| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
 Posted - July 18 2004 : 09:55:19 AM
|
This is in reference to Crab's post below, on the 560th page of a thread that's getting too long.
Perhaps at no other losing battle can otherwise sane people look upon a large clump of officers, divorced from their units, gathered about the body of the commander, and ascribe without fail noble motives and deliberate military code adherence and not be laughed at.
After all, officers are supposed to be with their men. Leading their men, actually, and therefore likely to get hit and killed with them.
At no other battle, lost so utterly, would noble motive and deliberate sacrifice be suggested for a man who knew how to spell #1, What's Best For above a column kept updated.
At no other battle is every positive spin given to the officer whose unit died and every negative spin given to those whose units survived, and these by folks wishing for 'the truth.'
Less anyone contend I'm sleazing Custer and the 7th, I've laid out my sloppy theory of what I think was a sloppy battle of short duration and horror and utter collapse.
Of course, annoyingly, there ARE no exact equivilants. But Sedan, the Zulu, and probably a zillion smaller battles in imperial wars don't produce the conflict and need to somehow make this battle of all others unique.
But if most of the officers with Fetterman had been found surrounding him and Brown, with their men's bodies strung out north, I doubt anyone would be suggesting they had assembled to hear the last orders previous to returning to them. Yet, on LSH.....
And if a line of dead soldiers from one unit ended with its officer at the top of a hill at any other battle, who among us would not reasonably conclude that the officer was leading a retreat to high ground and all were killed in line? Who here would actually compose the theory of a 'firing line' to cover the flank of another unit doing much the same thing? Or feel the need to?
I suggested last year on this site that if the commanders of the two units were reversed, and Custer led the charge below and Reno was fumbling for a flank attack as Custer did, with the same results, how would the history be written? Custer would have hit the trees, I think, just as he did at the Yellowstone and for the same reason. Reno would STILL get sneered at for his fiasco while heroic Custer saved his men.
It's not the battle that's as interesting and unique and the fueling motivations that bring this sort of stuff out. To my mind, a lot of poeple have an actual crush on Custer, and it warps their objectivity.
|
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
El Crab
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - July 18 2004 : 12:22:58 PM
|
What officers were out of place on LSH? Only Tom Custer was completely out of place. Calhoun and Crittenden were found with L, Keogh was found with I Company. Captain Yates and Lt. Reilly were found on LSH, presumably with their F Company. Lt. Porter (I), Lt. Harrington (C) and Lt. Sturgis (E) were never found or identified. Lt. Cooke was found where he could be expected, near Custer. Lt. Smith wasn't found with the majority of his men, but he was found where his company was said at one point to have operated. The only officer who was found where no large portion of his company was said to have fought is Captain Custer. C Company troopers and their sergeants were found at Finley Ridge and in Keogh's command.
Sounds like there are only two officers out of place by being found on LSH, and only one of those was a great distance from his men (with the possible exception of a few troopers found on LSH and in a ravine). And there are several possible reasons for this, but who knows why it happened that way. |
I came. I saw. I took 300 pictures. |
  |
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - July 18 2004 : 4:04:52 PM
|
I don't say there were tons of officers out of place; but of those present, it is odd.
"...said at one time to have operated." That's mostly because his body was found there, and that's circular logic. Smith wasn't near his men. Bear in mind, Smith couldn't mount a horse alone, so once off, he stayed. Yates and Reilly were at the crest, their men strung out well below. TWC, no clue, as you say. If the 31 soldiers on LSH were with F company, Yates and Reilly are okay. The others? And there are officers missing that could have been on LSH, unidentified.
Zero proof, of course, but that the evidence usable to construct different scenarios is essentially only used for one is strange in and of itself. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
El Crab
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - July 18 2004 : 6:39:33 PM
|
Yates and Reilly were said to have been found with the main body of men below the crest of LSH, TWC and GAC and a few others at the top.
As for where E operated, Indian accounts said the Gray Horse Troop was seen at the place where the monument is now. Its possible that Smith didn't lead them off the hill down to the low ridge where they were decimated by Lame White Man. Or so its said. Now, Fox and the like claim C Company was the group in question, and the events took place on Finley...
Smith's company is said to have occupied LSH or very near to it. Company C is mostly found on Finley and in Keogh's section. Therefore, Smith is slightly out of place and TWC is far removed from his command. I think Smith's presence on LSH is easier to postulate. He had a Civil War wound that limited him, so he might not have led E off the hill. Or he might have remained mounted, and was able to return to the hill. TWC's command never, as an intact unit, seemed to have traversed LSH. E company is said to have. |
I came. I saw. I took 300 pictures. |
|
|
|
joseph wiggs
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - July 18 2004 : 9:20:44 PM
|
Even Tom was not out of place. It would not have been unreasonable to suppose that Tom was acting in a temporarily capacity as aide-de-camp to his brother (Fox). If so, his fall near the General would be expected. This is a reasonable assumption as the two men viewed military tactics in a similar fashion.
|
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - July 19 2004 : 07:38:33 AM
|
Since there was no benefit to the 7th to remove Tom from an officer-starved company for no known need to 'headquarters', unless Custer was so status conscious he felt he had to have a bigger entourage than anyone, you condemn Custer by insisting his brother was with him by assignment as a redundancy to Cooke. So it is not a reasonable assumption; it's a desperate and strained one to explain his being there. As for a shared opinion of tactics, what officer in the 7th varied appreciably from the accepted theories of the time held by the Custers?
Here again we quote Fox and others as if their printed justifications for archaeological expense were true and accepted as such, and again we are faced with the syndrome that grants Custer every break, every excuse, against all common sense. The simplest explanation that doesn't violate known facts is usually the correct one, yet LBH studies keep revealing more complicated, less compelling scenarios to incorporate new supposed artifacts to explain officers who've left their units and a commander who never attacked as he said he would and as he had opportunity to do in violation of a myth held dear.
These new theories are composed entirely of excercises in futility, based on found cartridges not necessarily connected to the battle, and far from enough of them, on a pillaged and desecrated field. Century old alleged translations from languages with verbal structures utterly unlike our own and indistinct in time have Indian participants sounding like graduates of Eton doing an Indian class play referencing topographical features unknown to them in the vaguest terms and this after decades of mulling it all over to discover whether their front or back looked best well buttered.
It's worth recalling that absolutely none of the officers who saw the field that June noted anything to suggest that these thrilling manuevers took place, but rather all thought it had been a zoo of horror except for Calhoun's group. That doesn't prove anything either, but basing answers on what Fox did or did not say isn't terribly compelling.
It would be interesting to know - or rather, beneficial to keep in mind - how highly most Custer 'scholars' - even ones with college and advanced degrees!! - are held by actual historians; most are held as highly as UFOologists. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
bhist
Lt. Colonel
Status: offline |
Posted - July 19 2004 : 6:37:10 PM
|
Dark Cloud: You have to admit, Crab has presented a valid explanation to your original question. I agree with him -- the officers on LSH are not, as you state, "...a large clump of officers, divorced from their units, gathered about the body of the commander..."
I do agree with your comments regarding Tom Custer -- it still bugs me why he's at LSH.
I might add to Crab's assertions regarding Smith of E Company and why he was on the hill and not with his company down in the basin or the Deep Ravine. Hell, he was probably dead before those events took place.
|
Warmest Regards,
Bob
www.vonsworks.com
www.friendslittlebighorn.com
www.friendsnezpercebattlefields.org |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - July 19 2004 : 6:59:54 PM
|
| Crab gives a credible account if, like Jesuits, you accept a world view for which there is no evidence. In this case, it's his world of Custer on the Offensive, which just so darn exciting and, I sincerely suspect, fictional after MTC. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
bhist
Lt. Colonel
Status: offline |
Posted - July 19 2004 : 7:07:29 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Cloud
Crab gives a credible account if, like Jesuits, you accept a world view for which there is no evidence. In this case, it's his world of Custer on the Offensive, which just so darn exciting and, I sincerely suspect, fictional after MTC.
Crab's view of what happened at the LBH has nothing to do with his very logical response to your question -- were there, "...a large clump of officers, divorced from their units, gathered about the body of the commander..."
Except for Tom Custer, there are no officers out of place on LSH. Crab has answered your question and, in my opinion, your case for there being a "large body of officers" around Custer when they shouldn't have been is no case at all. |
Warmest Regards,
Bob
www.vonsworks.com
www.friendslittlebighorn.com
www.friendsnezpercebattlefields.org |
|
|
|
joseph wiggs
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - July 19 2004 : 8:22:25 PM
|
This type of response is so typical of Dark Cloud/Largent
and atypical of every other member of this forum;hence my theory that they are one and the same. No two personalities could be as equally pompous and arrogantly dismissive of the perspectives of others. I have taken the liberty to reduce their typical responses to a three step process:
1. Create an awkward, unsubtantiable position and print it as a fact.
"Perhaps at no other losing battle can otherwise sane people look upon a large clump of officers, divorced from their units, gathered about the body of the commander, and ascribe without fail noble motives and deliberate military code adherence and not be laughed at." (Whew! how about a period or two.)
2. Receive an intelligent answer that completely answers the original question.
"What officers were out of place? Only time Custer was completely out of place."
3. Pay down the credible response with an inane comment such as, "I didn't say there were tons of officers out of place." Well, nor did anyone else!
4. Call the responder a liar or just shut up.
I have witnessed this formula time after time, after time, after time,after time, etc.
5. If the above four steps do not accomplish your desires, RANT and RAVE. |
|
|
|
El Crab
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - July 19 2004 : 8:42:55 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Cloud
Perhaps at no other losing battle can otherwise sane people look upon a large clump of officers, divorced from their units, gathered about the body of the commander, and ascribe without fail noble motives and deliberate military code adherence and not be laughed at.
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Cloud
I don't say there were tons of officers out of place; but of those present, it is odd.
So was this large clump of officers due to their size, not their numbers? Two officers, divorced from their units, and the rest where they probably should be, with their units (Yates and Reilly, Cooke near Custer). How does this add up to a large clump of officers, mostly who were gathered below their commander on a hill, inside a rudimentary circle of dead horses.
I guess you could say the same thing for the soldiers from the right wing found on LSH or around the SSL. Why didn't these soldiers go down with their comrades and their company?
DC just likes to harp about Custer's nepotism. TWC ordered the regiiment forward (virtually no proof of this, just based on assumptions when there's solid accounts that do not mention or even hint that this happened), TWC ordered Kanipe/Knipe back to the packtrain without Custer's permission but said Custer issued it to Kanipe/Knipe, TWC was found with his brother when he should have died with his company. And he invariably goes into a theory that most people are in love with Custer to explain why they don't think it was a rout from the start. Although, the Indians said it wasn't a rout from the start. But we can't believe them, because we can't determine if the interpreters knew what the hell they were saying. Oh, and every single artifact found on the battlefield is tainted, even the ones found where soldiers were found. There's no way to prove that .45/55 cartridge was fired at the battle, even though its more likely to have been than not. The warriors mentioned soldiers shooting at them, even hitting a few. So SOME of those rounds must have been left where they were ejected. Maybe not all of them were fired on the day of the battle, in anger, and maybe some were fired by warriors and some were fired by soldiers, but they were fired by somebody. And its possible the majority were fired during the battle. But I digress... |
I came. I saw. I took 300 pictures. |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - July 19 2004 : 9:35:32 PM
|
TWCuster wasn't with his men. Smith wasn't either, unless he was leading a charge north and got ahead of them. Yates and Reilly were IF all the soldiers around them - or most - were theirs. Do we know that? (Or were they up the hill from their men?) That's a sizeable portion of the officers under Custer, along with Cooke and whoever else. A company's worth of men and how many officers at Lt. or above? And of course, the missing officers could be there among the unidentified as easily as not.
It's true I shouldn't have said large without being more specific. I was trying to use hyperbole for the hypothetical example of this included with other battles and, as you've pointed out, it does conflict with tons. Point taken. Apologies.
And, because I cannot prove it either way, I'll leave the point to all but Tom.
Nothing from MTC on is based on anything but informed guesswork. The field HAS been pillaged. And since you don't know who fired the shells or when, what is the basis for divining anything from them? In fact, though, with few changes in emphasis, I agree with your summation of my view. You find it preposterous. I think it likely true.
We know how Indians desecrated the dead of other tribes with some relish, and have numerous examples of this in story and testimony. How do you think, say, Wooden Leg - with his new carbine and boxes of ammo laying around - entertained himself with the barely notional burials of the soldiers during his visit the winter after the battle? Or any of the Sioux through time? This on top of all the shooting immediately after the battle for two days.
And this aside from the story of salting the field for tourists, who cleaned out the MTC area during train stops early on. Nothing happened there: no shell casings.
Yes, Crab, as I've said, it is quite possible that the shells found were part of the battle, but there are so few of them, and look what's based on them.
We don't have Indian testimony. We have iffy summations of what they said. I'm not casting unfair doubt on the Indians, although they had reasons to fib, but on the translators and their stenographers.
William Manchester wrote in his experiences of WWII that he served in a unit where for some time they were given lessons in Japanese by a linguist so they could listen and understand and mislead the enemy. Took some time, but eventually it was discovered the guy was an utter fake and knew NO Japanese. That's when they had a sort of vetting process. In the West?
Who knows whether these guys knew Sioux and Cheyenne, Arapahoe, Crow, and whatever. Aside from the translation that got CH killed, Godfrey said Gall's words were being fabricated by the translator during the 10 year anniversary, and Gall took off to explain in sign language. We're assured Godfrey understood everything correctly. Based on WHAT?
And if the sitemaster would post the ip's and source locations of my posts and Larsen's (where did Largent come from?)we can be free of that unjust canard. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
movingrobewoman
Lt. Colonel
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - July 21 2004 : 12:48:45 AM
|
[quote]Originally posted by Dark Cloud
Since there was no benefit to the 7th to remove Tom from an officer-starved company for no known need to 'headquarters', [quote]
Check your information carefully. In both Sklenar and Unger (at least), Tom Custer started serving as his brother's aide-de-camp from June 10, 1876--the start of the Powder River Scout. The following companies were taken with Reno: B, E, F, I, L, and C. Can't tell you why GAC did that, leaving C in the hands of Harrington, but apparently he did. I mean, where did Kanipe's orders come from? And I am not a big fan of Fox. Nor am I a fan of Custer.
Movingrobe |
movingrobe |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - July 21 2004 : 08:49:38 AM
|
I've previously suggested there was an official and actual command structure under Custer. TWC served with his brother as they felt, and outside the formal command structure. There was even LESS need for Custer to have another gopher on June 10, having his command divided and being under another officer himself. Most likely, TWC didn't want to go with Reno and preferred to stick with his brother and Custer wanted him to; voila. Given Harrington's level of experience, this strikes me as a questionable decision, but a very Custer one.
Sklenar isn't a viable 'source' of much of anything, to me. His work is a construct of carefully appended interpretation to shred Benteen and tongue bathe Custer. His contention that there was a village at the lone teepee which was the actual point of Custer's 'plan' and to capture San Arc civvies to extort the capitulation of everyone else isn't chatted up much anymore, for obvious reasons. It's also a temple to the conditional tense.
Tom's presence in life and death by his brother is used as evidence (generally the sole evidence) of a formal assignment as some sort of Aide. If true, it is bad leadership. If not, it is worse. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
bhist
Lt. Colonel
Status: offline |
Posted - July 21 2004 : 1:58:38 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Cloud
I've previously suggested there was an official and actual command structure under Custer. TWC served with his brother as they felt, and outside the formal command structure. There was even LESS need for Custer to have another gopher on June 10, having his command divided and being under another officer himself. Most likely, TWC didn't want to go with Reno and preferred to stick with his brother and Custer wanted him to; voila. Given Harrington's level of experience, this strikes me as a questionable decision, but a very Custer one.
Sklenar isn't a viable 'source' of much of anything, to me. His work is a construct of carefully appended interpretation to shred Benteen and tongue bathe Custer. His contention that there was a village at the lone teepee which was the actual point of Custer's 'plan' and to capture San Arc civvies to extort the capitulation of everyone else isn't chatted up much anymore, for obvious reasons. It's also a temple to the conditional tense.
Tom's presence in life and death by his brother is used as evidence (generally the sole evidence) of a formal assignment as some sort of Aide. If true, it is bad leadership. If not, it is worse.
I agree with D.C. on this point regarding TWC. There was no command structure on Custer's part placing TWC where he did. It's the simple fact that Custer was in charge, he and his brother were tight, and they wanted to be beside each other.
I'd also like to add to D.C.'s point regarding Sklenar. I may have posted this in another thread, but it was over a year ago if I did. Sklenar's book is a joke. It's nothing but a rehash of third source material. If I remember correctly Sklenar even mentions the fact that he didn't use any primary source material in the introduction of his book.
It's really easy to quickly read beyond the cover of a Little Bighorn book, before buying it, by looking inside its index. If you look up every page reference to Reno in Sklenar's book, you'll find nothing but venomous attacks towards Reno. Not one good word is written of him. If you check under Benteen, you will find only one page that speaks highly of Benteen, the rest trash him. BUT, if you look under George or Tom Custer, the pages seem to open up to the heavens; halos are placed over George and Tom's heads, they are perfect Gods in the Plains Indian Wars.
Sklenar's book, "To Hell With Honor", is not unique, it's hypocritical, and any student of the LBH should definitely not take it seriously.
BTW -- I could say the same thing about Wayne Sarf's book, but I've written enough as it is.
|
Warmest Regards,
Bob
www.vonsworks.com
www.friendslittlebighorn.com
www.friendsnezpercebattlefields.org |
|
|
|
movingrobewoman
Lt. Colonel
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - July 22 2004 : 11:43:21 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by bhist
I'd also like to add to D.C.'s point regarding Sklenar. I may have posted this in another thread, but it was over a year ago if I did. Sklenar's book is a joke. It's nothing but a rehash of third source material. If I remember correctly Sklenar even mentions the fact that he didn't use any primary source material in the introduction of his book.
Yikes (wipes sweat from brow)! Although I enjoyed Sklenar's narrative, I did detect (no, I was hammered with it) that SLIGHT pro-Custer bias; I thought his adjectival descriptions of both Reno and Benteen were a ridiculously melodramatic. In this example, I was just looking for another "source" to see where and when GAC might have kept TWC as an "aide-de-camp," if that is what our Lt. Colonel "ordered." As for DC's comments about GAC--I've often heard before that Custer was a nepotist in an era of nepotism, so I don't think we can safely use our 21st Century judgement in 19th Century times.
Now as for the wisdom of that "order," would C's performance been any better if TWC remained in charge of his unit?
Just thinking out loud. 
Movingrobewoman |
movingrobe |
|
|
|
joseph wiggs
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - July 24 2004 : 9:30:37 PM
|
| Tom Custer did not die with his command. That is the only "fact" that we possess regarding his death; all else is mere speculation. Having established that reality, the question arises, why was he not with his command? In life, things are possible or probable. It is possible that Tom deserted his post and fled, Helter Skelter, to LSH sometime during the battle. It is,however, more probable that he was with his brother, from the beginning, in the capacity of aide-de-Camp. As a two time recipient of the Silver Star during the Civil War,for bravery, the comparison of his status to that of a "Gopher" does not ring true. Sklenar's credibility aside, I believe it's a good presumption to assume that Movingrobewoman is correct. |
|
|
|
Anonymous Poster8169
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - July 25 2004 : 12:43:46 PM
|
On what basis is it "more probable"? And what does Tom's bravery ten years earlier have to do with him being an aide at the LBH? If anything, you'd want a guy like that in the lines with a company, not gofering brother --- a job Cooke already had, with the assistance of Martin, Dose, and Voss, who as far as anyone knows were capable of handling the load. The Silver Star didn't exist in Tom's day. He won the Medal of Honor twice.
"In life, things are possible or probable" is a platitude which probably sounds smart to you, but generic to everybody else. Impossible, certain, unlikely --- really, could you only think of two?
R. Larsen
|
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - July 26 2004 : 09:56:03 AM
|
How many of Reno's officers were with their units in that mad scramble out of the valley?
I imagine that the same thing happened to Custer's lead units.Keogh and Calhoun were with their units because they were further back and got a few moments warning.In those few moments they formed a skirmish line sending sergeant Butler on his forlorn dash for help. |
|
|
|
joseph wiggs
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - July 28 2004 : 9:04:06 PM
|
| It doesn't take a lot of smarts to make some "assumptions." Tom's bravery (or lack thereof)is really not a part of the equation that would help us to understand how he arrived at his final resting place. However, to refer to Tom Custer as merely a "Gofer" (a fact you certainly can not confirm) belies every know fact about the man. The following is another know fact: The Commander of Company "C", Tom Custer, died on a knoll approximately 3/4's of a mile from his men. How do you suppose he arrived there? |
|
|
|
Anonymous Poster8169
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - July 29 2004 : 10:58:44 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by joseph wiggs
It doesn't take a lot of smarts to make some "assumptions." Tom's bravery (or lack thereof)is really not a part of the equation that would help us to understand how he arrived at his final resting place. However, to refer to Tom Custer as merely a "Gofer" (a fact you certainly can not confirm) belies every know fact about the man. The following is another know fact: The Commander of Company "C", Tom Custer, died on a knoll approximately 3/4's of a mile from his men. How do you suppose he arrived there?
You avoided giving an explanation for how it was "more probable" that Tom died as an aide, though I didn't expect one. My guess is that Tom ended up on the hill because he was one of the two-dozen or so survivors from Keogh's battalion.
R. Larsen
|
|
|
|
Heavyrunner
Captain
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - July 29 2004 : 7:39:56 PM
|
I believe Custer was probably incapacitated, if not dead, well before he got to Last Stand Hill. His attack was stopped cold at the river, with Custer at the head of the column. Come to think of it, even Reno lasted longer before retreating back across the river.
I have to wonder whether there was a complete breakdown in Custer's chain of command due to his own serious injury or death at the outset. With the small group on the hill not withstanding, Custer's men appear (by their markers) to have been scattered like confetti. One might detect a few skirmish lines, including Calhoun's, but the rest is a fiasco. |
Bob Bostwick |
|
|
|
joseph wiggs
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - July 29 2004 : 8:44:33 PM
|
The battle was pretty much a "Fiasco", and defensive lines seem to have been limited to just one, Calhoun Hill. The possibility that Custer was killed or mortally wounded at "Ford B" is possible. However, Fox's investigations lean towards a second excursion to the Big Horn River, his "Ford D." If Custer were already incapacitated, it is highly unlikely that such an excursion would have taken place. The sudden and, unexpected demise of such a leader would have called upon an immediate defensive positioning of regrouping.
By the way, the mention of "Fox" on this forum is prone to bring about the "Wrath of Kahn" from some of the members. Pretend you don't know me! |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - July 29 2004 : 9:27:28 PM
|
| Heavy Runner, I don't mean to scare you, but that's awfully close to my position. I know you have friends and family, and you need to think of them. Quick, post something with the phrase "according to Fox..." and again detail the numerous crisp offensive actions Custer performed and maybe nobody will notice. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
movingrobewoman
Lt. Colonel
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - July 30 2004 : 12:14:52 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Cloud
I don't mean to scare you, but that's awfully close to my position.
Lord of Dark Cloudness (bows, pays proper homage)--
I hate to drag you back to the realm of one-half step in all matters LBH (and I am, indeed, an amateur), but my question to you is, if GAC got killed near or abouts MTC, why was not Keogh (promoted 7/28/66) then entrusted with control of the entire remaining battalion? Was this because I, C, and L were deployed before the feint or attempted (obviously, fatally to GAC) crossing at MTC, leaving a "retreat" to Yates? I am just going with the theoretical interpretation that Keogh was the senior captain in GAC's battalion. So, wouldn't the true surprise in regards to LSH been that it was Keogh who was found with I troop's position? If Keogh or Yates (promoted 6/27/67) did not take up for a wounded, possibly dead GAC, who did, and why weren't they found upon LSH?
Just thinking aloud. And, no I don't believe for one minute that GAC got himself whomped at or near MTC. Have you seen how up "hill and dale" it is from MTC to LSH? Who the heck would bring a severely wounded person, be it the unit's XO or not, up that? I think GAC's presence on LSH and Keogh's presence with "I" provide adequate refutations to your position.
MVRwoman |
movingrobe |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - July 30 2004 : 10:40:38 AM
|
Good. The ground IS terrible, isn't it? Yet, that's not how I see it. Quite.
If we can agree that Custer ordered his men in, led by Yates' group with Keogh's behind, consider this. Somewhere in there - whether by Martin's alleged Indians who swarmed in behind him or by the Heroic Sioux Teenagers returning from Band Practice at MTC - Custer gets hit on the left side.
Despite all the observations about this wound which last year included amateur medical analysis, we don't know exactly where the wound was or how bad. Below the heart on the left side say people looking at it after three days in the hot sun, when George must have resembled the Michelin Man in distended distortions. Of course, being Custer, his body not only wasn't savaged it was also, seemingly, uncorrupted to later viewers. So it isn't necessarily as incapacitating a wound as some say. In any event, there is zero chance TWC and family are about to drop bro. I'd bet they'd see that high ground and head for it so the surgeon has a chance.
The deflection of the first two companies in narrow confines wisely suggests to Keogh a reverse of his three to high ground periodically covering the retreat of the two companies lower down. Custer is wounded and still giving orders not, at that point, that it matters since they are soon surrounded and fighting as companies.
Given how bad communications have been throughout, this projected scenario of crisp Ft. Benning like orders instantaneously producing a new command structure is puzzling. Keogh could very well have never known Custer's supposed condition, and was wondering what the hell was going on to his death.
These things tend to be a lot messier and simpler than folks make them out to be. I contend simplicity of explanation trumps else. And I cannot ever believe that Custer, given opportunity to attack, would not, or willingly bring his troops to such awful ground.
|
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
LSH
