| Author |
 Topic  |
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
 Posted - February 25 2005 : 3:13:36 PM
|
What dozen or so stragglers? You're probably thinking of Connell's mistake
There were the two guys whose horses gave out, is all, I think. True? Not?
DC
I was relying on memory and my source was probably Connell although as my copy does not have an index I had a quick flick through the pages to no avail.So if you have chapter and verse perhaps you could let us have it because if you think there is an error in a major work on this topic it would only right to confirm it.
A little further research turned up this list of stragglers---
John Brennan
Peter Thompson
James Watson
Gustave Korn
The first 3 being from C company.Lo and behold Kanipe's company.Now I never believed that Kanipe did a runner but was it possible that a certain unease began to spread through C company and Kanipe was far from being a messenger in fact the first straggler?When you take into consideration that there was no mention of stragglers from Benteens or Reno's Batts and Reno's mounts were fit to charge in both directions well???? |
  |
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - February 25 2005 : 3:18:38 PM
|
| Sorry MRW I have just read your post and you are making the same point.I don't want to steal your tunder.Apologies |
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - February 25 2005 : 3:44:15 PM
|
These stories that Benteen tells about Custer and his sexual exploits aren't contradicted by anyone in a position to know and do so,
Was Benteen in the grip of some sort of Perversion? Connell page 291 describes how Benteen wrote to his wife of a dream he had of Keogh undressing in front of her.He seems to have gotten his jollies talking of other mens exploits imagined or otherwise.
Looking at any of the photos of the man I think he was a great big "queen". |
|
|
|
movingrobewoman
Lt. Colonel
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - February 25 2005 : 4:41:26 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by wILD I
[b][i]A little further research turned up this list of stragglers:
John Brennan
Peter Thompson
James Watson
Gustave Korn
The first 3 being from C company.Lo and behold Kanipe's company.Now I never believed that Kanipe did a runner but was it possible that a certain unease began to spread through C company and Kanipe was far from being a messenger in fact the first straggler?When you take into consideration that there was no mention of stragglers from Benteens or Reno's Batts and Reno's mounts were fit to charge in both directions well????
Granted, I think I am treading on some Custerphiles' feelings--especially those who see betrayal of the Boy General behind each blade of Greasy Grass--some of them probably see Kanipe as the first "traitor" to the battalion ...don't know if I can swallow that. But still, it is tres interessant, n'est-ce pas? Perhaps Walt Cross has a take on TWC's "messenger?"
And there is no reason for a major discrepancy in regards to the Seventh's horses--other than in regular care. Benteen's mounts did seem to spend an inordinate amount of time at the Morass ...
To answer your other post: I don't think old Fred was a pervert. Granted, he did send drawings of his wife's privates to her, but she was in St. Louis and he was on the road with the travelling Autie show. I mean, that's not so different than Custer writing to Libbie about John in the hand ... or his sending her a photograph of a woman he "met" whilst in New York City, a trinket which Libbie promptly tore up. Benteen appears to have harboured a considerable amount of bitterness--not only because Custer was younger and flashier and "left" Major Elliot for dead on a hillside--but given Benteen's personal circumstances, especially with his father in the ACW, he blamed the army for a lot, including the death of five of his children. I guess the only guy Benteen hated more than GAC was Reno ...
Fred did have a rather cherubic face, eh?
Regards--and you can steal my thunder anytime you wish! |
movingrobe |
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - February 25 2005 : 4:45:28 PM
|
| Further to the issue of these "stragglers".Why did they turn around and head back? Surely if their horses were played out they would followed Custer on foot or at least have waited for the pack train to have come up.There was absolutely no advantage to be gained by going back unless they knew something,and if so their action smacks of desertion in the face of the enemy.Were these "stragglers" actually survivors? |
|
|
|
prolar
Major
Status: offline |
Posted - February 25 2005 : 5:22:28 PM
|
| Wild I: Just after telling about Thompson and Watson, Connell claims that 24 men from F company survived on Reno Hill. No source given, page 280 in my copy. It has an index but not a good one. |
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - February 25 2005 : 6:34:20 PM
|
Thanks Prolar.
Connell must have been having a shot for the Pulitizer prize for fiction because he goes on at some lenght about these 24 men.
Here's a break down of the figures.
Killed 38
Pack Train 13
Fort Lincon 5
Powder River 10
With Reno 2
Confined 2
Total 70 |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - February 25 2005 : 6:58:49 PM
|
Connell's book isn't a history book or one of original research at all nor did it ever claim to be. Odd you think it is, Wild. It has several mistakes including one in the first edition that had Kit Carsen leading a mission years after his death. But for its purpose, such errors are few and totally unimportant. It's a great story well and memorably told, and a personal favorite.
The very fact he seems to think that 20 odd people of E company - who show up on Reno's Hill by record - is rather conclusive proof he didn't know how the pack train operated: one company for protection in general and about six soldiers from each company to see to their own specific mules. People traded places and it was impossible to know who was serving for who when, but Connell is clearly unaware of any of this, because it explains these men, or most of them. He thinks they all just slowly slid to the rear and ran back to Reno. Not a big deal, but there aren't dozens of men deserting from Custer.
Curly and Martin both, I think, described horses grounded and being kicked to rise, so it's not like those particular soldiers could lead the horse back to Custer or Reno. They walked without mounts, I think. It is interesting they are all from C, though.
I don't see how a man lusting for his wife in private correspondence to her is in any way odd. Nor, Wild, do I see why his dream a few weeks after huge trauma, also recorded solely in private correspondence to her, about a recently killed acquaintance and famous drunken rake appearing to start to undress merely in the same room as that wife, before being called to order by the dreamer, is evidence for anything whatsover, much less queen status, given the clear heterosexual imprint and desire. Strange interpretation. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - February 26 2005 : 09:18:55 AM
|
Connell's book isn't a history book or one of original research at all nor did it ever claim to be.
Well my copy describes it as a civilised and compassionate history.It goes on to describe it as thoroughly researched and brilliantly constructed.Difficult to understand why if he was uncertain about all these F troop men he concluded that they were deserters/stragglers.
However having said that it is indeed a great read.It actually depressed me, bringing as it did the whole horrific slaughter to life. I have never read a better description of Reno's terrified flight and mad scramble accross the LBH and up the bluffs.
As regards Benteen's orientation just a flippant observation .He could have been ambidextrous for all I care |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - February 26 2005 : 10:58:38 AM
|
Have no idea why a fly leaf would call it a history or why, having read it, you'd maintain that fiction. It barely has an index and Connell didn't even want that; North Point, the original publisher, made him. It's the sort of fade in/fade out story in, I think deliberate, old around the fire tradition. The chapters really aren't, they're just divisions because he wanders off and around. Great, great book. And they made a terrible movie of it in keeping with neither the facts nor the spirit of the book.
Flippant observations, at least regarding this battle and its participants, have not unoften become fact or a supposed learned school of thought. What Fox and Scott carefully phrased in original writing, including words 'could' and 'might' have somehow become fact with no effort and no evidence. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - February 26 2005 : 11:25:12 AM
|
Have no idea why a fly leaf would call it a history or why, having read it, you'd maintain that fiction.
Well I would describe Shelby Foote's THE CIVIL WAR a history.Same "all round the fire"narrative style.There is a brillant one on Mary Queen of Scots just cant recall the lady author at the moment.
The movie was good and I thought kept faith with the story line.We looked at it so often that my son [not Frank Spencer by the way ]could repeat every line ----"it was a good day to die".
As this thread is about bibs and bobs could I just express my disgust with the Crow Indians .Glen Coe and the Cambells of the West DC?I have no respect for these Indians who sold out their own race |
|
|
|
Anonymous Poster8169
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - February 26 2005 : 3:29:23 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by wILD I
Thanks Prolar.
Connell must have been having a shot for the Pulitizer prize for fiction because he goes on at some lenght about these 24 men.
He didn't realize that though full company strength was about 65, a huge chunk of those guys were on detached service at Fort Lincoln or other. A dumb error to make, though I suspect he was probably following some earlier writer. Connell doesn't strike me as the kind of guy who'd count up all the names in the rosters at the back of "Custer in '76" and then figure out there was a problem that way.
Most of his errors can probably be explained by dependance on crappy sources. Dr. Porter's picture is confused with that of DeWolf, for instance. He describes DeWolf as a man with a droopy moustache and bald head, and even draws attention to how the Indians must have scalped him in spite of that. DeWolf, however, didn't look like that at all, though Porter did. Connell must have been using a book that miscaptioned them.
R. Larsen |
Edited by - Anonymous Poster8169 on February 26 2005 4:02:12 PM |
|
|
|
Anonymous Poster8169
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - February 26 2005 : 3:54:02 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by wILD I
[i][b]As this thread is about bibs and bobs could I just express my disgust with the Crow Indians .Glen Coe and the Cambells of the West DC?I have no respect for these Indians who sold out their own race
The Sioux and Crow were old enemies, and the Crows were simply paying back what they'd been dealt the last 60 years. You're ignoring a lot of history here, and even dropping in classifications (like race) that I'm not sure either side would have recognized as very important. This is like calling the Northern Alliance "race-traitors" because they helped the U.S. flush out the Taliban. Race doesn't trump otherwise huge differences between people.
R. Larsen |
Edited by - Anonymous Poster8169 on February 26 2005 3:55:56 PM |
|
|
|
joseph wiggs
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - February 26 2005 : 8:54:30 PM
|
The Arikara (or Ree) Indians pre-dated the arrival of the Sioux by many years when they arrived in what is now known as South Dakota. They were followed by the Cheyenne, Kiowa, Pawnee, and Crow. When the Sioux arrived much later they were numerically superior, extraordinary adept horsemen, and imposing fighters. Needless to say some of the indigenous tribes resisted this unwelcomed encroacment while others accepted the inevitable.
After many raids, counter-raids, and innumerable deaths among the Crows and Rees (the Sioux usually got the best of the battles), a seething hate for the Sioux developed in the psyche of the Crows and Rees that would never abate. When the U.S. military came along and offered to fight their hated enemy, the two groups were joyous and, leaped at the opportunity to assist in any way possible. While one may not respect this attitude, it is certainly understandable. |
|
|
|
movingrobewoman
Lt. Colonel
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - March 02 2005 : 6:11:23 PM
|
Joe and Larsen (imagine THAT in the same salutation),
I think the two of you have given a nice overview of the Crow/Arikara/Sioux emnity for each other. The first time I went to LBH, in 2003, there was a sizeable Billings Gazette article about how the Crow felt towards Custer ("betrayed"). I've also heard several whisperings about "how ain't nobody like the Crow ..." on other Custer boards. I find it rather amusing that at the Realbird's re-enactment, apart from the playing of the Crow anthem, the story of Little Bighorn is told from the Sioux/Cheyenne/Arapaho perspective, not their people, who through their co-operation, got their land back.
Regards, |
movingrobe |
|
|
|
movingrobewoman
Lt. Colonel
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - March 02 2005 : 6:15:11 PM
|
Also--y'all:
(wishing Walt Cross visited here) Does anybody out there have any information on Private Ignatz Stungewitz of C company? He died at Little Bighorn and I've seen his name on the obelisk, and apart from knowing he was Russian (perhaps born in the Finnish territories), I have little information. Hoping to include his personna in my writing ...
Regards, |
movingrobe |
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - March 03 2005 : 2:54:43 PM
|
Hoping to include his personna in my writing ...
I'll tell ya about him if you tell me about your writing |
|
|
|
movingrobewoman
Lt. Colonel
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - March 03 2005 : 3:49:14 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by wILD I
Hoping to include his personna in my writing ...
I'll tell ya about him if you tell me about your writing
If it's okay, I'll PM information to you--not everybody appreciates the historical fiction writer. But I can certainly respect their feelings. I went around at the last CBHMA, head bowed, hair falling in face, muttering, "Yeah, I write ... fiction."
Regards, Wild.
|
movingrobe |
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - March 03 2005 : 4:58:59 PM
|
| I read a good one based on Lt. Bradleys character.Can't imagine what you could do with "Stungewitz". |
|
|
|
movingrobewoman
Lt. Colonel
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - March 04 2005 : 12:39:02 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Warlord
MRW: All of these Custer writers I have read are historical fiction writers! Were do you differ?
(Laughing) Warlord--uhh, Paul--
Well, I out and out admit it, for one (tail firmly placed between legs). God, I'm treading on Dark Cloud's hatred of all Romanticism, especially when it comes to Custer. I don't tell no romantic tale, though. He dies in a plane crash, right? Darn it if I've just given away the ending! But by training, I am first a historian, though I have always expressed an interest in fiction as a way to personally dissect historical characters. I started with Richelieu in high school ...
Seriously:
I do have to admit I started this thread for my own evil and questionable personal agenda. After all, I have a reputation to maintain (the singular "black mark on all those who study Custer")!! The inner-workings of the Seventh and life in the fort add colour to my borrring research. By the way, I need to learn up on GAC's Remington Rolling Block--and when he exactly vowed allegiance to it--got any ideas (Hurry. Come quick. I have a contest to enter. Bring notes.)? I also need to know its recoil and discharge. Did the in-the-distance-shoot-em-up Indians and their Henrys or whatever have a distinct sound? In late 1866-early 1867? I have a pal who will let me shoot his 19th Century-type "Cowboy Rifle," but I need more specifics than that. Granted that I'm one of those wicked liberals who want to delete that part of the Constitution ...
Regards,
|
movingrobe |
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - March 04 2005 : 11:58:27 AM
|
All this mythology surrounding Custer's death has taken on a quasi religious aspect.For example one of the main tenets of the catholic religion is belief in a virgin birth.No violation occured.In like manner it is believed that Custer suffered a virgin death.No violation of the body.When the catholic church are considering the cannonisation of a holy person,the church veiws the fact that the body of that person has not suffered the indignity of corruption as a sign of sanctity.Similarly the suggestion that Custer the martyred hero did not suffer the indignity of mutilation bestows on him a certain "sanctity" or mystic.
Now let us accompany Ryan and his comrades of the burial detail in their grisly task of rendering the last rites to our fallen hero.They had in front of them a putrifying festering carcass which was once their CO.The stench must have been appalling with flies swarming everywhere.We must be grateful to Ryan that in the midst of this obscenity he took the time to check out Custer's wounds.He even noticed that there were no powder burns.Thus dispelling any suggestion of suicide.But what has been puzzelling me is that Ryan failed to notice that the back of Custer's head was gone.
Now we are privileged to have expert riflemen posting here.And they accept the description of Custer's head wound without question knowing that there were no metal jacketed rounds employed by either side at the LBH.All rounds used were in fact what we would now refer to as dum-dums.These rounds on contact with bone will explode resulting in head wounds alla Bloody Knife[remember brains all over Reno].
Come on time to grow up.The LBH was a fiasco and Custer was gutted.Amen |
|
|
|
Anonymous Poster8169
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - March 04 2005 : 2:44:16 PM
|
I don't have any need to think that Custer lived or died pristinely; I'll go wherever the evidence takes me, and it's for that reason that I don't believe that Custer was cut up.
Nobody here has bothered to cite any evidence that Custer was mutilated, so I'll do the job. There is one --- count 'em, one --- first person eyewitness who says that Custer had been disfigured. Jacob Adams. Adams says it was just a slash in one of his thighs; he could not, however, consistently describe this wound, and since he is responsible for other fanciful tales (seeing a dead L Troop cavalryman on the Yellowstone, for example) I don't think he has much credibility. With Adams you run through the list of people who could have known the facts who also said that Custer was mutilated. The story that Custer had an arrow jabbed up his penis is a thirdhand report from the 1930s.
Everybody else said that Custer hadn't been mutilated, outside whatever damage was caused by his wounds, and the "Libbie explanation" won't fly since the same thing is said in on-scene diaries by Freeman and Clifford. These diaries were private and there'd be no motive to lie in them, to spare the feelings of some widow who'd never read it.
There's reason to think that people at the time were more adult about it than some of us assume, anyway. There's still preserved a letter from Myles Moylan to Maggie Calhoun, in which he describes at length the condition of the bodies of her husband (scalped), brother Tom (extremely mutilated), and brother Boston (riddled with bullets, somewhat mutilated). Though written to a person who could probably warrant sheltering the most, it's pretty candid about what had been inflicted on her husband and brothers, and doesn't differ at all from what others have said about the state GAC was in. Worth noting, also, are the reports of the horrendous condition of Custer's grave in 1877, which could not be suppressed, even though the number who saw it was far lower than the people who saw his corpse a year earlier.
I don't think there's anything remarkable about Custer's body escaping mutilation. The same was said about Keogh, for whom there was no family's feelings to protect, and about other victims. There seems to be no rhyme or reason to it; just something that happened. Boston's body was stripped naked, for example, but Autie Reed, who reportedly lay near him, still had most of his clothing on. Just something that happened. Tom Custer's body was mauled to shreds, but Myles Keogh had nothing but battle wounds. So with Custer, by all the best evidence.
R. Larsen |
Edited by - Anonymous Poster8169 on March 04 2005 2:46:22 PM |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - March 04 2005 : 4:17:25 PM
|
You're right, Larsen, there is no evidence to contradict initial contentions. But there are odd things. Ryan says the 7th was divvied up into five units to bury the bodies. Custer and family fell to his lot, and they would have been first interred, I'd think. When did all these people SEE Custer who claim to have, because it sounds like they were worked hard all day, all over the field. Officers, yes, the guys that buried him, yes. And Bradley and crew, yes, although they say almost none of them were mutilated except for a finishing blow to the brain. I'd bet most committing stuff to their diary never saw him. Did Burkman, who'd have call to pay his respects, get to see him? I thought he did not. The people we know saw him differ, which is common. It's the wide agreement that is suspicious.
There is a lock step recitation quality to some of the descriptions. Fatal wound, left side, post mortem to the temple. He was not only not mutilated, he was not black and swollen as the others. It has the whiff - I can prove nothing - of agreed upon story....and Ryan gets it wrong. Then, there is the peaceful description of Custer. As described, as I've mentioned before and as Wild recognizes, it is a Pieta scene front and center to all educated people of the time, if not ours, when that was common education. You can recall lots of paintings of Christ lying not unlike Custer is described, down to the slight smile. The two men recall the thieves, etc. It's not syllogism, but it is a recollection scene of our culture, and when it appears in a historical account, red lights flash. It's not a wholly stupid assumption of falsity in testimony. It is just suspicious.
It's also of overpowering unimportance. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
Anonymous Poster8169
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - March 04 2005 : 6:24:29 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Cloud
You're right, Larsen, there is no evidence to contradict initial contentions. But there are odd things. Ryan says the 7th was divvied up into five units to bury the bodies. Custer and family fell to his lot, and they would have been first interred, I'd think. When did all these people SEE Custer who claim to have, because it sounds like they were worked hard all day, all over the field. Officers, yes, the guys that buried him, yes. And Bradley and crew, yes, although they say almost none of them were mutilated except for a finishing blow to the brain. I'd bet most committing stuff to their diary never saw him.
Perhaps, but by the same token if Custer were mutilated I don't think it could have been kept out of the day's gossip, and we're left with the same absence. Look how fast the stories of the problems with Custer's exhumation in 1877 broke out; if we accept that Custer's mutilations were suppressed, then there were all the same reasons to do it here as well, but it didn't happen, not by a long shot.
quote:
Did Burkman, who'd have call to pay his respects, get to see him? I thought he did not.
Busy burning trash on Reno Hill.
quote:
There is a lock step recitation quality to some of the descriptions. Fatal wound, left side, post mortem to the temple. He was not only not mutilated, he was not black and swollen as the others. It has the whiff - I can prove nothing - of agreed upon story....and Ryan gets it wrong.
Or there's so much agreement because the reports are just accurate. There's a similar consistency in Tom Custer's wounds. A few guys say things that are contradicted by most others; some guys said that Tom Custer's heart was cut out, Ryan put GAC's wounds on the wrong side, and Hammon thought there was a third wound on the forearm which doesn't receive much support from others, but if there's an agreed-upon story to suppress George's mutilations then there must have been another to promote Tom's.
quote:
Then, there is the peaceful description of Custer. As described, as I've mentioned before and as Wild recognizes, it is a Pieta scene front and center to all educated people of the time, if not ours, when that was common education. You can recall lots of paintings of Christ lying not unlike Custer is described, down to the slight smile. The two men recall the thieves, etc. It's not syllogism, but it is a recollection scene of our culture, and when it appears in a historical account, red lights flash. It's not a wholly stupid assumption of falsity in testimony. It is just suspicious.
This is an aspect that is mainly played up and exaggerated in derivative accounts. It's not very typical of the originals. In fact, it's really only typical of Godfrey, but he's been widely referenced so it's become a standard image; maybe looking back on it his memories were being tinted with a little rose perfume and high culture. Few others, I think, can really be accused of such influence. There's little that screams Pieta in Kanipe's description of Custer sprawled across two bodies. Bradley and others do say that his face had a placid expression, which is about as near as most of them come ("asleep" tends to be the preferred euphemism). The trouble with trying to link historical moments with cultural touchstones is that it can go either way. Had stories of the time represented a Custer hacked with stab wounds, face twisted in pain, a well-educated person might think of Grunewald as readily as Godfrey's description triggers Pieta in some minds.
I think the eagerness with which so many today embrace the image of a mutilated Custer represents more a culture shift than a true reappraisal of evidence. You can't logically argue that Custer was mutilated, because there's no hard evidence to speak of, and there's too many difficulties to explain away (the diaries, lack of gossip, the apparent openness to discuss unpleasant details about Custer's other relations). Proof of this is that nobody has tried. You can choose to believe it though, in spite of those difficulties, and in an age of Mel Gibson I think that's become quite easy. I think it's no coincidence that the appeal of the shredded, bloated mannekin imprinted on the Shroud of Turin is such a relatively recent phenomenon, and I suspect that Grunewald's reputation is higher now than it has ever been since he was living. That sketch of Custer's body printed in one of the battlefield guidebooks 15 years ago that everybody had such a fuss over was essentially a ripoff of Grunewald's crucifixion artwork.
R. Larsen |
Edited by - Anonymous Poster8169 on March 04 2005 6:34:59 PM |
|
|
|
movingrobewoman
Lt. Colonel
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - March 04 2005 : 6:34:33 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by wILD I
All this mythology surrounding Custer's death has taken on a quasi religious aspect.For example one of the main tenets of the catholic religion is belief in a virgin birth.No violation occured.In like manner it is believed that Custer suffered a virgin death.No violation of the body.When the catholic church are considering the cannonisation of a holy person,the church veiws the fact that the body of that person has not suffered the indignity of corruption as a sign of sanctity.Similarly the suggestion that Custer the martyred hero did not suffer the indignity of mutilation bestows on him a certain "sanctity" or mystic.
Though I am attracted to the underlying romaticism of the Custer legend, I just don't get this need to sanctify his death, either. It was a messy and desperate situation--period.
It's funny how many Custer paintings I've seen that are nothing more than ripoffs of Michelangelo's Vatican City Pieta (though the dude did many other, much less famous ones--and died making another for the Rondinini [sic] family) ...
Regards, |
movingrobe |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Meotzi Mania and Nagging Personal Issues
