| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
 Posted - December 07 2005 : 08:54:26 AM
|
Could be, but at the reunion in 86 I thought I'd read Gall'd make a simple reply and the translator would go on and on, making everyone suspicious. Further, Gall in his last years didn't seem - again, by stories I've read is all - much beyond a few phrases and words. It's difficult for adults to learn new languages, especially ones that share no basis with your own.
And I'm suspicious of everyone's motivations. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
  |
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - December 07 2005 : 10:32:13 AM
|
Vern
The initial perimeter was about 700 yards, the final perimeter somewhat smaller.
The perimeter occupied by the defenders at Rorkes Drift measured not much more than 230 yards at commencement of the Zulu attack.At no time during the engagement was that perimeter greater than 230 yards.
Iwould be grateful if you posted your source for 700 yards.
The basic theory is, Custer failed to synchronize his attack -- with 12 companies, he never got more than three into action at any one time.
The balance of probability is that all 5 companies were under attack at the same time.Even taking your theory that K/C were engaged first it is too much to accept that Custer stood by and watched them being over run without opening fire.The ranges at some points would not have been more than 200-300 yards.
Prolar
Also I have read that the Indians fought mostly on foot as attested to by the few dead ponies. Not the mounted charges you and Wild I describe.
Do you mean they were not mounted ? I 'm inclined to think that Eric Von Schmidt's painting of the battle is a good representation with Warriors both mounted and on foot.
They claim only 10 spurious markers on CH, though. I'm trying to match up early photos on the Keogh, Calhoun sites with Gray's maps to see if the photos agree on not with his basic map.
DC
I doubt very much if Sweet knew exactly how many bodies were on the field.He probably started near deep ravine and worked his way around the field.So having located as many bodies as possible he is left with the spurious markers.The question is did he retrace his steps and evenly disperse the spurious markers.I don't think so because the number of markers in the Custer sector is correct while those in the Keogh sector is far too many.I think he just placed them on what is taken to be Calhoun's position. |
|
|
|
Vern Humphrey
Captain
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - December 07 2005 : 10:35:51 AM
|
quote:
The two companies near LSH and the three in the Calhoun Hill area{or three and two as you have it}were not in action at the same time? Also I have read that the Indians fought mostly on foot as attested to by the few dead ponies. Not the mounted charges you and Wild I describe.Also, when Custer approached MTF most of the warriors were near Reno Hill. How did they travel four miles to attack in such over whelming force that you and Wild claim started the battle?
There are several reasons for my statement.
1. The disposition of the units indicates there were two fights, one involving Keough and Calhoun, the other involving the other three companies.
2. The general disorganization in the east and the better organization in the west indicates the western three companies had time to seek good ground and prepare to fight dismounted.
3. The location of officers from the three western companies in the vicinity of LSH indicates they were able to move in that direction after their companies were overrun -- nothing like that happened in the east.
4. Finally, the general poor performance on Custer's part makes it unlikely he could somehow manage under pressure what he had failed to do when not under pressure. |
|
|
|
Vern Humphrey
Captain
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - December 07 2005 : 10:44:33 AM
|
quote:
The initial perimeter was about 700 yards, the final perimeter somewhat smaller.
The perimeter occupied by the defenders at Rorkes Drift measured not much more than 230 yards at commencement of the Zulu attack.At no time during the engagement was that perimeter greater than 230 yards.
Iwould be grateful if you posted your source for 700 yards.
The Command and General Staff Text on that battle is taken from British Army sources. I suspect yours is based on "The Washing of the Spears."
quote:
The basic theory is, Custer failed to synchronize his attack -- with 12 companies, he never got more than three into action at any one time.The balance of probability is that all 5 companies were under attack at the same time.Even taking your theory that K/C were engaged first it is too much to accept that Custer stood by and watched them being over run without opening fire.The ranges at some points would not have been more than 200-300 yards.
Your arguments range from "Custer had it all under control" to "It was a disorganized mess" in attempts to prove all five companies were in action at the same time.
The evidence is the actions of the 7th Cavalry were driven by enemy action. What Custer did or did not do is immaterial -- there was no choice but for the units most heavily engaged to fight, while the rest of the force sought better ground. |
|
|
|
Smcf
Captain
Status: offline |
Posted - December 07 2005 : 11:30:33 AM
|
Vern wrote "3. The location of officers from the three western companies in the vicinity of LSH indicates they were able to move in that direction after their companies were overrun -- nothing like that happened in the east."
What makes "C" a "western" company? - the ids of Sgts of that company (that I know) where at or near Calhoun and Keogh. Custer took 2 battalions - that means TWC's company was under either Yates or Keogh. As for TWC himself, who knows. The 2nd in command was never identified. If the company was under Yates, then what were the Sgts doing in the east and south?
|
Edited by - Smcf on December 07 2005 11:33:37 AM |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - December 07 2005 : 11:32:13 AM
|
Mr. Humphrey, I'm confused by your terms of East and West for Custer's groupings. Calhoun and Keogh operated mostly East of the others, ending up south of them. Hard to say where C was, but L and I seem to have put up the best fight. It certainly looks to me that the western units were the most disorganized. No signs of much organized fight there when the 7th survivors saw it later.
Wild, it's such terrible cavalry land that I have no doubt the Indians mostly fought on foot. Artists love horses, is all. What is called "Horseholder's Gulch" or something like by Keogh's position is a good example. What looks like flat land has a depressed area where you could protect horses. The battlefield is loaded with gullies you can't recognize as such till you're upon them. This really cannot be appreciated till you see it in person. I suspect that's one of the reasons the officers ended up where they did, because they needed ground that didn't endanger the tired horses, so they stuck to the hogbacks.
A point in WCF is that Calhoun Hill is the best defensive position Custer saw after passing MTC. LSH had no shelter and exposed occupants to a wide range of attack. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
Vern Humphrey
Captain
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - December 07 2005 : 11:47:12 AM
|
quote:
Vern wrote "3. The location of officers from the three western companies in the vicinity of LSH indicates they were able to move in that direction after their companies were overrun -- nothing like that happened in the east."
What makes "C" a "western" company? - the ids of Sgts of that company (that I know) where at or near Calhoun and Keogh. Custer took 2 battalions - that means TWC's company was under either Yates or Keogh. As for TWC himself, who knows. The 2nd in command was never identified. If the company was under Yates, then what were the Sgts doing in the east and south?
We sometimes have used the term "Company equivallents" -- and I have consistently not used letter designations. Keough and Calhoun fell in the eastern part of the field, and the troops around them -- whether formally part of their companies, or from other companies, were under their command. |
|
|
|
Vern Humphrey
Captain
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - December 07 2005 : 11:53:10 AM
|
quote:
Mr. Humphrey, I'm confused by your terms of East and West for Custer's groupings. Calhoun and Keogh operated mostly East of the others, ending up south of them. Hard to say where C was, but L and I seem to have put up the best fight. It certainly looks to me that the western units were the most disorganized. No signs of much organized fight there when the 7th survivors saw it later.
Yeates, Smith and TW Custer's companies lie in a line well to the west of Calhoun. Keough's force is associated with Calhoun's, but lies to the north and west of it.
As other posters have remarked, it is possible Keough was going to the assistance of Calhoun.
The five companies as a whole do not lie in any semblance of a mutually-supporting defense, and the divide is between Yeates, Smith and TW Custer on the one hand, and Calhoun and Keough on the other. |
|
|
|
Smcf
Captain
Status: offline |
Posted - December 07 2005 : 12:00:00 PM
|
| @Vern - you may not have used letters, but you may as well. You cannot infer TWC's company was with TWC if the Sgts were with Calhoun and Keogh - it just doesn't make any sense from your perspective, unless you can show ids from troopers and non-comms who were found in the "west". Put me straight on this - I'll be the first to concede the point. |
|
|
|
Vern Humphrey
Captain
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - December 07 2005 : 12:12:17 PM
|
quote:
@Vern - you may not have used letters, but you may as well. You cannot infer TWC's company was with TWC if the Sgts were with Calhoun and Keogh - it just doesn't make any sense from your perspective, unless you can show ids from troopers and non-comms who were found in the "west". Put me straight on this - I'll be the first to concede the point.
I don't infer TW Custer's company was with him (in fact, it was not. He died to the north of the force he commanded.)
I say the evidence is that some forces were commanded by some of the officers and fought under them. Legally, troops separated from their formal commands in combat come under the command of whatever officer they find themselves with.
I do say there were basically two fights. One, in the western part of the field, was fairly well-organized. The other, in the eastern part, shows less organization. The western forces were probably commanded by Yeates, Smith and TW Custer. In the east, Calhoun and Keough were the officers. |
|
|
|
Smcf
Captain
Status: offline |
Posted - December 07 2005 : 12:30:12 PM
|
| Fair enough. I'd have to disagree on the split, but its only an opinion. Benteen's report notes his opinion that the command did not fight as companies. If they fought as battalions, however, then there is an answer to the question of why Finckle was found in the far south while TWC was found in the far north, grist to the theory mill of Keogh commanding C, I and L. |
|
|
|
Vern Humphrey
Captain
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - December 07 2005 : 12:45:50 PM
|
quote:
Fair enough. I'd have to disagree on the split, but its only an opinion. Benteen's report notes his opinion that the command did not fight as companies. If they fought as battalions, however, then there is an answer to the question of why Finckle was found in the far south while TWC was found in the far north, grist to the theory mill of Keogh commanding C, I and L.
That's possible also. My point is the failure to synchronize. The evidence shows that Custer never got more than three companies into action at any one time.
His errors and failings are manifold, and the battlefield shows that. |
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - December 07 2005 : 12:49:05 PM
|
The Command and General Staff Text on that battle is taken from British Army sources.
What is the name of the publication from which you ascertained the information that the garrison at Rorke's drift engaged or defended against the Zulu on a front measuring 700 yards.And could we have the quote please.
One, in the western part of the field, was fairly well-organized.
What do you base that upon?
The western forces were probably commanded by Yeates, Smith and TW Custer. And these officers inncluding Smith ended up in the same place.The only logical conclusion that can be drawn from this is that it was a rout or running fight from the deep ravine area towards LSH.Take into consideration that not one of Custer's staff or company commanders was found in the center of Vern's fictious defence line.
DC
You have been there so have the advantage however if the terrain is bad for horses it is even worse if on foot.I cannot imagine Indian warriors saying "**** can't take the pony to the office today the going is too rough. |
|
|
|
Vern Humphrey
Captain
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - December 07 2005 : 12:58:45 PM
|
quote:
The Command and General Staff Text on that battle is taken from British Army sources.
What is the name of the publication from which you ascertained the information that the garrison at Rorke's drift engaged or defended against the Zulu on a front measuring 700 yards.And could we have the quote please.
As I recall, it's Command and General Staff College Study Text, Zulu Campaign of 1879. There is a detailed account of both Isandlwana and Roark's Drift -- the latter differing markedly with "The Washing of the Spears" which assumes the initial perimeter was the mission station.
quote:
One, in the western part of the field, was fairly well-organized.
What do you base that upon?
The position of the companies and the terrain.
quote:
The western forces were probably commanded by Yeates, Smith and TW Custer. And these officers inncluding Smith ended up in the same place.The only logical conclusion that can be drawn from this is that it was a rout or running fight from the deep ravine area towards LSH.
That's your conclusion -- which does not explain the three company positions.
quote:
Take into consideration that not one of Custer's staff or company commanders was found in the center of Vern's fictious defence line.
Take into consideration that an organized defense would have degraded, and given the command groups time to escape. |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - December 07 2005 : 3:00:12 PM
|
Hold it, hold it, hold it.
You're saying that the eastern companies Calhoun and Keogh, where the companies were with the officers and NCO's and where meaningful cartridge expediture is testified to as well beyond that anywhere else, were DISorganized and fought worse than what you call the western fight, with officers NOT dead with their companies and mixed up and giving every indication of panic and collapse? I'd think the opposite. I don't get that claim. Further, the eighteen bodies just north of Keogh are assumed to be from C, aren't they? C was all over the field. What impresses you about this "western" fight?
|
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - December 07 2005 : 3:05:14 PM
|
As I recall, it's Command and General Staff College Study Text, Zulu Campaign of 1879. There is a detailed account of both Isandlwana and Roark's Drift -- the latter differing markedly with "The Washing of the Spears" which assumes the initial perimeter was the mission station.
I see you are depending on memory and cannot remember the quote or any details of this spurious 700 defence line wheather within the mission station or a position in the open.
Can I refer you to the report of Lieutenent Chard the officer commanding the defence.He describes the action as only occuring at the mission station.Lieutenent Bromhead 2i/c of the garrison submitted a similar report as did the Sergeant Major.Scaled maps of the mission station show a perimeter of 230+ yards.
Could I suggest that when posting what you are passing off as facts you state you are relying on your memory.There's a good gentleman.
That's your conclusion -- which does not explain the three company positions.
Why was Custer and his officers all found on the extreme flank of this fictious line did they all bear a charmed life?Was Custer and his staff in a position in the center of this line and then withdrew to this flank?
Take into consideration that an organized defense would have degraded, and given the command groups time to escape.
And command groups are impervious to degradation? |
|
|
|
Vern Humphrey
Captain
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - December 07 2005 : 3:14:34 PM
|
quote:
I see you are depending on memory and cannot remember the quote or any details of this spurious 700 defence line wheather within the mission station or a position in the open.
Can I refer you to the report of Lieutenent Chard the officer commanding the defence.He describes the action as only occuring at the mission station.Lieutenent Bromhead 2i/c of the garrison submitted a similar report as did the Sergeant Major.Scaled maps of the mission station show a perimeter of 230+ yards.
Yes, they do show something on that order -- but later study shows both Chard and Bromhead referred only to the later action, after intitial detatchments were driven in.
|
|
|
|
Vern Humphrey
Captain
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - December 07 2005 : 3:19:57 PM
|
quote:
You're saying that the eastern companies Calhoun and Keogh, where the companies were with the officers and NCO's and where meaningful cartridge expediture is testified to as well beyond that anywhere else, were DISorganized and fought worse than what you call the western fight,
No, I didn't say that. I say the western forces are not mutually supporting, and took position hastily. The western forces are mutually supporting and took better positions.
The quality of the fighting is another matter.
quote:
with officers NOT dead with their companies and mixed up and giving every indication of panic and collapse?
All the company and company-sized forces collapsed. There is evidence that survivors ran from all these forces as they were overrun.
quote:
I'd think the opposite. I don't get that claim. Further, the eighteen bodies just north of Keogh are assumed to be from C, aren't they? C was all over the field. What impresses you about this "western" fight?
The fact that the forces are in hasty positions and not mutually supporting. |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - December 07 2005 : 3:31:38 PM
|
Okay. One of us needs to breath into a paper bag.
"I say the western forces are not mutually supporting, and took position hastily. The western forces are mutually supporting and took better positions."
I think you've done that more than you realize.
In any case, I don't know how you can claim that those three companies were in mutual support as companies. Looks like a mob more often than not. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
Vern Humphrey
Captain
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - December 07 2005 : 3:38:15 PM
|
quote:
"I say the western forces are not mutually supporting, and took position hastily. The western forces are mutually supporting and took better positions."
Typo. My bad.
I say the eastern forces are not mutually supporting, and took position hastily. The western forces are mutually supporting and took better positions. |
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - December 07 2005 : 4:20:58 PM
|
after intitial detatchments were driven in.
Detachments???We were discussing a defence of 700 yards.
Also the garrison at Rorkes Drift had no detachments out at the commencement of the battle.Your post is disingenuous bordering on untruthfulness.By all means post an opinion and have it challenged, sometimes robustly but at least be truthful. |
|
|
|
Vern Humphrey
Captain
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - December 07 2005 : 4:24:25 PM
|
quote:
after intitial detatchments were driven in.
Detachments???We were discussing a defence of 700 yards.
Also the garrison at Rorkes Drift had no detachments out at the commencement of the battle.Your post is disingenuous bordering on untruthfulness.By all means post an opinion and have it challenged, sometimes robustly but at least be truthful.
I think the Special Text used at the C&GSC is as close to "truthful" as we will get. I am aware that it contradicts "The Washihng of the Spears." |
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - December 07 2005 : 5:10:34 PM
|
I think the Special Text used at the C&GSC is as close to "truthful" as we will get. I am aware that it contradicts "The Washihng of the Spears."
As you cannot quote from it,it is disingenuous of you to use it in support of your position.
As regards the Washing of the Spears I have never read this book.My sources are Rorkes Drift ,Isandlwana,Nothing Remains but to fight,Last Stands,In Hero's footsteps,The Zulu War Then and Now and The Zulu war.
If you want to engage in serious discussion be careful of your "facts". |
Edited by - wILD I on December 07 2005 5:11:55 PM |
|
|
|
Vern Humphrey
Captain
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - December 07 2005 : 5:15:35 PM
|
quote:
I think the Special Text used at the C&GSC is as close to "truthful" as we will get. I am aware that it contradicts "The Washihng of the Spears."
As you cannot quote from it,it is disingenuous of you to use it in support of your position.
As regards the Washing of the Spears I have never read this book.My sources are Rorkes Drift ,Isandlwana,Nothing Remains but to fight,Last Stands,In Hero's footsteps,The Zulu War Then and Now and The Zulu war.
If you want to engage in serious discussion be careful of your "facts".
I suspect if you look at the bibliography of those works, you will see "The Washing of the Spears" listed. |
|
|
|
prolar
Major
Status: offline |
Posted - December 07 2005 : 10:16:30 PM
|
| Vern, most everything about this battle is a matter of opinion. I can't see that your conclusions are the only logical or even the most logical ones. Wild I, I didn't mean that none of the warriors fought mounted. The terrain for the most part is not suitable for mounted charges, but ideal for warriors to take advantage of the cover and concealment. |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
Springfield Carbine
