truthful? Johnson reveals that there had been a formal court of inquiry at the request of Oliver L. Shepherd, field commander of the 18th, due to exaggerated claims by volunteer soldiers to Congressmen about the "brutal" discipline of the 18th. The regiment and its officers were exonerated and all charges were proven to be exaggerated or completely false. But, since this had happened before, was Carrington completely honest about his distaste for the punishment issued by Powell and Bisbee or was it merely a political manuever?
I don't know. Strictness doesn't seem to have been Carrington's forte. The battle of December 6 was an undisciplined mess, and this appears to have been symptomatic rather than the exception. The details that went out to chase Indians in the months before the massacre were haphazard and casual, and it's perhaps a stretch to say that any of them were "sent" out. "People just went," seems to be the common word. On 12/21 Brown went out without orders, and though there's no evidence, I would not be startled if some of the enlisted men did too. Looking at all this, it's hard to believe Carrington was strolling the grounds cracking his whip; if he were, the Fetterman debacle may never have happened.
R. Larsen |
| BJMarkland |
Posted - August 31 2004 : 11:50:53 AM
Regarding numbers of hostiles at the Wagon Box fight. This is from Dept. of the Platte, General Orders No. 39, dated 8/27/1867, Gen. Augur commanding. Please note the beginning as I believe it may be the first combat against the Plains Indians that the 7th Cavalry participated in. Bob Reece, if you want the part concerning the 7th for your LBH site, let me know & I will send either the .rtf document or the html coded one.
" General Orders No. 39.
HEADQUARTERS DEPARTMENT OF THE PLATTE,
Omaha, Nebraska, August 27, 1867.
The general commanding takes pleasure in announcing to this command the following decided successes on the part of troops, serving in this department, against greatly superior numbers of hostile Indians.
On the 26th June last, a war party of Sioux and Cheyennes combined, numbering between five and six hundred warriors, under the leadership of Roman Nose, surrounded and attacked a train of supplies, escorted by forty-eight men of the 7th cavalry (temporarily serving in the department,) under Lieutenants S. M. Robbins and W. W. Cook. The Indians surrounded the train for three hours, making desperate efforts, to capture it, but were gallantly resisted, and eventually repulsed with a loss of five warriors killed and several wounded. Our loss, two men slightly wounded. The officers and men engaged are commended by their commanding officer for good conduct in this their first engagement with hostile Indians.
On the 2d instant, Brevet Major James Powell, captain 27th United States infantry, with twenty-five men of his company and five citizens, employed in getting wood, five miles from Fort Philip Kearney, found themselves cutoff from the fort by a heavy force of Indians, estimated by cool heads to be about two thousand. They took position in a small corral, constructed of wagon beds and ox-yokes, and in this little hastily extemporized work these thirty men most gallantly and determinedly defended themselves for three and a half hours against overwhelming odds.
In their first assault the Indians were mounted. Driven back they dismounted, took their horses to the rear, stripped themselves, and returned to the assault, only to be again repulsed with great loss. Major Powell's party were relieved by the arrival of Brevet Lieutenant Colonel B. F. Smith, Major 27th United States infantry, with two companies of infantry and some artillery.
"Fortunately, Major Powell's party had just received the new breech-loading rifles,'' as Major Smith reports; "had they been armed with the old muzzle-loading arm they must all have been massacred before relief could have reached them."
Major Powell modestly claims sixty Indians killed and one hundred and twenty wounded. It is but just, however, to state that reliable citizens and others, well informed as to result and indications, assert their firm conviction that not less than three hundred Indians were killed or disabled. Major Powell, by his coolness and firmness in this most creditable affair, has shown what a few determined men can effect with good arms and strong hearts, even with such temporary defensive arrangements as are almost always at hand, and that it is always safer, leaving out the questions of duty and professional honor, to stand and fight Indians than to retreat from them. Had this party attempted to fall back, every one would have perished. As it was, it lost one officer and two enlisted men killed.
Lieutenant Jenness, a most excellent young officer, fell while affording to his men a fine example of coolness and daring in the performance of his duty.
His loss is regretted by his command, by whom he was greatly esteemed and loved.
On the 17th instant, Lieutenant Davis, of the Pawnee scouts, sent out with ten men to reconnoitre near Plum creek, Nebraska, fell in with a greatly superior force of hostile Indians. He gradually fell back until re-enforced by Captain Murie and thirty men of his Pawnees, when they re-crossed the Platte river and were soon attacked by over a hundred Cheyenne and Sioux.
Captain Murie coolly held his fire until within proper distance, when he quickly charged and dispersed them, following them in a running fight for ten miles, killing fifteen, certain, and it is believed more; wounding a good many, and capturing two prisoners, thirty-one horses and mules, and a large number of blankets, saddles and other property.
Our only loss, one horse killed and five wounded. Captain Murie, Lieutenant Davis, and their brave Pawnees, are entitled to great credit for this most decided success.
The general commanding regrets that the commanders in these several affairs have not given the names of the enlisted men who most distinguished themselves, that they might be recorded in this order. It is not too late to remedy this apparent injustice, and the commanders concerned will, on receipt of this order, report the desired names to these headquarters.
Hereafter, in all reports of engagements, the names of enlisted men distinguishing themselves will be embraced in the report.
By command of Brevet Major General Augur:
H. G. LITCHFIELD,
Brevet Lieut. Col., A. A. A. G."
|
| BJMarkland |
Posted - August 31 2004 : 11:43:10 AM
Hello, did anyone get information from HistoryChick regarding her thesis on Fetterman? Her post is on page 3 dated 10/5/2003.
Larsen, you are right, that Vaughn book is excellent. I only stumbled upon it a couple of months ago. The book I am reading currently, That Body of Brave Men by Mark W. Johnson is a very good book. This deals with the history of the 4 Regular US Army regiments, including the 18th which garrisoned Fts. Reno, PK, & Smith, which fought in the Western theater during the ACW. It is also necessary to read if you have any interest in the military operations along the Bozeman Trail, as it deals with the formation of the 18th US Infantry, as well as the three other regular infantry regiments, their training, capabilities, officers, or in short, it gives one a very good idea of the war experiences of the veterans such as Fetterman, Powell, Bisbee, Adair, Phisterer, Burt, Anson Mills, Kirtland, Ten Eyck, & Carrington.
Two thing which has gotten me confused are these:
1) Carrington is not pictured well in this book except for two things: his talent for recruiting and his high standards of training, including practicing with live ammunition. What happened? I will concede the lack of training at FPK due to ammunition constraints and his orders to build a fort. General Hazen by the way thought that the fort was way overbuilt. But he did have a portion of the 18th at Ft. Kearney, Nebraska Territory for a period of time with all that surplus ACW ammunition to expend.
2) In the Sanborn testimony, Carrington appears all sanctimonious regarding corporal punishment of the troops. Was this a ploy or truthful? Johnson reveals that there had been a formal court of inquiry at the request of Oliver L. Shepherd, field commander of the 18th, due to exaggerated claims by volunteer soldiers to Congressmen about the "brutal" discipline of the 18th. The regiment and its officers were exonerated and all charges were proven to be exaggerated or completely false. But, since this had happened before, was Carrington completely honest about his distaste for the punishment issued by Powell and Bisbee or was it merely a political manuever?
Dark Cloud, regarding numbers. Bridger did not see the Indians personally but relied upon estimates from the Crow who had been invited to Tongue River by the hostiles. Here is the extract from Carrington's report of 9/17/1866 to Gen. Cooke:
"Messenger from Fort C.F. Smith brings message that at request of Mr. Bridger, a party of Crows visited that post reporting five hundred lodges of Sioux in Tongue river valley, all hostile. Cheyenne Chiefs, viz; Black Horse, The man that stands alone on the ground, Red Arm, Little Wolf, Dull Knife and others with whom I held council in July, and who went beyond the mountains south as they promised, brought me the same report. Previous telegram of this date will show the same fact. Another village must be southeast of Lake Smedt [sic], towards Powder river.
The following facts are important by way of review.
1st The Indians are well armed, with revolvers as well as rifles.
2nd Red Cloud is known to command the parties now immediately engaged. White flags were used as signals between the different bands, thus covering a line of at least seven miles.
3rd There are men with them who dress and appear to be white men, and swear and talk in good English.
4th They are determined to burn the country, cut off supplies, and hamper every movement.
I believe the force I have is well disposed and effective for its strength, and I did not permit presence of the Indians to stop the hay wagons from going back to the hay field.
The men are learning to reserve part of their fire and the Indians will hardly venture again under fire of the Fort, but they are in the field in force."
I need to check the numbers of Indians again though. I may have a typo as Carrington states later in his testimony that he was told of 1500 lodges of hostiles on the Tongue.
Best of wishes,
Billy
|
| joseph wiggs |
Posted - May 28 2004 : 2:47:00 PM
Frankboddn, I did not mean to imply that the battle was not costly in terms of the lost of lives and the end of a culture. The Plains' Sioux and Cheyenne people have, as yet, recovered from this tragedy. My reference to a scale of 1-10 was stricly a military comparison of much larger and inclusive wars(involving more than one Nation) of the past and present. I apologize for the usage of a poor analogy. |
| Dark Cloud |
Posted - May 28 2004 : 11:14:12 AM
Right. |
| dave |
Posted - May 28 2004 : 10:59:14 AM
El Crab,
It hasn't passed un-noticed by myself that you're not posting as regularly as you once did. Personally I'm very disappointed, although I understand your reasons.
For what its worth. I really enjoyed reading some of the conversations you initiated. I found some of the topics exceptionally interesting, like the thread on whether Custer might committed suicide (incidently just on that subject, Custer allegedly packed a pair Bulldogs which had round which was far more anemic than the Colt. How might that effect your conclusions?).
Anyway, I just thought I would let you know, that your efforts haven't gone un-appreciated. And it was because of some of the high standard postings you contributed in the past, that I decided to register on this forum.
|
| El Crab |
Posted - May 28 2004 : 01:11:14 AM
quote:
Originally posted by joseph wiggs
El Crab, you don't need to go to the battlefield, everything it represents is within you. A major portion of this story concerns a gigantic clash between two cultures were many good men died, both soldiers and Native Americans, needlessly. We have gathered at this forum in an attempt to make sense of it all. We must learn from history or, history repeats itself. You understand that he who yells the loudest, is not necessarily correct. He who attacks a man's character because his opinion may differ lacks intestinal fortitude. Those who read the incessant tirades of odious venom spewing from the lips of a select few understand of which I speak. I have been very fortunant to have visited the battlefield. I hope you too will get there soon.
While I understand what you're saying, its a bit on the melodramtic side. And I've had enough experience with the people on this site to know what to expect and, as you may or may not have noticed, I don't post as much as I used to.
Don't worry about me getting to the battlefield, I'm going under the best possible circumstances and in very good company. Plus, I'll have access to so much more than your average visitor. Should be a blast. |
| frankboddn |
Posted - May 27 2004 : 8:37:03 PM
 Joseph, on a scale of 1-10, it's not that important? Everything that I've read or heard suggests Custer's defeat, far from being a big victory by the Indians, set in motion their demise. I've gotta believe this Indian "problem" would've last somewhat longer had there not been a Custer's Last Stand. |
| joseph wiggs |
Posted - May 27 2004 : 8:32:23 PM
El Crab, you don't need to go to the battlefield, everything it represents is within you. A major portion of this story concerns a gigantic clash between two cultures were many good men died, both soldiers and Native Americans, needlessly. We have gathered at this forum in an attempt to make sense of it all. We must learn from history or, history repeats itself. You understand that he who yells the loudest, is not necessarily correct. He who attacks a man's character because his opinion may differ lacks intestinal fortitude. Those who read the incessant tirades of odious venom spewing from the lips of a select few understand of which I speak. I have been very fortunant to have visited the battlefield. I hope you too will get there soon. |
| Anonymous Poster8169 |
Posted - May 25 2004 : 11:40:11 PM
quote:
Originally posted by joseph wiggs
Larsen, I just noticed your post of May 10 in which you referred to my making a fetish of a mystery. Forgive me for such a belated response, I will keep it short. A fetish is an abnoral fixation of an inanimate object, like a shoe, or an article of clothing. I don't believe that a debate on the Battle of the Little Big Horn falls within those parameters.
It does when you start fetishizing the mystery for its own sake. A fetish doesn't refer solely to someone who has sex with a shoe or mop. It is applied to any extreme, irrational reverence. Counting yourself "lucky" (of all things) because there are a lot of missing facts about the Little Bighorn sounds weird and fetishistic to me.
R. Larsen
|
| Dark Cloud |
Posted - May 25 2004 : 9:53:34 PM
Gee, you might want to accuse of that which I am guilty. Wiggs has already taken the position of making things up, anyway. |
| El Crab |
Posted - May 25 2004 : 8:31:34 PM
Well, DC figures anyone who doesn't think exactly like him (read: everyone but Dark Cloud) is a Little Big Horn fetishist. In his world, there's something wrong with wanting to learn things that he deems unimportant. Ironically, his fetish is spending all his time making fun of/berating those who choose to discuss LBH. I find that to be much more pathetic than studying and discussing the battle.
He's like the guy who spends his time ridiculing a particular movie and informing those who like it that they're stupid for doing so. You'd think someone would want to spend time delving into subjects they seem to enjoy. If you didn't really enjoy watching about baseball, especially around people who love the sport, would you go to a ballpark to watch a game? Or in this case, buy season tickets? |
| joseph wiggs |
Posted - May 25 2004 : 8:14:32 PM
Larsen, I just noticed your post of May 10 in which you referred to my making a fetish of a mystery. Forgive me for such a belated response, I will keep it short. A fetish is an abnoral fixation of an inanimate object, like a shoe, or an article of clothing. I don't believe that a debate on the Battle of the Little Big Horn falls within those parameters. |
| Dark Cloud |
Posted - May 12 2004 : 10:39:17 AM
I am far from the most knowledgeable here. I AM the most cynical. I detest the maudlin romance and am revolted by the easy accusations that are made against the three main officers, all of whom deserve better.
Kellogg was a part time hack for a Bismark paper (circulation: 3) whereas Custer wrote for the NY press himself. He was unimportant and a bland writer.
Although 'scouting' out the Sioux was part of the job, Custer was told that if discovered or the Sioux showed signs of breaking up, he was to do what he thought best. He did.
This 'recon in force' term is a great favorite like 'tactical disintegration' and is often misused. Just because a force is too small to beat the found enemy and yet conceivably capable of a fighting retreat doesn't mean it was designed as a recon in force, however convenient the application after the fact. Could be just coincidence or command incompetence as well. A recon in force only makes sense if it was deliberate and a larger friendly force is nearby to act on its findings. Custer was the more powerful force in Terry's command as well as the most limber.
Benteen rode as responsibly and quickly as he could. If anyone had thought he'd let elements of the 7th be slaughtered, he'd have been shot on the spot. Same with Reno. Everyone realized they could have done better and different when the facts were known, but only Weir wanted to risk the command and rush to the sound of firing because it was a maxim of a safely dead general.
"Being quick" with exhausted horses is a relative term, and an oxymoron with an exhausted pack train. The oral orders by Kanipe about the packs bounding overland dropping boxes of ammo for the enemy was a stupid order if actually made by Custer. As it was, several of Custer's horses gave out. None of Reno or Benteen's. If Benteen had rushed to Custer's side, his men would have been strung out, the horses useless, his men doomed. I would choose to think such orders in Indian warfare carried unspoken caveats "Be as quick as you can and arrive with an intact unit able to fight as cavalry, the point of your existence." Otherwise, it makes no sense if they arrive, the horse collapse, and they're stuck, unable to attack OR defend, just like Custer.
Nothing about Custer's actions after MTC make sense to me, and the current silly theories bear no resemblence to the Custer history knows. I personally think he was shot early on (he was always up front) - not killed - and nobody dared take over from him with his family and officers in line having divergent goals and sets of orders until it was too late. Custer was far too sharp to get caught on such ground, to not attack down MTC when he could if the village wasn't too large, to not retreat to unite the command if it were. |
| wILD I |
Posted - May 12 2004 : 07:13:34 AM
Hi Dark Cloud
I see by your posts that your are a knowledgeable student of the LBH battle.So I find it a little surprising that you dismiss Kellog as unimportant.I would be of the opinion that Kellog was at least as important as the two gallopers Custer sent back from the column.
Kellog did send a dispatch back to the Bismarck Tribune reporting that the 7th were setting out on a scouting expedition.A scouting expedition mind not an offensive operation.
Now this poses the question was the entire command under the impression that this was just a recce in force?Could this frame of mind have accounted for Benteen's apparent lack of urgency in "being quick"?
Iwould be interested in your opinion.
Slan
|
| Dark Cloud |
Posted - May 11 2004 : 11:38:33 AM
Mark Kellog is a creature of overpowering unimportance. His presence is testimony only to Custer's flaunting of orders from Sherman not to take journalists with him. |
| wILD I |
Posted - May 11 2004 : 09:48:20 AM
Perhaps The Custer battle is better known because there was an imbedded journalist with the command---Mark Kellog[I think]
Regards |
| Anonymous Poster8169 |
Posted - May 10 2004 : 4:59:10 PM
quote:
Originally posted by joseph wiggs
If this battle was conclusive in every aspect of its occurence, it would be delagated to the duty shelves of the past. Are we not lucky that this is not so?
No. Not unless you make a fetish of the mystery.
R. Larsen
|
| joseph wiggs |
Posted - May 09 2004 : 8:10:42 PM
On a scale of 1 through 10, in military annals, the Battle of the Little Big Horn ranks at the lower end of the scale. Its' outcome was not earth shakong nor detrimental to the interests of the United States. The battle did not finalize or create an ending regarding the lives of the Native American as theor fate was already preordained, and at its' nadir, when the battle occurred. Why then as this comparatively insignificant
confrontation stirred up so much interest? Why has this historical episode given birth to so many countless books, movies, periodicals, and debates for the past hundred and twenty-five years? It is an enigma! It stirs our imagination because we don't know the finite details of how this cultural conflict unfolded. Only discussions about the Bible and politics can promote more contraversy. Ironically the story grows in the telling, like a fallen drop of rain from heaven that freezes, melts, re-freezes countless of times until it is transformed into a ball of hail. What actually occurred has, over the decades, been melted and frozen by myth transforming all the particpants from the human to sublime legend. It is this ability to tantalize and sudece us with its' mysteries that entice us over and over to be a part of the story. Every time a theory is created to "explain" what actually happened, a counter theory is created to "explain" why the original theory is incorrect. If this battle was conclusive in every aspect of its occurence, it would be delagated to the duty shelves of the past. Are we not lucky that this is not so? |
|
|
