| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Vern Humphrey
Captain
USA
Status: offline |
 Posted - December 12 2005 : 09:16:27 AM
|
quote:
Thanks Wild I will try that technique on my horses today. As a lowly private I have not been trained in all the tactics and strategies that you generals know. One thing I have learned from this board is I need more resource data at my disposal. I have ordered my map and "Where Custer Fell"
When comparing maps, be sure to check the north diagram. The Custer Battlefield is located near the edge of a gore, and there is a large divergence between true north, Grid north and magnetic north. The current GM angle is about 39 degrees. |
  |
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - December 12 2005 : 12:43:09 PM
|
I have ordered my map and "Where Custer Fell"
AZ
How can I get a copy and how much is it? |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - December 12 2005 : 1:11:07 PM
|
"I believe in ideal conditions it would be three horses attached to the horseholders horse. Under some battle conditions it could certainly vary."
I'd certainly think so, and that's why I find the tracking down of procedure and manual in these sorts of things rather absurd, given 1.)we don't know what was done and 2.) there is sourced disagreement about what the rules they should have followed were. What made tactical sense in Virginia where your enemy fought as you did is dubious in Montana, where you don't know where he is (everywhere, as it happened)or what he's doing.
My reaction to the horseholder number is, they either needed more firepower or someone got shot and they spread out his horses among those remaining. Or who knows what? At some point, giving one man control of so many mounts is self defeating. ONE horse superficially shot and scared and angry ain't gonna be held by ONE man, never mind multiply horses which were, let's be honest, of great interest to the Indians anyway. This was well known, I'd wager, and one of a number of reasons I find it hard to believe Custer thought he could dismount and.......wait for reinforcements in sight of a huge village. I don't buy it.
The Geographic maps, except 1891/2, are available on the web for free. I think I typed in geographic map Custer battlefield in Google and they were in there. But their value is undermined by the 1877 photos on the field. Page 174, Where Custer Fell. "These (wooden) stakes, easily felled or moved, had little permanence, and the marble markers placed by Captain Owen Sweet's detail did not always accurately mirror their locations, as our comparison photos verify."
Indeed. The Fouche photo of 1877, page 130 WCF, taken from about the very top of Custer Hill looking west to the river, shows about nine wooden stakes where there are now 54 stones. Even that may be high, as there are liquid runs on the plate that might pass as stakes but are not. But I see no more than ten.
So, in conjunction with the knowing misplacement of Custer and family's markers, the spurious markers, the utterly made-up markers, and things like the South Skirmish line, which has 27 stones supposedly of those who ran from LSH's top and should be in deep ravine, I doubt the relevance of these stones to figure out much. Current "evidence" suggests what we thought a firing line didn't exist.
Contrary to Mr. Humphrey's view, Calhoun and Crittendon are seen as standing behind their two platoons. That's iffy as well, but I've never read yet that anyone thought Calhoun himself running north to Keogh. Looking at the early photos doesn't suggest that either, but I'm a civvie and can't divine intent and last movements from a second or third generation marker than may or may not even indicate place of death.
In any case, it doesn't take much change to make a firing line look like a scramble. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
Edited by - Dark Cloud on December 12 2005 3:08:52 PM |
|
|
|
AZ Ranger
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - December 12 2005 : 3:19:59 PM
|
| Wild I got the map from USGS (http://nationalmap.gov/index.html) and it came today. Ii cost 12 dollars including the shipping. |
“ An officer's first duty is to his horses.”
SEMPER FI |
|
|
|
AZ Ranger
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - December 12 2005 : 3:46:31 PM
|
Using DC's method of seach. I found the same map that I got in the mail for free and you can zoom in and out. Thanks DC
Web location:
http://alabamamaps.ua.edu/historicalmaps/montana/
|
“ An officer's first duty is to his horses.”
SEMPER FI |
|
|
|
AZ Ranger
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - December 12 2005 : 4:53:52 PM
|
quote:
I'd certainly think so, and that's why I find the tracking down of procedure and manual in these sorts of things rather absurd, given 1.)we don't know what was done and 2.) there is sourced disagreement about what the rules they should have followed were. What made tactical sense in Virginia where your enemy fought as you did is dubious in Montana, where you don't know where he is (everywhere, as it happened)or what he's doing.
What is the source disagreement? I used Cooke. I still believe that the trained for starting point whatever the number of horses is important. If as in one Indian description, some horseholders had more than three horses connected to their horse than it would indicate a need for more troopers on the line. But if the Cavalry had no standard number than one could not draw any conclusions. |
“ An officer's first duty is to his horses.”
SEMPER FI |
|
|
|
AZ Ranger
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - December 12 2005 : 5:01:13 PM
|
quote:
My reaction to the horse-holder number is, they either needed more firepower or someone got shot and they spread out his horses among those remaining. Or who knows what? At some point, giving one man control of so many mounts is self defeating. ONE horse superficially shot and scared and angry ain't gonna be held by ONE man, never mind multiply horses which were, let's be honest, of great interest to the Indians anyway. This was well known, I'd wager, and one of a number of reasons I find it hard to believe Custer thought he could dismount and.......wait for reinforcements in sight of a huge village. I don't buy it.
The horses were connected through the bit to each other and the horse-holder whom I believe remained mounted and hopefully in control of his horse. The officer in charge remained mounted and should be between any horse-holders and reserves if any and the skirmishers. |
“ An officer's first duty is to his horses.”
SEMPER FI |
|
|
|
Vern Humphrey
Captain
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - December 12 2005 : 5:11:14 PM
|
quote:
What is the source disagreement? I used Cooke. I still believe that the trained for starting point whatever the number of horses is important. If as in one Indian description, some horseholders had more than three horses connected to their horse than it would indicate a need for more troopers on the line. But if the Cavalry had no standard number than one could not draw any conclusions.
The reason for standard procedures is to preclude the need to make up new procedures on the spot, every time you need them. For dismounted fighting, you want the horseholders designated ahead of time, and able to swiftly get the horses out of the line of fire -- you don't want to muddle around trying to decide if you want every third or fourth or fifth man to hold the horses.
Also the officers and NCOs in the 7th were quite experienced -- many of the officers had been in service a decade or more. I think we can assume that in matter like dealing with led horses they followed the book. |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - December 12 2005 : 6:47:13 PM
|
I couldn't find the 1891/2 map on that page or anywhere.
Well, first I agree the NCO's and officers were experienced. I think there were standard rules, but rules change at need, and as Custer allowed wide latitude in some areas, it's not unreasonable to assume he did in others, as well. What was standard for the Army might not have been for those who had to use them, and they could have been altered by common agreement.
We've been told here cavalry rode in three lines - although everything I've read about the 7th suggests twos, fours, and sixes - and that a horseholder had three mounts plus his own, although there is the evidence in the Frost book showing only two. But did it make sense for horseholders to be visible well above the dismounted skirmishers holding what the Indians wanted? Experienced officers would know, and might make alterations of common sense given firing line needs. Maybe not, and it made small difference that day.
Again: I have no clue. I'm just strongly suggesting that soldiers are sharp and do what needs to be done. Sometimes, I'd bet, following procedure was not one. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
Vern Humphrey
Captain
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - December 12 2005 : 7:06:48 PM
|
quote:
Well, first I agree the NCO's and officers were experienced. I think there were standard rules, but rules change at need, and as Custer allowed wide latitude in some areas, it's not unreasonable to assume he did in others, as well. What was standard for the Army might not have been for those who had to use them, and they could have been altered by common agreement.
But we have no evidence of any such agreement -- and some things need to be standardized, to prevent confusion in action.
quote:
We've been told here cavalry rode in three lines - although everything I've read about the 7th suggests twos, fours, and sixes - and that a horseholder had three mounts plus his own, although there is the evidence in the Frost book showing only two. But did it make sense for horseholders to be visible well above the dismounted skirmishers holding what the Indians wanted? Experienced officers would know, and might make alterations of common sense given firing line needs. Maybe not, and it made small difference that day.
Normally the horse-holders were well behind the line, and under cover if possible. |
|
|
|
AZ Ranger
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - December 12 2005 : 7:27:02 PM
|
quote:
I couldn't find the 1891/2 map on that page or anywhere.
http://alabamamaps.ua.edu/historicalmaps/montana/
DC Find the map they have listed as the Custer Battlefield, Montana
Once you open that map, select pan down. Look at the bottom left corner move the cursor over the printing. Zoom in and it will say surveyed 1891. When the map first comes up you cannot see that lower left corner. |
“ An officer's first duty is to his horses.”
SEMPER FI |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - December 12 2005 : 8:01:55 PM
|
Well, now, thank you, Ranger. I saw the 1908 on the previous page and for some reason assumed it was made in 1908. May have been, but based on the 1891 survey. That's pretty embarrassing. Mumble.........
I have no such evidence, Mr. Humphrey, you're correct. I claim none. Just sayin'. In your combat experience in Vietnam, were you ever aware of units routinely NOT following written procedures because the realities of Vietnam made other actions necessary and these changes hadn't made it into the manuals yet? It was unit procedure, but not official? I'd bet the realities of Indian fighting made various changes necessary as well. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
Vern Humphrey
Captain
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - December 12 2005 : 8:08:33 PM
|
quote:
I have no such evidence, Mr. Humphrey, you're correct. I claim none. Just sayin'. In your combat experience in Vietnam, were you ever aware of units routinely NOT following written procedures because the realities of Vietnam made other actions necessary and these changes hadn't made it into the manuals yet? It was unit procedure, but not official? I'd bet the realities of Indian fighting made various changes necessary as well.
When practice in the field changes, it eventually winds up in the manuals -- so if people in the field saw a need for change, we should look to later manuals and find that change made official.
We don't find that here -- nor do we find a driving need for change in this particular area. |
|
|
|
Benteen
Lt. Colonel
Status: offline |
Posted - December 13 2005 : 12:56:57 AM
|
The companies counted off in sets of four, and no. 4 of each set was a horseholder. Each man was told to remember his number. Before mounting the companies formed into single lines. Each man starting with the head of the company would call out in turn his number, one, two, three, four. And these were repeated until the company had all numbered into sets of fours. When a dismount was ordered, number 4 remained on his horse, while numbers one, two and three dismounted and handed their bridle reins to number four who held the horses, while the others deployed into skirmish line and/or other circumstances etal... They usually detailed the oldest men for the horse holders. And to help with the handling of the horses all at one time, the bridle had an additional strap on each side, with a snap ring so that the bridles of the four horses could be linked together.
It would have been impossible for one man to control four horses merely by their reins under the stresses of the noise produced by the heavy firing. The horses of the 7th cavalry were not used to gunfire according to lt Chas. DeRudio... RCI, pg268.
I hope this helps. :) |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - December 13 2005 : 02:05:57 AM
|
Well, having the oldest men do it negates the count, and in any case they could count off by threes or fives as well. That story does suggest it was more arbitrary than by the book, though. People seemed to trade jobs without penalty anyway.
I'm not sure but the increased fastness of attachment to other horses helped insure control or mass exit when one got hurt. If the holder was mounted, probably he wouldn't last long anyway. Motivated horses can often snap a bridle easy enough. As Frost's book shows, cavalry did sometimes have holders with a total of three horses, including their own. I'd imagine some could handle horses better than others, and did when needed.
I just cannot read this story - with Boston abandoning his job to be with his brother when he felt like it, TWC acting above his rank and station and accepted in that role, much liquor aboard the train, lousy practice routines, nearly a hundred men left in media res because they couldn't get them horses, a bloody band brought but left behind because they really weren't soldiers, an adjutant so vaporous that nothing about him would be said except he signed the last note, very loose uniform enforcement - and still entertain many thoughts that are configured by 'it wasn't regulation so it couldn't happen.' The Seventh was Custer's plaything, in many regards. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
AZ Ranger
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - December 13 2005 : 08:20:19 AM
|
The troopers should fall in with the same 4 (squad) in formations. Therefore number four could be the most experienced trooper. They numbered off to make sure everyone was present. The numbers 1-3 horses were linked to each other. The horse closest to the horseholder was controlled by the reins with direct bit pressure and was linked from its bridle the bit of the next riderless horse.
That being said I am sure that they would have to improvise if a squad had less then four men. Horses in my experience would rather stick together. Being linked so short to each other would keep them close together. Could they all be scared at the same time and then run off. Sure and that is what the Indians were trying to do.
If the horses were so afraid of gun fire why did the Indians wave blankets in attempts to scare the horses, instead of firing their guns at the troopers and especially the horseholder. You can train a horse to be desensitized to gun fire and blanket waving and a multitude of other scary objects.
It seems to me to be a theme that most of this is heading to a lack of training of a sufficiently large number of troopers and horses. |
“ An officer's first duty is to his horses.”
SEMPER FI |
|
|
|
AZ Ranger
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - December 13 2005 : 08:38:25 AM
|
| I believe that the discussion here is really not as far off from agreeing what happened as it appears sometimes. There are many reasons why standards are not followed. Certainly you have to be sufficiently trained to preform to the standard. The horses would also have to be trained. If the terrain or other conditions would not allow a standard to be followed then I am sure an experienced officer would improvise. If you chose to improvise for any reason though you better win and/or show an improvement or the manual will not change. |
“ An officer's first duty is to his horses.”
SEMPER FI |
|
|
|
Smcf
Captain
Status: offline |
Posted - December 13 2005 : 08:59:11 AM
|
| Thanks for the map, AZ Ranger. Does anybody have an idea of the source of the designation "Capts G.W Yates'and T.W Custer's commands"? Looks to me that even if the markers are all genuine, there has to be some mistake. |
|
|
|
Vern Humphrey
Captain
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - December 13 2005 : 09:57:48 AM
|
quote:
The troopers should fall in with the same 4 (squad) in formations. Therefore number four could be the most experienced trooper. They numbered off to make sure everyone was present. The numbers 1-3 horses were linked to each other. The horse closest to the horseholder was controlled by the reins with direct bit pressure and was linked from its bridle the bit of the next riderless horse.
That being said I am sure that they would have to improvise if a squad had less then four men. Horses in my experience would rather stick together. Being linked so short to each other would keep them close together. Could they all be scared at the same time and then run off. Sure and that is what the Indians were trying to do.
If the horses were so afraid of gun fire why did the Indians wave blankets in attempts to scare the horses, instead of firing their guns at the troopers and especially the horseholder. You can train a horse to be desensitized to gun fire and blanket waving and a multitude of other scary objects.
The horses were probably deaf. One thing that a wise trooper would do is fire guns near the horse's ears to deafen him. That made them less susceptible to being stampeded by loud noises. And of course normal mounted pistol practice would do the job, even if the intent were not to deafen the horse.
quote:
It seems to me to be a theme that most of this is heading to a lack of training of a sufficiently large number of troopers and horses.
We have to remember that these horses had been ridden a long way -- from North Dakota (and probably a lot before that.) Riding alone does a lot to train a horse. By now they had almost certainly come to trust and bond with their riders. |
|
|
|
alfuso
Corporal
Status: offline |
Posted - December 13 2005 : 11:27:29 AM
|
VErn
the last thing you want in the field is a deaf horse. Horses often warn of approaching danger through sight, smell and sound. You want a horse that can hear your commands.
And there was little or no mounted firingdone in the plains Army. Troopers were lucky to get a few dozen bullets a YEAR for target practice which was not done often.
alfuso |
Deny Everything
Prepare to Panic |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - December 13 2005 : 12:15:29 PM
|
It was originally, and somewhat continually to this day, stated that 'you could see' Custer's guys fought as companies because there were roughly five groups of dead, and Custer had five companies. That really could be as much coincidence and conjecture as fact. 'Companies' were ID'd by guess. Their officers weren't always with them, but if the only recognizeable bodies were of one company, than the others were assumed to be as well. In the Keogh and Custer horrendoplasty, there are troopers from at least three and four companies down together. Nobody agrees what the hell C was doing, or under who, or where. We DON'T know, but just assume, that T.Custer was acting as his brother's aide that day, to unknown purpose and need.
But to Alfuso's point: what is marked on that map as Smith and T.Custer's groups probably aren't, really. If you believe the stories of the Indians and the first impressions of the burying soldiers, about 27 soldiers ran from Custer Hill to Deep Coulee, but their markers in 1890 were placed above the coulee. Together with (possible/likely/who knows?)spurious markers that leaves the impression of a line, but isn't. The remaining bodies could just as easily be from a driven ascent as a panicked return. We don't know, and have no basis for much more than guess.
The most decorated soldier from Vietnam, whose name escapes me as I type, who was put in charge of the My Lai investigation, said something that makes soldiers squirm but is obviously true: the first thing survivors of an action do is get their story straight. Not because they're liars and trying to cover up some horror, although that can happen (and did at My Lai), but because half the time they don't know what happened when and an honest expression of that confusion about one's own actions SEEMS suspicious to those in the media and civilian life who've never undergone that trauma. So, get a working plausibility going. That makes sense to me, and is utterly innocent and understandable, and I think even in Victorian Montana, these things were at work. Benteen seems to have recognized this and opted to play it rather than not. He's guilty of spin doctoring about a lot of 50-50 calls that went wrong.
They didn't know what happened (although having understandably guilty suspicions)but some wanted, and needed, to throw a gossamer of minimal competence and dignity over what could have been a confused and utter rout. The actual details of someone's death was seen as subservient to his professional dignity and overall life. I really think you see, in the LBH, an event on the cusp of competing social forms of remembrance and military honesty to the public. I think this sort of thinking permeating the military led Sweet and others to consciously or not conform to a theory the companies fought and fell together, because they 'should' have. That's what was said to have happened at Sedan (the Battle of the Last Cartridge) in 1870, and it was the last public template to which LBH had to conform. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - December 13 2005 : 4:52:20 PM
|
i]They didn't know what happened (although having understandably guilty suspicions)but some wanted, and needed, to throw a gossamer of minimal competence and dignity over what could have been a confused and utter rout.
DC
Do you think that the markers represent anything other than a complete rout.Are you suggesting Sweet placed the markers to conform to some sort of organised defence?
I think this sort of thinking permeating the military
Far from it.The Last Stand is a total civvy fabrication.No where will you find an offical military apologia for that disaster.Take any litrature on great military blunders and there you will find in pride of place Custer's adventure along the LBH.
but if the only recognizeable bodies were of one company, than the others were assumed to be as well.
The markers were placed to "indicate" individuals not companies.Perhaps one could assume the position of Keogh and Calhoun's companies but the rest are just a jumble.
We DON'T know, but just assume, that T.Custer was acting as his brother's aide that day, to unknown purpose and need.[/i]
If C company was in the lead then it would have been possible for Tom to have acted as aide and have his company close by as well.[Harrington was perhaps too junior to take command of a troop in action]Which would place C company on LSH. |
Edited by - wILD I on December 13 2005 4:56:41 PM |
|
|
|
Vern Humphrey
Captain
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - December 13 2005 : 5:00:19 PM
|
quote:
VErn
the last thing you want in the field is a deaf horse. Horses often warn of approaching danger through sight, smell and sound. You want a horse that can hear your commands.
And there was little or no mounted firingdone in the plains Army. Troopers were lucky to get a few dozen bullets a YEAR for target practice which was not done often.
It's pretty well established that they did have deaf horses -- in fact, I had a friend (since passed away) who was an old horse cavalryman from the 1930s. He used to say the secret to the mounted pistol course was to have a deaf horse.
Go to any cowboy mounted shooting event today and you will see earplugs used -- they didn't have earplugs in the old days.
And while they didn't do a lot of shooting, they did some. And it doesn't take much -- especially if you want to deafen the horse. |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - December 13 2005 : 6:30:31 PM
|
Wild, by paragraph.
1. No, I don't, and have said as much. But I don't know, and there is reason to think Calhoun's unit fought well and coherently. The 7th thought so. As to Sweet, I can only say after looking at the Fouche photos a mere year after the battle that God only knows what Sweet based his marker placement upon fourteen years after that. Face it, we apparently have not a clue how many skulls are actually under the monument and how many still buried on the field. Twenty some odd are in the cemetary that we were assured had been gathered up and put in the memorial and materialized over the years, which is nearly 10% of Custer's men right there alone. If suspicions are correct and 27 more turn up in a coulee at some date, that means at least 30% of Custer's dead were lost. Just recall Connell saying that lush growth was considered a sign of a body at one point.
Further, either Ryan and those guys lied or the 1877 crew clearly did NOT get Custer's body sent to WP a year later.
2. No, it wasn't a civvie fabrication, although civvies were trained to expect it. At the Inquest several officers said it looked like the LSH area was a last stand. You confuse this Army as institution with soldiers and their affections and sense of appropriate dignity for their peers and on behalf of, often enough, family. Custer blundered and from Grant on that was the Army line, but the Army did not say the 7th fell apart but fought heroically in lock step with elements of the 7th and Mrs. Custer.
The 7th married each other's sisters and had all sorts of alliances. Who could imagine saying "Hi Maggie, your husband, three brothers, and a nephew are dead because of your brother's error, along with more than 250 others. Also, the dead were all gutted and mutilated. Further, to tell you the truth, it looks like they all panicked, shot their horses to hide behind, and tried to run for it at the end. Us? We didn't know and stayed with Reno. We suffered. I have this rash." That's probably what it felt like to those who survived confronting the widows.
3. The wooden markers WERE originally placed to indicate individuals but early assumptions were drawn, and there was at Keogh's spot a company memorial, by photo, and maybe elsewhere for other companies. If so, an early assumption could have become cemented into fact. But look at these Fouche photos and you can see that the vast majority of wooden stakes - assuming they were actually placed - were gone a year later. Like I say, where there is now a sea of marble there are maybe ten stakes in that first photo on LSH in 1877.
4. Yeah, fine and could be true. But we DON'T know, but just assume, that T.Custer was acting as his brother's aide that day, to unknown purpose and need. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
AZ Ranger
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - December 14 2005 : 09:02:55 AM
|
quote:
It's pretty well established that they did have deaf horses -- in fact, I had a friend (since passed away) who was an old horse cavalryman from the 1930s. He used to say the secret to the mounted pistol course was to have a deaf horse.
Vern are you saying all the horses were deaf? I would like to see the source. |
“ An officer's first duty is to his horses.”
SEMPER FI |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Springfield Carbine
