| Author |
 Topic  |
|
dave
Captain
Australia
Status: offline |
 Posted - June 10 2004 : 10:08:38 AM
|
I'd just like to apologise in advance about the newbie nature of these questions. I can only defend myself by saying that I live in Australia, where Custer material is not commonly available, and I don't wish to spend a large amount of money (the Aussie$ is considerably weaker the the US$) importing the necessary books from the USA. That said, on to the questions.
In reading a review on Richard Fox's excavations on the battlefield, I found quote that referred to Fox discovering evidence of a skirmish line on Calhoun Hill. The reviewer stated that Fox had found mounds of expended cartridges in a line, approximately 5 yards apart.
Is this true? and if it is true, was Fox able to determine how many soldiers formed the skirmish line. And is there any evidence of skirmish lines from any of the neighbouring hills or ridges, such as Nye-Cartwright?
As a sort of follow up question.
I've read that something like 52 bodies were positively identified after the battle. Were any of Calhouns company identified from parts of the battlefield other than Calhoun hill?
And were there any soldiers from other companies (apart from Keogh's) found on Calhoun Hill?
Basically as you might have worked out by now, I'm just trying to establish whether the archeological evidence suggests 1 company, 2 companies or 5 companies involved in the inital defence of Calhoun Hill.
Anyway, thanks in advance to anyone who wants to reply.
|
|
|
Anonymous Poster8169
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - June 10 2004 : 11:26:06 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by dave
I'd just like to apologise in advance about the newbie nature of these questions. I can only defend myself by saying that I live in Australia, where Custer material is not commonly available, and I don't wish to spend a large amount of money (the Aussie$ is considerably weaker the the US$) importing the necessary books from the USA. That said, on to the questions.
In reading a review on Richard Fox's excavations on the battlefield, I found quote that referred to Fox discovering evidence of a skirmish line on Calhoun Hill. The reviewer stated that Fox had found mounds of expended cartridges in a line, approximately 5 yards apart.
Is this true? and if it is true, was Fox able to determine how many soldiers formed the skirmish line. And is there any evidence of skirmish lines from any of the neighbouring hills or ridges, such as Nye-Cartwright?
As a sort of follow up question.
I've read that something like 52 bodies were positively identified after the battle. Were any of Calhouns company identified from parts of the battlefield other than Calhoun hill?
And were there any soldiers from other companies (apart from Keogh's) found on Calhoun Hill?
Basically as you might have worked out by now, I'm just trying to establish whether the archeological evidence suggests 1 company, 2 companies or 5 companies involved in the inital defence of Calhoun Hill.
Anyway, thanks in advance to anyone who wants to reply.
He found what he believed to be evidence of two skirmish lines on Calhoun Hill, one running west-east, the other north-south. This may be consistent with the account of one officer at the Reno Court of Inquiry, who stated that Calhoun had died behind "the first platoon" of L Co., and Crittenden behind "the second platoon". The amount of cartridges he found, however, was very small --- a lot of souvenier-picking had presumably taken place there --- and Fox's skirmish lines didn't match up with any of the markers we know today.
It is not accurate to say that Fox found "mounds" of cartridges on his skirmish lines. That sounds to me like a garbled recollection of some of the testimony at the Inquiry; there was one officer who said he found a pile of 25-30 cartridges in one place on the hill.
There's no way to determine how many men might have occupied the lines, due to the ragged nature of the evidence. Same goes with Nye-Cartwright Ridge; most of the finds there have been done by amateurs, who didn't leave very much specific information about where each item was found. You can't construe skirmish lines from that, though for all we know there might have been some there.
The only bodies I have ever heard of as being recognized on Calhoun Hill were Calhoun and Crittenden. The other men on the hill were generically identified as being "of L Company," though actual names haven't come down in the records.
L Company's first sergeant, James Butler, was identified south of the main battlefield, in an area by himself. Pvt. Charles Graham was found laying somewhere between Calhoun's body and Keogh's, while Pvts. Charles McCarthy and Thomas Tweed are placed on Custer Hill. Pvt. Weston Harrington was identified on the South Skirmish Line; Pvt. Francis T. Hughes evidently died in Deep Ravine. Pvt. John Burke (aka Oscar Pardee) has always been listed on the rosters of Custer's battalion, but John Burkman claimed that he was killed on Reno Hill.
R. Larsen
|
  |
|
|
joseph wiggs
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - June 10 2004 : 10:28:36 PM
|
Hi Dave, glad to hear from one our neighbors from down south, way down south. When one reviews the various aspects of this battle, one is startled by the warriors' allegations of poor battle responces by the soldiers. In fact, several warriors compared this battle, metaphorically, to a buffalo hunt; which certainly has a negative connotation. Once stirred up and frighten, buffalos have tendency to flee, blindly, in every direction possible.
It is difficult to identify the number of "L" troop soldiers who died upon Calhoun Hill. Those who would know tended to identify the higher-ranking people. Moylan wrote Lt. Calhoun's brother, a week after the battle that, " as high as 40 cartridge shells were found around some of Calhoun's men.
Lt. Wallace saw piles of 25 to 30 cartridge cases at one or two places at Calhoun Hill.
The only clear indication of tactical stability in this battle takes place on Calhoun Hill. White Cow Bull testified that he observed a U.S. flag-a guidon at that location. This is indictive of at least one company established in an orderly, fixed position.
Spent cartridge numbers about Calhoun Hill make it clear that "L" Company troopers fired the most. An Indian warrior, Hollow Horn Bear, said, "the fighting was hardest here." As stated before, two lines were formed. It is believed that the original line faced south to ward off Gall's forces. A second line was quickly formed to face west to meet the sudden warrior thrust coming forth from Calhoun Coulee, and Greasy Grass Ridge.
It is very probable that the majority of soldiers who died here were from companies "L" and "C". It is believed, by some, that company "C" was sent to relieve the encroachment of warriors to the right flank of the Calhoun skirmish line(via Calhoun coulee). Subsequent rounds of fire from Greasy Grass Hill disrupted the "C" charge, and forced them to retreat. Fleeing up Calhoun Ridge, the survivors of "C" mingled with the survivors of the "L" skirmish line which now crumbled under the Indian onslaught. |
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - June 11 2004 : 09:17:20 AM
|
Lt. Wallace saw piles of 25 to 30 cartridge cases at one or two places at Calhoun Hill.
Are these statements dependable? They said that the bodies were not mutlitated.
It is understandable to say comrades went down fighting |
|
|
|
joseph wiggs
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - June 11 2004 : 9:08:55 PM
|
| Lt Wallace was considered to be a reliable and very competent officer. He was offically assigned the task of "recorder" for the expedition. His statement is corroborated by Indian testimony who describe tremendous weapons fire, from Calhoun Hill, which drove them to seek cover. Other than Reno's skirmish line and, Calhoun's skirmish, archaeology has not substantiated a third skirmish line. The alleged South Skirmish Line has been pretty much proven to be a misnomer. In the heat of combat, the warriors usually made sure that the enemy was dead by applying a severe blow to the head, then on to the next victim. In all probability, they did not stay and gloat over the victim. However, the Indian Squaw was a horse of a different color. Incensed over past deaths of their loved ones (read Col. Chivington here) and a heartless U.S. Government policy, they reeked revenge at two locations. The first being the men left behind by Reno's "charge" who were multilated at leisure by the women. The second location was Last Stand Hill. The battle was over and, once again, the women and children wrecked havoc upon the dead and wounded. Remember, Hell Hath no fury... |
|
|
|
El Crab
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - June 11 2004 : 9:33:59 PM
|
They mutilated bodies all over the field.
Calhoun Hill did seem to be the source of a lot of controlled, possibly even volley firing. And the warriors operated at long distance from that point, after testing the defense with an aborted charge. But the fighting in that area seems to have been rather bloodless for the Sioux and Cheyenne. So for all the noise, the results were keeping the warriors at a distance, not killing or wounding many. |
I came. I saw. I took 300 pictures. |
|
|
|
joseph wiggs
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - June 12 2004 : 8:34:57 PM
|
| True, mutilation did occur throughout the battle field. However, there were two locations in which the Indian squaws could go about their duties unmolested by the soldiers. Reno's retreat(these men testified to the cruel assaults perpatrated against the dead and wounded, but, could do nothing to help)and, of course, Last Stand Hill when the battle was over. Actually I'm just picking at straws;touche El Crab. |
|
|
|
El Crab
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - June 12 2004 : 11:24:07 PM
|
| Yes, this is true. And I would imagine more bodies were mutilated on Calhoun Hill and in the valley, due to the accessibility even while fighting. But after the soldiers were all downed on Custer's field, they could mutilate and loot any corpse they wanted to. Hence, it was somewhat random on that field. |
I came. I saw. I took 300 pictures. |
|
|
|
Anonymous Poster8169
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - June 13 2004 : 12:15:09 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by joseph wiggs
True, mutilation did occur throughout the battle field. However, there were two locations in which the Indian squaws could go about their duties unmolested by the soldiers. Reno's retreat(these men testified to the cruel assaults perpatrated against the dead and wounded, but, could do nothing to help)and, of course, Last Stand Hill when the battle was over. Actually I'm just picking at straws;touche El Crab.
I'll say. To claim that Last Stand Hill was somehow safer to cut up the dead than Calhoun Hill, Battle Ridge, Deep Ravine, Finley Ridge, and any other location on the battlefield is patently ridiculous.
R. Larsen
|
|
|
|
joseph wiggs
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - June 13 2004 : 8:06:49 PM
|
| It is safer to cut up the enemy when the enemy is dead, as was the case at Last Stand Hill. Obviously Benteen and Reno were not a threat. How do we know this? They failed to show. What is "patently ridiculous" is your unbridled fury against me. I find it amusing; please continue. |
|
|
|
Anonymous Poster8169
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - June 14 2004 : 4:40:26 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by joseph wiggs
It is safer to cut up the enemy when the enemy is dead, as was the case at Last Stand Hill. Obviously Benteen and Reno were not a threat. How do we know this? They failed to show. What is "patently ridiculous" is your unbridled fury against me. I find it amusing; please continue.
What was patently ridiculous, as everyone knows, was your claim that Last Stand Hill was somehow a safer place to carve up people than anywhere else on Custer field. The soldiers were just as dead on Calhoun Hill as they were on the other hill. You screwed up. Admit it and move on.
R. Larsen
|
|
|
|
lorenzo G.
Captain
Italy
Status: offline |
Posted - June 14 2004 : 7:24:49 PM
|
| You know, maybe it's interesting to know that Ambrose, which is not the last one arrived, in his book "Crazy horse against Custer", describing the race of Custer towards the hill defines last stand hill like the salvation for the fact he will have had the full visual on the enemy. He repeats more times and in the end, he says, " he died few meters from to the salvation ". Therefore attributing a specific value to the position on Last stand hill. I thought was interesting to mention this fact. |
If it is to be my lot to fall in the service of my country and my country's rights I will have no regrets.
Custer |
|
|
|
El Crab
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - June 14 2004 : 8:03:49 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by lorenzo G.
You know, maybe it's interesting to know that Ambrose, which is not the last one arrived, in his book "Crazy horse against Custer", describing the race of Custer towards the hill defines last stand hill like the salvation for the fact he will have had the full visual on the enemy. He repeats more times and in the end, he says, " he died few meters from to the salvation ". Therefore attributing a specific value to the position on Last stand hill. I thought was interesting to mention this fact.
I believe that book also states that Crazy Horse swept from the north, and crested LSH before Custer could reach the top, and the Last Stand followed immediately.
Custer's soldiers were at the top of the hill. Custer was found not far from the monument itself, and moved down the hill for burial. They had the hill. It wasn't their salvation (obviously). |
I came. I saw. I took 300 pictures. |
|
|
|
lorenzo G.
Captain
Italy
Status: offline |
Posted - June 15 2004 : 07:50:06 AM
|
Is not to be fussy, but bodies, were not on the top, but few meters from. I however did'nt post my message to support the opinion of Ambrose, but to support the one that the hill was the best place to have a better fight. |
If it is to be my lot to fall in the service of my country and my country's rights I will have no regrets.
Custer |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - June 15 2004 : 10:33:02 AM
|
Lorenzo, why was the hill a better spot to have a fight? Those on the hill had no protection. They were better targets for those shooting at them from all directions.
This is one of those beloved military phrases - "get the high ground" - that appeals to those who communicate by bumper sticker, and who would replicate anything once allegedly said by a famous military man. It often makes sense, Reno preferred it to the river basin, but hardly often enough to deserve immediate obedience.
Note: Benteen, having the chance to fight from Weir Point, immediately recognized the foolishness of that and headed for the slight depression on Reno Hill despite that not being the high ground within rifle range.
And I don't think Custer was heading for high ground either, not being an idiot. I think those companies were, in one form or another, driven back and away and they ended up against their wishes where they did. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - June 15 2004 : 1:53:33 PM
|
"get the high ground"
Are you serious Dark Cloud?Sounds like you favour the ostrich defence--they won't see us in the depression.
The high ground covers all avenues of approach.Allows you to observe all movements of the enemy.Allows for good fire control.If you are in a depression you might as well be blindfolded.
I know you said you were not a military man so could I suggest you at least get youself a good set of baseball cards or car stickers.
Have a nice day |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - June 15 2004 : 3:33:43 PM
|
Yes, Wild, I'm serious. Given that the guys on highly visible high ground were slaughtered and those with cover were not.......However, given as how I'm a civvie and you're an experienced combat veteran, I'll give you a chance to shine, here.
Imagine two identical armies with rifes. One on the slopes of an Aztec pyramid, one surrounding it at a distance of 300 feet in interconnected trenches. The distance between trench and pyramid is flat and featureless. Explain the advantage of high ground there.
Because it isn't, granted hyperbole, much difference from LSH, which didn't control all approaches because of all the gullies and interconnected features of the ground which give the impression of unbroken flatness when it is far from it. The soldiers were in the wide open, highlighted against the grass, while Indians could shoot unexpectedly from cover all around.
At Reno, the Indians on actual commanding high ground, Sharpshooter Ridge, gave early problems till blown away when the command's attention was drawn to them.
All things being equal, and they rarely are, high ground sometimes, maybe often, has advantages. But to blindly obey it is pretty dumb. Custer not being dumb, this is one reason I don't think his command willingly ended up where it did.
Benteen and Reno knew the highest feature for miles - Weir Point - was a terrible spot to fight from, as was Sharpshooter. They survived, perhaps won, while Custer with the high ground did not. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
El Crab
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - June 15 2004 : 4:54:52 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by lorenzo G.
Is not to be fussy, but bodies, were not on the top, but few meters from. I however did'nt post my message to support the opinion of Ambrose, but to support the one that the hill was the best place to have a better fight.
Bruce Trinque believes soldiers were at the top, firing east, using the ridgeline as cover. Think of it this way: what would be the point of committing yourself to fighting on that hill without covering the east approach? If all the soldiers were on the west slope, meters from the top, what would happen if, say 100 warriors attacked from the east? There were warriors firing from "Wooden Leg Hill", a knoll east of LSH. Who were they firing at? |
I came. I saw. I took 300 pictures. |
|
|
|
joseph wiggs
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - June 15 2004 : 8:54:52 PM
|
| If I am understanding the debate thus far, it appears that a consensus has ben established wherein an erroneous assumption has beed inferred; Custer did not "seek the high ground." There was no high ground to seek, it was a knoll at the north terminus of Custer ridge. Awaiting Benteen, he remained in the basin near Deep Coulee for approximately twenty minutes or so. Finally, Indian pressure at Calhoun Hill (the southern terminus of Custer Ridge)swept away the Calhoun skirmish lines. Soldier survivors of this assult fled north. Witnessing this tragic sequence of events, Custer moved his troops towards Last Stand Hill in hopes pf stemming the tide; his plan did not work. |
|
|
|
El Crab
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - June 15 2004 : 9:04:41 PM
|
Substitute Deep Coulee for Deep Ravine, and you've got a lot of Fox's theory.
Offensive movements, long range firing, then it fell apart and high ground was sought. |
I came. I saw. I took 300 pictures. |
|
|
|
lorenzo G.
Captain
Italy
Status: offline |
Posted - June 16 2004 : 05:15:11 AM
|
| I had to answer but then I see that Wild give what I thought. So I just say that I agreed with him. |
If it is to be my lot to fall in the service of my country and my country's rights I will have no regrets.
Custer |
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - June 16 2004 : 2:58:25 PM
|
Imagine two identical armies with rifes. One on the slopes of an Aztec pyramid, one surrounding it at a distance of 300 feet in interconnected trenches. The distance between trench and pyramid is flat and featureless. Explain the advantage of high ground there
I'm losing faith in you Dark Cloud.Much of what you have posted on the LBH is excellent, but if we get into military matters your lost.
Now why don't we just turn that pyramid upsidedown and put your army at the bottom of it with my army firing down into it.Who has the advantage then.See no bother shining when dealing with that civvy stuff.
Because it isn't, granted hyperbole, much difference from LSH, which didn't control all approaches because of all the gullies and interconnected features of the ground which give the impression of unbroken flatness when it is far from it.
If operating in an area of broken ground the highest point will command all lower land features in fact many of the gullies may be enfiladed.
If you take the high ground your rifle fire is not restricted unlike the situation of a position in a depression where the effective range is to the overlooking ridge.
I'm just looking at a small publication produced by the National Park Service.It says-----Looking south and East you see some of the Indian firing positions.Warriors occupied virtually all the hilltops and many of the ravines, beginning at the river and extending in a huge arc around to your left.The long ridge,1000 yards[over 1/2 mile]due east,was a principal position.
Well lo and behold ,the Indians used these tactics --high ground and long range firing long before our friends ,I don't want to use the B word.
Benteen, having the chance to fight from Weir Point,
Weir point was just that, a pimple it would not have held family picnic.[guessing because I'v only seen photos.]
Cheers
|
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - June 16 2004 : 4:24:47 PM
|
First, Wild, you have to flense reference of all except LSH, which is the basis of the discussion from Lorenzo's post yesterday. Even so, we have no idea from the quote where you're standing or to what the quote applies. Last Stand Hill? Calhoun Hill? In any case, is the quote saying the ridge is 1000 yards away from where you are? Or 1000 yards long (and) due east? I wish I had faith in your quotes.
Your position is deflated by the battles result. Those soldiers on high ground were without cover, virtually immobile, and shot. Those Indians firing uphill had cover, moved around, and were not. Any Indians to the East were not given an advantage by ground significantly higher (it isn’t), but by the cover provided. Indian casualties were ridiculously low with many due to unnecessary courage displays.
The long range fire thesis is rather new and unlikely, given Indians were famously bad shots due to no training or practice ammo, and they would try to get close enough to where they could hit something rather than waste ammo from 1000 yards. It's not like they were firing into a mass of red Brits in tight formation, but at individuals yards apart. I know: the bunching thesis. I suspect this was due more to dead horse/cover than anything else.
The numerous gullies and ravines that you disdain were the destination of guys tired of being shot at from all sides towards the end.
Custer followed your advice, Benteen and Reno did not. Let's check the results.....
In any case, my example was valid; if high ground was always advantageous, those on the pyramid would win. But you’re quite sure they would not, and you pretend it silly. Well, it IS of course, but the point is that exchanges of military platitudes and exhortations may not pan out as often as the exhorters think. It sure didn't here. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
lorenzo G.
Captain
Italy
Status: offline |
Posted - June 16 2004 : 7:20:12 PM
|
Of course, a battle is not a fixed picture where rules are fixed. It depends on the battle, on the ground etc. If you're standing up on the hill you don't stand up to get shooted from which is down on the plain, but must create a defence line. In any case you, there up, have the view on all what's happening at your feet. And: have you never tryed to see someone that lie on the top of an hill? It's almost impossible.
Custer with his men they was on the flank near to the top, is'nt so? That is'nt the best position but, my logical tell me that they had to make the best of possible with the worse. I would like to know, however, what he should have done Custer, at your opinion, after MTC.
You can't compare Reno and Benteen positions, at my opinion, with Custer, because they was in different situations. Custer when he reached the hill was in full emergency and had already lost almost all his men. Was a final desesperated try. Reno and Benteen, after the retreating of the first, they have a while to prepare the defence. |
If it is to be my lot to fall in the service of my country and my country's rights I will have no regrets.
Custer |
|
|
|
benteens brother
Corporal
Australia
Status: offline |
Posted - June 16 2004 : 7:41:59 PM
|
| There's not much doubt that having the high ground in a military engagement is an advantage but when facing overwhelming numbers the position needs to be properly prepared. These guys were caught on the hop, out in the open, they had no chance. Reno and Benteen at least had time to fortify their little position which no doubt helped them and probably gave their men more confidence. |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - June 16 2004 : 9:21:43 PM
|
Lorenzo, you continue to say things as fact - like Custer had already lost all his men when he got to LSH - that aren't proven and could never be absent a time machine. We don't know. We don't know jack, and archaeolgy ain't really clearing much up because the field was both pillaged and (unproven but likely) salted with stuff for tourists to find. Plus, stuff was moved around. Divining linear adventure from such isn't really possible. It could all be true, all be false. But just heading north from MTC was the irreversible mistake, and as I've repeatedly said, one I don't believe Custer made.
What Custer 'should' have done at MTC is dependent upon the actual size of the combined village. If as small as it is now projected, then he most definitely should have sent scouts ahead quicker than he did to find a crossing as he gave Reno his orders, and he should have attacked across MTC with all five units asap absent the gracious waves.
As you read Wiggs, for example, who also states hypothesis as fact,all the warriors were with Reno and all the civvies were heading north - i.e. the quickest way to the civvies was through the (empty) village, not dawdle along the east bank. Cavalry has to be quick and harsh, not stealthy and subtle and far away and on ground an Abrams would rather avoid. Custer didn't start doing whatever he was doing at MTC till an HOUR after Reno charged. That's dubious support.
If the village was too big, lord knows what he should have done beyond unite the command and get on cavalry ground south of camp. West were the Crows, east was this awful land before the Rosebud,north was Terry. By the time he discovered this one way or the other, it was too late, I'd imagine. For all the scouts he had, they didn't do the bang up job they should have done. Clearly Custer had no inkling that crossing the river for a flank attack was going to be such an issue.
Further, there really was no Plan B possible with cavalry in these wars. Once you had wounded, you had to protect them and the train in Indian country, and that pretty much curtails offense.
One of my continuing complaints about those damning one unit and its leader or another is that the same criteria are not applied to all three. Reno attacks, wimps out/retreats, survives and is damned. Custer does the same thing except dies and is exhalted. Reno dismounts and retreats to timber, Custer did the same thing in 1873 on the Yellowstone. One is a coward, one is wise command; both were awaiting rescue from oncoming units including the trains. Unfortunately, Custer was supposed to be Reno's relief.
I'm still happy with my pyramid example to counter the 'high ground' enthusiasts.
And again, those damning Reno have provided zero (0) alternative actions he and Benteen ought to have done to have saved Custer or at least improved the day. Nothing. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Calhoun Hill
