| Author |
 Topic  |
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
 Posted - March 08 2005 : 05:04:57 AM
|
Often, I do not reply to many of the mistaken perceptions brought to this messageboard
But you make an exception in the case of DC
because it simply is not worth the time to explain what a dum-dum is or where the name came from and how erroneous it's use is.Why let an error stand?I used the term in relation to the wound to Custer's head.Can't understand how a soft nosed round can make contact with a skull and leave no noticable exit wound.
|
  |
|
|
dave
Captain
Australia
Status: offline |
Posted - March 08 2005 : 08:14:02 AM
|
Wild,
You're assuming the bullet had enough energy to exit the skull, which may (or may not be) a mistake. Quite a number of mid to late 19th century revolvers had quite low muzzle velocities, in comparison to todays offerings.
If Godfrey is correct, then Custer may have carried a pair of Webley RIC revolvers (RIC = Royal Irish Constabulary). These revolvers were chambered in a number of calibres - which were almost without exception, low powered, and generally not much use over a dozen yards. If one of these revolvers was used (in the hands of Custer himself or a family member or fellow officer administering a coup de grace) then its quite possible that the bullet would have remained embedded within Custer's skull, even at point blank range.
Below is a listing of the muzzle velocities and energies for three of the more common chamberings for Webley RIC's, and for comparison, typical muzzle velocities and energies for ammunition for the;
.45 Colt Peacemaker (Black Powder)
9mm Parabellum Luger
.45 Colt 1911 (ACP)
(My apologies for the clumsy formatting, but I couldn't spare the time to work out how to do a table properly)
Bullet.............Muzzle Energy.....Muzzle Velocity.....Bullet Weight
.....................(foot-lbs)........(feet/second).......(grains)
.44 Bulldog...............79................460...............146
.442 RIC.................230................715...............200
.450 Adams...............245................700...............225
.45 Auto (ACP)...........335................810...............230
.45 Colt Black Powder....368................814...............250
9mm Parabellum (Luger)...383...............1225...............115
I don't vouch for the accuracy of the data. I'm just assuming they represent a roughly accurate average. But its obvious that the more modern chamberings are markedly more powerful than the 19th century Webley. The Colt Peacemaker is also significantly more powerful than the Webley.
So you can't assume that because a .45 ACP or a 9mm bullet will exit someones skull, that the same is true of the ammunition used in Custer's guns. |
Edited by - dave on March 08 2005 08:41:19 AM |
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - March 08 2005 : 09:06:15 AM
|
Thanks for the info Dave it's just that Custer's body seems to have miraculously escaped the worst of the butchers yard which was the LBH battlefield.
We have been told that there were no powder burns so the coup de grace was not by his own hand.There was no obvious exit wound.So that rules out being hit by a soft nosed round from a rifle.So we are left to conclude that the coup de grace was delivered by someone thoughtfully holding a low velocity pistol just out of powder range. |
|
|
|
dave
Captain
Australia
Status: offline |
Posted - March 08 2005 : 09:29:53 AM
|
Should we be surprised that he did escape mutilation?
Judging from various comments on this forum there seems to be little reason to believe that the Indians knew that they were fighting Custer, and even less reason to believe that they were able to identify Custer personally.
So what does that leave us? a dead soldier of early middle age, average height and build, going prematurely bald. Nothing much to excite the average Indian I would have thought. And seeing that he died in a cluster of 40 odd men, seemingly in close proximity to each other, is it any wonder that the Indians might have found more promising targets, such as those few soldiers who had the misfortune to be still living when the Indians closed in.
In regard to the head shot. We are just assuming that it could have been suicide or a coup de grace shot, and yet there is absolutely no evidence to suggest this. It might have just as easily been a shot from a Henry or Yellow Boy, both of which the Indians apparently possessed in numbers, and which both fired the same woefully anemic .44-25, a bullet which ballistically was effectively a pistol round. |
|
|
|
BJMarkland
Colonel
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - March 08 2005 : 09:58:53 AM
|
By the way, isn't there an example from Reno's siege of head wounds where the skull was not exploded? I am thinking specifically of what I remember being described as a packer who, because he was in one position for an extremely long time, was checked on and it was found he had been shot in the head. I don't have time now to find the source - it is in Camp's notes from interviews - but will look it up when I get home.
Not being an expert on guns, I still would venture the opinion that, as Dave mentioned, range and type of weapon firing the bullet would play a significant role in whether there was an exit wound.
Billy |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - March 08 2005 : 10:18:02 AM
|
"The bodies laid there so long that they turned black...." Page 304, John Ryan in Sandy Barnard's Ten Years With Custer. This is the guy that buried 45 of the men, including the Custers. It is not my claim, it's Ryan's who is referenced in my quote. Of course, whether white on top they were black where the blood congealed, so it's perfectly accurate to say, as this eye witness did, they bodies were black as much as white. And really, big deal.
More to the point, or my point, is that whether black or glistening white, everyone contends that Custer was showing no signs of mortification, 'as asleep', a smile, which I find suspicious. You say he would be black where blood congealed. No witness says that of Custer, although of others. Ask your sister, Crab, if she finds that likely. Report back. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
Edited by - Dark Cloud on March 08 2005 10:25:06 AM |
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - March 08 2005 : 10:51:30 AM
|
It might have just as easily been a shot from a Henry or Yellow Boy, both of which the Indians apparently possessed in numbers, and which both fired the same woefully anemic .44-25, a bullet which ballistically was effectively a pistol round.
What was Bloody knife hit with? A cannon |
|
|
|
dave
Captain
Australia
Status: offline |
Posted - March 08 2005 : 11:06:53 AM
|
Who knows.
The Indians fielded a wide variety of different firearms. I don't have a list, but you can have a look at a British Custer website if you like, see
http://www.westernerspublications.ltd.uk/CAGB%20Guns%20at%20the%20LBH.htm
They list a number of guns which would have done the job, the .50 Sharps, 1873 Winchester, 0.50 Springfield etc. |
|
|
|
movingrobewoman
Lt. Colonel
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - March 08 2005 : 1:49:03 PM
|
Warlord, et., al.,
This may be a really strange question, but was there a clear differentiation between the sounds of the issued cavalry rifles and those generally carried by the Indians, say in 1867?
As for being an "expert," I did teach a few graduate seminars in the waaay back machine. But my speciality is modern European history (social history). I avoided all those "History of the American West" like the plague ... boy, am I paying for that now!
And for everyone else--thanks for giving the support when it comes to historical fiction--I am a big believer that literature written in a given era can give one an excellent picture of that time ... Tolstoy, anyone? It is quite hard to try and capture it 140 years later ... !! As for my project, though I am still not happy with it, it is in the neo-natal marketing phase ...
Still believing in world peace ... and joy! Hehehe ... enjoying the gab!
|
movingrobe |
|
|
|
El Crab
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - March 08 2005 : 2:31:54 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Cloud
"The bodies laid there so long that they turned black...." Page 304, John Ryan in Sandy Barnard's Ten Years With Custer. This is the guy that buried 45 of the men, including the Custers. It is not my claim, it's Ryan's who is referenced in my quote. Of course, whether white on top they were black where the blood congealed, so it's perfectly accurate to say, as this eye witness did, they bodies were black as much as white. And really, big deal.
More to the point, or my point, is that whether black or glistening white, everyone contends that Custer was showing no signs of mortification, 'as asleep', a smile, which I find suspicious. You say he would be black where blood congealed. No witness says that of Custer, although of others. Ask your sister, Crab, if she finds that likely. Report back.
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Cloud
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.
Ryan didn't say there were black and white. He said blackened. If you care to break down the semantics of blackened, be my guest. Blackened fish isn't 100% blackened.
Custer "was not black and swollen as the others." That's what you posted. Of course, your source, Sgt. Ryan, also said Custer was shot in the right side and right temple. No matter.
The accounts don't really speak of the pooling of the blood, and its not surprising. They were more general than that, speaking of the flesh being decomposed, skin and even arms and legs coming off when trying to move the bodies, etc. Ryan said they were "blackened", Godfrey and Weir said the bodies were "white" and "marble white". I'd guess Ryan saw more of the blackening, having been involved with the moving and burials firsthand. Weir and Godfrey were commenting on their initial response to the bodies. And with Custer relatively unmutilated, lying on his back or even sitting up, somewhat reclined (depending on your source), his body would not be blackened except maybe around the chest wound and where gravity pooled the blood. But even then, how much blood was left in him?
Now, the soldiers that were mutilated greatly would be blackened by their grievous wounds, and not just where the blood pools. But other than a thigh gash, a removed finger (for the ring) and/or an arrow to the groin, Custer was not mutilated. As its pointed out before (and most recently by Larsen), even the private journals detailing Custer's appearance give this impression.
You're backtracking, really. I don't expect anything less from you. You tried to use Ryan's "blackened" account to show Custer's appearance was falsified (he wasn't blackened or swollen like the others), and that's just not going to fly. Ryan spoke of the bodies being blackened, though not revealing the extent nor how many.
Custer wasn't in perfect shape, obviously. But here's a dead body, out in the sun for two days with a head wound and a shot to the torso. He was probably bloated, he probably smelled. Some things just go without saying. He might have had a smile on his face, you never know. He might have looked asleep. What kind of painkillers did the surgeons carry on campaigns? Who knows, maybe Custer took his shot to the torso, was given a big dose of whatever Lord had, and was laid down. |
I came. I saw. I took 300 pictures. |
|
|
|
movingrobewoman
Lt. Colonel
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - March 08 2005 : 5:49:15 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Warlord
Movingrobewoman: You are asking some really difficult questions RE: firearms here. In 1867 the US Army was armed with all kinds of firearms including Spencers, Henry's, muzzleloaders, etc.. The indians were stealing and buying all kinds of firearms, thus we can't tell specific reports.
I know that I was pushing the envelope, question-wise. And I so appreciate your "qualified" sometimes reply ... Ah, yes, world peace ...what is kind of funny is that I am so anti-gun, but want to fire my friend's "cowboy" rifle? Absolutely shocked him. But it'll lend me more authenticity ... what I won't do for art, eh?
Like you, I am glad Crab is chiming in. My husband was a mortician in his previous life (before husbandry) and we spend a lot of time discussing the Custer body and all those creepy crawlies. It probably weren't a pretty sight. But at the same time, I do have to recognize Weir's remark that what he felt were large (bodies) white "rocks" covered what is now considered Last Stand Hill ... but of course, that remark was made on June 25, I believe.
Still, I could barely make out an RV from Weir Point--and with all that dust ... ugh ...
Hoka hey!
|
movingrobe |
|
|
|
joseph wiggs
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - March 08 2005 : 8:27:34 PM
|
El Crab, you seldom come but, when you do...!!!
Your methodical, infallible,and analytical retorts often leaves one speechless. |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - March 08 2005 : 9:21:50 PM
|
That's because you don't read, Wiggs. You apparently judge the tone, and if the writer appears confident you try to be on a winning side, although your presence surely deflates any enthusiasm.
Unfortunate for you and Crab that my quote is correct. The word Ryan used is "black", not blackened, in my copy of Barnard on that page discussing the Custer bodies for whatever importance you ascribe to that. If I'd said "white", though, the point that Custer's body is hardly ever referred to as in any state of damaged deomposition on the 27th is suspicious, along with the shot in the side recalling the Roman speer wound with flowing blood, the clean coup de grace or the sundered Roland temples, are all literary templates, and suspect as well. If Ryan was wrong, and only 46.78% of the median flesh tissue was black, and therefore to be called blackened instead, what's the dif and in what way does it affect my point?
Wild, this site has good info on the Medal of Honor.
http://www.mishalov.com/Medal_Honor_History_Issues.html
In some cases, you'll note, the medal is awarded solely by Congressional will, as it was to Charles Lindbergh who'd never been in combat at the time of his presentation and which roundly annoyed the military despite Lindbergh's service to date. The military hadn't initiated his medal. Which is to say, the Congress can decide, redecide, rescind, and do what it wants. At the time of the LBH, the Medal wasn't as impressive as it is today. It was all we had. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
El Crab
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - March 09 2005 : 02:49:38 AM
|
Who ever said Custer wasn't decomposed? That's not the issue at all. As I said, it goes without saying he was decomposing. Your issue is with the statements about his appearance, as if he was asleep (as opposed to those who stated faces were distorted from the fear). Show me an account that says Custer's body was not decomposing like the others. They state he was smiling or appeared to be asleep, or perhaps both. They say he wasn't mutilated. Did these accounts need to state the obvious, that Custer was dead and had been in the summer sun for two days, detailing all that would entail?
Again, Ryan helped bury "45" soldiers. He saw the black in the corpses. Weir and Godfrey were likely more detached, and saw only the bodies as they lay, for the most part.
Godfrey, pg. 376, The Custer Myth (From "Custer's Last Battle," The Century, 1892)
"...nearly all were scalped or mutilated, and there was one notable exception, that of General Custer, whose face and expression were natural; he had been shot in the temple and in the left side. Many faces had a pained, almost terrified expression."
Is it so impossible that Custer, a battle-hardened commander who seemed to not fear death, would have died with a natural expression? And Godfrey details this for us, that many had fear in their countenance upon death, and Custer did not. He seemed normal. Others remarked of this. They don't seem shocked by this, and for good reason.
It doesn't smack of conspiracy to me. Sure, a thigh gash and/or arrow to the genitals would have been withheld from Mrs. Custer, but the look on his face was likely remarked upon not to make her feel better, but because it went against the dead around him.
If its Godfrey that supposedly commented on the Custer mutilations withheld, I'd believe it. He's a reliable source, it would seem. And its likely the mutilations were not mentioned to spare Mrs. Custer. But there's no sources I know of that speak of Custer's body in great shape, withstanding the rules of decomposition while the other corpses rotted as expected. Custer's face wasn't distorted by fear or anguish, his torso wasn't cut open. His hands and feet, arms and legs were still connected to his body, and his innards weren't turned outwards. It wasn't necessary to imply his corpse had decomposed as a "two days in a hot sun" corpse would.
If you have 200 pieces of cheese, left out to spoil, do you need to detail the mold on every piece? Its assumed, isn't it? All of the bodies were decomposing, the important differences in their appearance are noted. |
I came. I saw. I took 300 pictures. |
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - March 09 2005 : 06:41:25 AM
|
At the time of the LBH, the Medal wasn't as impressive as it is today. It was all we had.
Thanks for the link DC.Perhaps it was not as impressive as it is today ,however gallant action by officers was recognised by a system of granting brevets.What was it Elliot was reputed to have said? "Here goes for a brevet or a coffin".In fact Benteen states in a letter to Goldin that he would have put Hare,Godfrey,Varnum and Wallace forward for brevets if he had had anything to do with it[p230].He also mentions an almighty row with Reno over special mentions.
I think the lack of recognition must have grated with these two officers parcticularly when they saw the cause for the beatification of Custer gathering momentium.Benteen states in one of his letters"but I am not ready to subscribe to any effort of the public's opinion to convince me that Custer was a great man or great warrior;au contraire,he was quite ordinary.
Might a Benteen flourshing the medal of honor and a brevet have gone along with the deification of our hero?
The wound to Custer's side may have prevented bloating of the body.
The mutilation and desecration of the bodies could be viewed as a sort of perverted social event.It allowed all tribal noncombatants to be part of the great victory.
nearly all were scalped or mutilated, and there was one notable exception, that of General Custer, whose face and expression were natural; he had been shot in the temple and in the left side. Many faces had a pained, almost terrified expression."
He looked composed while decomposing.
Sorry Crab.Nice to see you posting again. |
|
|
|
BJMarkland
Colonel
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - March 09 2005 : 06:54:28 AM
|
MRW, I am not sure if this was your question, do different caliber weapons sound different, or whether weapons of the same type and caliber sound different.
Speaking from personal experience, I know my .357 sounds different from the 12 gauge as well as my .32 Pocket Pistol sounds different from both the above. To me, the .32 is louder and sharper than the .22 rifle I have but I suggest that it is a reflection upon a heavier powder charge. Tonally, they are close.
Billy |
|
|
|
dave
Captain
Australia
Status: offline |
Posted - March 09 2005 : 09:04:24 AM
|
MRW,
Regarding your question about when Custer acquired his Remington Rolling Block, this site has the answer
http://www.netw.com/cowboy/_feature/feature0302.html
Specifically the article says
Dear Sirs,---Last year I ordered from your firm a sporting rifle, caliber .50. I received the rifle a short time prior to the departure of the Yellowstone Expedition. The Expedition left Fort Rice the 20th of June, 1873 and returned to Fort Abraham Lincoln, September 21, 1873. During the period of three months I carried the rifle referred to on every occasion and the following exhibits but a portion of the game killed by me: Antelope 41; buffalo 4; elk 4; blacktail deer 4; American deer 3; white wolf 2; geese, prairie chicken and other feathered game in large numbers. The number of animals killed is not so remarkable as the distance at which the shots were executed. The average distance at which the forty-one antelopes were killed was 250 yards by actual measurement. I rarely obtained a shot at an antelope under 150 yards, while the range extended from that distance up to 630 yards…..
So mid 1873 by the looks of it. |
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - March 09 2005 : 09:19:34 AM
|
Nice one Dave You will have BJ out of a job.
BJ
Very impressive arsenal you have there.But any society which has an armed citzenry has a huge price to pay.Whatcha tink MRW |
|
|
|
dave
Captain
Australia
Status: offline |
Posted - March 09 2005 : 09:42:17 AM
|
Its no trouble to me Wild, I'm perfectly happy to research guns - as you might have noticed on the odd occasion. Billy is completely welcome to his position of the forums official researcher.
Which reminds me, Billy could you please post the second part of the Berdan rifle article, I was looking forward to it. If its not too much trouble of course - that is. |
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - March 09 2005 : 3:34:37 PM
|
Hi Warlord
The user name is actually Wild I.I believe it was the nick name for I troop.
I would have thought that it was easier to police an unarmed society.
Here you cannot carry a concealed weapon and the largest caliber you can get is generally a .22.Ammo is also limited to 200 rounds a year and you have to belong to a gun club. |
|
|
|
movingrobewoman
Lt. Colonel
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - March 09 2005 : 3:46:22 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by wILD I
Hi Warlord
The user name is actually Wild I.I believe it was the nick name for I troop.
I would have thought that it was easier to police an unarmed society.
Here you cannot carry a concealed weapon and the largest caliber you can get is generally a .22.Ammo is also limited to 200 rounds a year and you have to belong to a gun club.
Kind of reflective of the Nineteenth Century frontier training in the US army, huh? Okay, that were allusions gone crazy ...
And y'all, thanks for the gun information. Never in my wildest life did I think I'd want that information!
Perhaps we can delve into the supposed TWC and Wild Bill "feud?" Did ol' Bill contribute in some roundabout manner to Tom's fate? The subject fascinates me--Tom was an interesting guy, to say the least!
Regards, gang! |
movingrobe |
|
|
|
El Crab
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - March 09 2005 : 4:28:25 PM
|
| Not to burst your bubble, Wild I, but the "Wild I" nickname seems to have actually come from a misunderstanding. Keogh's wooden marker was rather large and elaborate, and a few feet away was a "Wild I" marker. I believe the location of "Wild I" was used to accurately place Keogh's marker in its original location, but I digress. Anyway, Corporal John Wild's marker appears to be the reason for the confusion, as the original wooden marker had just the "Wild I" on it. |
I came. I saw. I took 300 pictures. |
|
|
|
joseph wiggs
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - March 09 2005 : 10:06:14 PM
|
[quote]Originally posted by Dark Cloud
That's because you don't read, Wiggs. You apparently judge the tone, and if the writer appears confident you try to be on a winning side, although your presence surely deflates any enthusiasm.
D.c., my delusional friend. At the mature age of 57 years and, with a life time of awe inspiring experiences behind me, I do not need to be on "anyones side as no one is altogether on my side." (stolen from a dialogue between Treebeard, Merry, and Pippin.)
My comment regarding "El Crab's" post was based solely upon his ability to articulate facts in a rational and informative manner, a trait I honestly admire. My tendency to sometimes resort to emotional "Purple Prose" has, on occasion, reduced the effectiveness of my threads and "turned-off" some of our forum members. For this I sincerely apologize. Apparently you assumed that my comment was a direct attack against you; this time it was not.
However, I must make comment upon a trait of yours that may be the cause of discord in some of your threads. A trait which prevents you from achieving the statue of respect that "El Crab" has earned. Perhaps if you stuck to the facts, ceased your meaningless personal attacks, and approached your threads in an orderly and informative manner, your efforts would be more appreciated. In an honest effort to elevate my writing skills, I hereby make a pledge to make a concerted effort to reduce my "purple prose" in future threads. Will you join me, in fellowship, and a sincere attempt to reduce the pain and anguish you and I have forced upon our fellow forum members who must read our insufferable threads? We owe them that much. You may help me in this worthy effort by leaving your Brobdingnagian ego on the "back porch" when you post.
(Hark, what joyous sounds of relief ring stalwartly from the east, 'Tis compromise who settles in the west.) |
Edited by - joseph wiggs on March 09 2005 10:13:20 PM |
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - March 10 2005 : 03:43:05 AM
|
Thanks for that Crab.
Connell in Son of the Morning Star describes the Character of Keogh as being electric and how his Troop I took on this wild trait. Thus the nickname Wild I.But as we have seen he has been mistaken on other points so he may well be mistaken on this.
Young Wiggs you were fighting with one arm behind your back using that "purple prose"thingy. |
|
|
|
El Crab
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - March 10 2005 : 04:10:17 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by wILD I
Thanks for that Crab.
Connell in Son of the Morning Star describes the Character of Keogh as being electric and how his Troop I took on this wild trait. Thus the nickname Wild I.But as we have seen he has been mistaken on other points so he may well be mistaken on this.
Yeah, I believe Connell was duped by the photo. If you didn't know it was John Wild's marker, it'd be easy to think it was to denote "Wild" I Company's position on the field...
I could be totally wrong. But I have yet to find a mention of Company I being called "Wild I". Other than in SOMS and a novel. But I still value SOMS very, very highly. Its my favorite of all the Custer/LBH books. |
I came. I saw. I took 300 pictures. |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Meotzi Mania and Nagging Personal Issues
