| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
 Posted - November 28 2005 : 11:20:13 AM
|
Well, my point is we don't know the proportion of which cartridge load the 7th carried. Varnum's scouts had 70 grain, he says, but doesn't know what others had. If, for example, nobody in Custer's group had the 70 powder load, it wasn't a soldier at that battle who fired those shells, and they must have appeared later, if indeed they are 70 grain casings. We don't know who carried what, or when, and that's why drawing conclusions from these casings is iffy at best.
What in the world is beyond reason that the casings from one carbine were fired by one Indian with a captured gun and not one soldier? Further, we know the Indians said they found boxes of ammo, and we know they cheerfully desecrated enemy dead, and that the burials of the soldiers and officers was notional for at least a year after the battle. It would be too great a coincidence to think desecration did not happen, and happen a lot. Occam's Razor in spades, indeed. Wooden Leg was apparently there. Others, who commented on the smell of the field, must have been as well. No, they would not thrill white folks with their stories of blowing apart Army dead. But the dead were visible, the custom is uncontested with much corroboration, and to think the dead of LBH were exempt isn't compelling.
I understand the two decade ago fire exposed a number of casings subjected to forensic examination. Other than the fact these were fired shells, manufactured at a certain time, and were found where they were found, nothing was proven, or can be proven. Who shot what when? Still unknown.
Soldiers from Ft. Custer were there often. I believe we do know that salutes were fired over various burials, including the two monument mass grave dedications, the burial of the Fetterman dead by the monument, and in fact it would be very unlike the Army not to have fired salutes at soldier burials, would it not? Were the casings immediately or ever policed? I think the periodic appearence of skulls and bodies - previously assuredly buried with due respect and honor - speaks of the attention to detail of the Army in Da'Fugawe Montana back then.
Periodically, the keepers of the field remarked through the years that it had been picked clean, and then - suddenly! without explanation - that issue vanishes and cartridges appeared again....in spades. I doubt any Army officer or Superintendent would want to host VIP tourists who'd want souveniers and not be able to assure them of that. It was a long, hot trip to nowhere not to take back a battle item. Yes it was illegal. Yes, it was also the sort to thing the VIP would remember and write about. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
  |
|
|
Vern Humphrey
Captain
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - November 28 2005 : 11:49:35 AM
|
Well, my point is we don't know the proportion of which cartridge load the 7th carried. Varnum's scouts had 70 grain, he says, but doesn't know what others had.
Since we cannot idenify the charge, we cannot tell if the whole regiment had .45-70s. But Varnum's testimony tells us that some of the regiment had them -- and that makes it likely the whole regiment had them -- as if that matters in this case.
quote:
If, for example, nobody in Custer's group had the 70 powder load, it wasn't a soldier at that battle who fired those shells, and they must have appeared later, if indeed they are 70 grain casings. We don't know who carried what, or when, and that's why drawing conclusions from these casings is iffy at best.
Except that we don't know:
1. That the 7th had a mixture of ammo, and,
2. We cannot tell the difference between a fired .45-70 and a .45-55.
quote:
What in the world is beyond reason that the casings from one carbine were fired by one Indian with a captured gun and not one soldier?
Because we have to "invent" this indian who supposedly picked up and used a Springfield carbine, following exactly the pattern of the survivor's retreat.
We do now, however, have to invent a trooper from Calhoon's company -- we know they were there, with their carbines. We follow the pattern of identical cases, and we can clearly see one man moving back from Calhoon's to Keough's companies.
quote:
Further, we know the Indians said they found boxes of ammo, and we know they cheerfully desecrated enemy dead,
Not according to Lieutenant Bradley, who was the first white man on the scene. The mutilation was mostly on those who fell near the village -- a few men from Custer's command killed near the river and whose bodies were dragged into the camp, or from Reno's fight in the bottoms.
quote:
and that the burials of the soldiers and officers was notional for at least a year after the battle.
It may not have been to national cemetary standards, but they were buried and markers placed. Some officers were personally identified. When we match up the identies of the officers and the pattern of the bodies, we can make perfect sense of what happened.
quote:
It would be too great a coincidence to think desecration did not happen, and happen a lot. Occam's Razor in spades, indeed. Wooden Leg was apparently there. Others, who commented on the smell of the field, must have been as well. No, they would not thrill white folks with their stories of blowing apart Army dead. But the dead were visible, the custom is uncontested with much corroboration, and to think the dead of LBH were exempt isn't compelling.
As I pointed out, the eye witnesses say differently.
quote:
I understand the two decade ago fire exposed a number of casings subjected to forensic examination. Other than the fact these were fired shells, manufactured at a certain time, and were found where they were found, nothing was proven, or can be proven. Who shot what when? Still unknown.
When you find a thousand or more cases on a battlefield where over 600 troopers and a couple of thousand indians fought, it is likely the combatants fired most of the cases.
The pattern in which they lie, and the pattern of the bodies tells us a lot about what happened.
quote:
Soldiers from Ft. Custer were there often. I believe we do know that salutes were fired over various burials, including the two monument mass grave dedications, the burial of the Fetterman dead by the monument, and in fact it would be very unlike the Army not to have fired salutes at soldier burials, would it not? Were the casings immediately or ever policed?quote:
The Army generally required fired brass to be turned in -- I can remember when you needed a light bulb in quarters, you had to turn in the old bulb.
quote:
I think the periodic appearence of skulls and bodies - previously assuredly buried with due respect and honor - speaks of the attention to detail of the Army in Da'Fugawe Montana back then.
The skull in question was found in the bottoms, where Reno first fought -- and what it tells us is there is a lot of evidence scattered on the battlefield.
[quote]Periodically, the keepers of the field remarked through the years that it had been picked clean, and then - suddenly! without explanation - that issue vanishes and cartridges appeared again....in spades. I doubt any Army officer or Superintendent would want to host VIP tourists who'd want souveniers and not be able to assure them of that. It was a long, hot trip to nowhere not to take back a battle item. Yes it was illegal. Yes, it was also the sort to thing the VIP would remember and write about.
Again we have to "invent" someone who salted the battlefield, and a VIP for whom it was salted -- we have no evidence that any such thing ever happened.
And we cannot explain how a "salted" case would forensically match one found elsewhere on the battlefield -- their positions making good tactical sense.
|
|
|
|
Smcf
Captain
Status: offline |
Posted - November 28 2005 : 12:27:39 PM
|
| Again, Michno lists found artifacts including un-fired rounds which were identified as 45/55. Coupled with the fact that the correct ammo was 45/55 and the only known 70 grain casings found were 50/70 - obviously belonging to a different weapon entirely, this has to be put on the scales along Varnum's statement of his own company ammo, and his assumptions about others. Just to balance it up. |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - November 28 2005 : 2:09:26 PM
|
We have to invent no Indian. Fox himself made a deal over firing a carbine that had been in Indian custody since the battle, and casings from it were found. No usable carbine was found on the field after the battle. So the Indians had them. Who fired the casings is unknown. As is when they were fired. Witnesses claimed firing into bodies was seen from Weir Point, itself iffy.
Varnum says his guys took .45/70's, doesn't know about the others. Don't know why it would make it likely the whole regiment took them as apparently they traded with infantry. In any case, Fox and Scott say they were mostly .45/55, don't they? They have no more basis for their conclusion than you do for yours. We don't know. But if you're going to claim them 70's, you have to prove the five companies with Custer had them. And argue with those who seem to disagree.
When you have a battlefield like LBH which was heavily visited by Indians and soldiers both, and where the place was cheerfully pillaged by trainloads of picnic driven tourists soon after, that may or may not be true about the thousands of casings being from the battle. I know folks older than I who recall finding and keeping stuff in their youth and riding horses on the field as well. Nobody ever thought it would be a hugely popular place or that it would matter.
The pattern of the bodies? The pattern of the markers, you mean. Custer's body, the one supposedly given the most attention, isn't described in the exhumation anywhere near in the same fashion as the description of his burial, and few think they got the right one for West Point. 20% of the markers belong elsewhere. Which ones? Five are missing. Some mean nothing, as they were placed where sticks once stood based on lush growth. It can't tell us much, if anything.
Boyeur's skull was found on the field. The one recently found in the river bank was not counted by the officers. Many 'experts' think there are bodies still in the bottom of a coulee. Explain the difference in pattern between the shells of a soldier retreating and a Sioux approaching using the soldier's gun. How would you discern one from another? You'll be reduced to saying the 'pattern' is not incompatible with what you suggest, but also of other activity. After all, how would you discern that pattern from the one left by a Sioux blowing apart skulls after the battle?
If the Army required soldiers to turn in brass, then of course it happened, especially during the late 19th century.
Bradley is only one eyewitness, whose sensibilities (I think; Markland disagreed)would preclude him from dwelling on the unpleasant. Most of the others disagree with him, including the Indians who cheerfully showed mass disfigurement in their renderings. Godfrey ended up saying all were mutilated horribly EXCEPT Custer (herself was still alive), which is unlikely. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
Vern Humphrey
Captain
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - November 28 2005 : 2:39:20 PM
|
quote:
Again, Michno lists found artifacts including un-fired rounds which were identified as 45/55. Coupled with the fact that the correct ammo was 45/55 and the only known 70 grain casings found were 50/70 - obviously belonging to a different weapon entirely, this has to be put on the scales along Varnum's statement of his own company ammo, and his assumptions about others. Just to balance it up.
Okay, assume some companies had .45-55 ammo. What does that tell us? We cannot tell fired .45-55 cases from .45-70s.
However, we can tell that a cartridge case picked up at point X was fired in the same carbine as one picked up at point Y. And when we begin to collate that with other hard evidence we begin to get a clearer picture of what happened. |
|
|
|
Vern Humphrey
Captain
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - November 28 2005 : 3:03:12 PM
|
quote:
We have to invent no Indian. Fox himself made a deal over firing a carbine that had been in Indian custody since the battle, and casings from it were found. No usable carbine was found on the field after the battle. So the Indians had them. Who fired the casings is unknown.
Yes -- but the simplest assumption that fits all the facts is that the man who was issued the carbine is the man who fired it.
And as I say, there are several instances where we can track both a specific indian weapon or a cavalry carbine across the field. In every instance, the "track" is buttressed by other facts -- including the disposition of the bodies.
In the specific case I cite, look at the map. Calhoon and Keogh's companies are about a half mile appart -- clearly not part of a mutually-supporting defense. Further, the bodies lying between the company postions (including Calhoon's) show Calhoon's company deployed, made a stand of some kind, then disintegrated, the survivors fleeing toward Keogh's company.
The evidence of the fired cases dovetails with this very nicely.
quote:
As is when they were fired. Witnesses claimed firing into bodies was seen from Weir Point, itself iffy.
There were four men with Custerwhose horses foundered. These man were send back on foot, and two of them reached Reno's ridge. That leaves two men who were probably killed between Custer's position and Weir point.
quote:
Varnum says his guys took .45/70's, doesn't know about the others. Don't know why it would make it likely the whole regiment took them as apparently they traded with infantry. In any case, Fox and Scott say they were mostly .45/55, don't they? They have no more basis for their conclusion than you do for yours. We don't know. But if you're going to claim them 70's, you have to prove the five companies with Custer had them. And argue with those who seem to disagree.
What difference does it make? It is the forensic identification of the cases and their location on the battlefield, not the powder charge, that tells us what happened.
quote:
When you have a battlefield like LBH which was heavily visited by Indians and soldiers both, and where the place was cheerfully pillaged by trainloads of picnic driven tourists soon after, that may or may not be true about the thousands of casings being from the battle. I know folks older than I who recall finding and keeping stuff in their youth and riding horses on the field as well. Nobody ever thought it would be a hugely popular place or that it would matter.
Nevertheless, literally thousands of cases have been found, and the survey (or GPS) location of the find is known. And those cases have been subject to forensic examination.
To find one case -- or a dozen -- fired years after the battle is one thing. To find cases from the same weapon scattered along a clear line of retreat is something else entirely.
quote:
The pattern of the bodies? The pattern of the markers, you mean. Custer's body, the one supposedly given the most attention, isn't described in the exhumation anywhere near in the same fashion as the description of his burial, and few think they got the right one for West Point. 20% of the markers belong elsewhere. Which ones? Five are missing. Some mean nothing, as they were placed where sticks once stood based on lush growth. It can't tell us much, if anything.
We have enough that were placed correctly to show us a clear pattern.
quote:
Boyeur's skull was found on the field. The one recently found in the river bank was not counted by the officers. Many 'experts' think there are bodies still in the bottom of a coulee. Explain the difference in pattern between the shells of a soldier retreating and a Sioux approaching using the soldier's gun. How would you discern one from another?
First of all, look at where known Sioux cases are found. They are generally not found in the same pattern as the troopers'. For example, there were a lot of '73 Springfield cases amongst the grave markers at Keogh's company. Non-Springfield cases are mostly found outside that pattern
quote:
You'll be reduced to saying the 'pattern' is not incompatible with what you suggest, but also of other activity. After all, how would you discern that pattern from the one left by a Sioux blowing apart skulls after the battle?
Because by no means all skulls were blown apart. a random activity -- shooting at some bodies, but not others -- does not leave the same pattern of cartridge cases as a firefight by a unit fixed in position.
quote:
If the Army required soldiers to turn in brass, then of course it happened, especially during the late 19th century.
At a formal ceremony, yes. Don't you know what happens to the brass from a salute to the dead?
quote:
Bradley is only one eyewitness, whose sensibilities (I think; Markland disagreed)would preclude him from dwelling on the unpleasant.
His testimony is emphatic on the point. It dovetails nicely with indian custom and other reports -- mutilation was mostly done by the women, and the badly mutilated bodies were those which fell close to the village.
quote:
Most of the others disagree with him, including the Indians who cheerfully showed mass disfigurement in their renderings. Godfrey ended up saying all were mutilated horribly EXCEPT Custer (herself was still alive), which is unlikely.
Who disagrees with Bradley? All the stories of mutilation trace back to newspaper accounts, which were filed by people who were not there, based on rumors and stories. |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - November 28 2005 : 3:07:32 PM
|
That may be true - I don't know - but how? I asked how you can discern a difference between a trail of casings until you know which direction the trail was going and who carried the gun. I don't think anyone can, and it's just malleable for whatever view you have. I know Fox and Scott and others have claimed the "clear" evidence of positioning, but I don't think it eliminates other equally plausible scenarios.
The .45/70 vs. .45/55 issue is of no moment up to the point you claim the Custer guys had the 70. At that point, if the found casings are only, or mostly, 55's there is an issue. Currently, we cannot tell the difference, relying on stuffing marks to denote the 55. But if we claim one load and it turns out the found shells were of another, they weren't used in the battle by either side. If we don't even know what ammo was used, what do we know at all?
By the way, I repeat I have no clue. I'm just saying far, far too much is made of the archaeology because it was one of the first - or the first - application of it to battlefield analysis. This is the Heidi Fleiss of battlefields, unprotected and distant for decades, and I doubt anything much can be learned. Even the buried garbage at Reno field Scott thought had been pillaged, and that was buried. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - November 28 2005 : 3:27:21 PM
|
Weir was interested in being in on the glory of victory, not rescuing Custer when he lurched off, I'd think,
Just to pick you up on that DC.I think you do weir an injustice.Weir saw the message from Custer and made no response to it.He did not urge Benteen forward to the rescue.Then they come upon Reno's command and see the state of it.Now the message means so much more.Yet still Weir waits for the senior officers to react to a what is obviously a critical position for Custer.He asks for permission to ride to the sound of the firing and is refused so he takes off himself.This is not a man seeking glory.Benteen knows full well that if Weir gets through to Custer he is in deep dodo.So all thought of helping the wounded and setting up defensive positions is forgotten.Only one thing matters now and that is Benteen's hide. |
Edited by - wILD I on November 28 2005 3:29:23 PM |
|
|
|
Vern Humphrey
Captain
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - November 28 2005 : 3:28:06 PM
|
quote:
That may be true - I don't know - but how? I asked how you can discern a difference between a trail of casings until you know which direction the trail was going and who carried the gun. I don't think anyone can, and it's just malleable for whatever view you have. I know Fox and Scott and others have claimed the "clear" evidence of positioning, but I don't think it eliminates other equally plausible scenarios.
Look at the map. Clearly Calhoon and Keough were not in mutually-supporting positions, nor were the other three companies in position to support either Calhoon and Keough.
That tells us that Calhoon and Keough fought independently. The position of the bodies between Calhoon and Keough's companies tells us that survivors from Calhoon's company ran toward Keough's company.
Now when we find a Springfield cartridge case within Calhoon's position, it isn't likely someone from Keough's company left it there. It was fired by one of Calhoon's men. When we find a matching case within Keough's position, it was clearly fired by the same man who fired it earier.
quote:
The .45/70 vs. .45/55 issue is of no moment up to the point you claim the Custer guys had the 70.
I don't "claim" either way. I merely point out that the two cartridges, but for charge weight are identical. Varnum says his company had .45-70s, and it is plausible other companies had .45-70s. They might have had .45-55s, but so what?
quote:
At that point, if the found casings are only, or mostly, 55's there is an issue. Currently, we cannot tell the difference, relying on stuffing marks to denote the 55. But if we claim one load and it turns out the found shells were of another, they weren't used in the battle by either side. If we don't even know what ammo was used, what do we know at all?
The charge weight is not germain to the issue we are discussing here.
quote:
By the way, I repeat I have no clue. I'm just saying far, far too much is made of the archaeology because it was one of the first - or the first - application of it to battlefield analysis. This is the Heidi Fleiss of battlefields, unprotected and distant for decades, and I doubt anything much can be learned. Even the buried garbage at Reno field Scott thought had been pillaged, and that was buried.
It's no more disturbed than many another battlefield -- in fact, probably better protected than many. |
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - November 28 2005 : 3:52:51 PM
|
| The main movement of ammo and weapons came about through the transfer of ownership from trooper to Indian.So to distinguish the few cartridges which did in fact move position legitimately must have been a task of herculean proportions backed by a dash of Loures faith. |
|
|
|
Vern Humphrey
Captain
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - November 28 2005 : 4:11:36 PM
|
quote:
The main movement of ammo and weapons came about through the transfer of ownership from trooper to Indian.So to distinguish the few cartridges which did in fact move position legitimately must have been a task of herculean proportions backed by a dash of Loures faith.
Only if you choose to ignore evidence. Cases found within a position are not the same as cases found on an indian position without the defenses.
My original claim was "With 12 companies, Custer never got more than 3 into action at one time."
Clearly, the battlefield evidence supports that claim. The companies of Keough and Calhoon were out of supporting distance of those of Yeates, TW Custer and AE Smith's. That makes it obvious that at best two fights were going on at the same time, one in the east and one in the west.
In the east, the evidence shows that Calhoon's company was overrun first. Survivors fled toward Keough's company -- showing that the two companies probably were attacked successively, not simultaneously.
In the west, Yeates, TW Custer and AE Smith's companies show some semblence of a mutually-supporting defense. The survivors of those companies went more or less north, towards Custer's final location.
The likelyhood that four companies were putting up an effective defense at the same time is slim, since clearly the companies in the west were given a different task from those in the east -- Calhoon and Keough were probably assigned a rear-guard mission to let the rest of the force get to a better defensive position.
If anyone has any evidence that Custer did get more than three companies into action simultaneously, let him post it. |
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - November 28 2005 : 4:54:56 PM
|
If anyone has any evidence that Custer did get more than three companies into action simultaneously, let him post it.
I think the evidence shows Custer was trying to get his companies out of action.
As regards using Keogh and Calhoun as a rearguard there was no rear.
Only if you choose to ignore evidence. Cases found within a position are not the same as cases found on an indian position without the defenses.
If Calhoun went down first then most of his troop's weapons and ammo were used in and around Keogh's position. |
Edited by - wILD I on November 28 2005 4:58:24 PM |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - November 28 2005 : 4:57:08 PM
|
I think you're taking a lot of stuff more on faith than fact. It's been assumed, not without reason but assumed nonetheless, that Calhoun's men fell before Keogh's but we don't know that. Positions - especially Indian but some soldiers' -are, for the most part, assumptions, based entirely on found casings that might not be part of the battle but after. Keogh and Calhoun certainly were in close enough for some support. And where they fell may have been their location of briefest duration. Keogh's men could have fired from what later became Calhoun's position. They could have fought together till Keogh went north. What "isn't likely" is that assumptions based on guesswork are of much value. Fun, but who knows? A Sioux with a new gun and lots of ammo walks the field from north to south with, say, Cooke's carbine and could leave the same evidence on Keogh and Calhoun's position as you've described while assuming the opposite. And he could have done this on Monday.
If Custer's men took 70 loads and at a later time science - Ommmmmmmmmm, Bow and Scrape Ye Inferiors!!!........Science! - improves to where we can tell what load the casings are, and they were 55, then none of the casings found on the field could belong to Custer's men and would be valueless, indicating nothing of the battle. Or vice versa. But we don't know enough to eliminate the possibility of them not having been part of the battle, but fired hours after or the next day when there were plenty of guns and ammo for a fun family activity before taking off. LBH is one of the few battlefields of the Indian Wars with enough personnel to warrant (ent?) study with evidence assumed from the battle. Things may suggest, but they are far, far from proof.
Again. Look at your map and where the markers are. A huge number of about 20% do not belong there, but at Reno or across the river. About five are missing and need to be reintroduced. Twenty-seven, I think, are on the hill but should be in one of the coulees where the bodies still, supposedly, are. Without conflicting with any evidence, you can move the remainder around a lot, and what seemed firing lines vanish, or in some cases what looks like a last stand with lots of stones, looks like else without as many. And that's assuming the stones are accurate. We know Custer's and that group are not accurate, and were moved for the monument. So stretch out whatever number in that clump to the top. Looks very different. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
Vern Humphrey
Captain
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - November 28 2005 : 5:22:15 PM
|
quote:
I think you're taking a lot of stuff more on faith than fact. quote:
We don't know that the sun will come up in the morning -- but if serious money were at stake, I know how I'd bet.
quote:
It's been assumed, not without reason but assumed nonetheless, that Calhoun's men fell before Keogh's but we don't know that.
As I said, if absolute certainty -- metaphysical or mathmatical proof -- is the standard, there isn't much at all that we know.
But the evidence very heavily favors Calhoon's company being overrun before Keough's.
quote:
Positions - especially Indian but some soldiers' -are, for the most part, assumptions, based entirely on found casings that might not be part of the battle but after.
No. There are many facts that can be collated -- cartridge case positions plus battle positions, for example. The collated facts tell us more than any single fact looked at in isolation.
quote:
Keogh and Calhoun certainly were in close enough for some support.
You'll have to explain that to me -- just how was Keough supporting Calhoon, or vice-versa?
quote:
And where they fell may have been their location of briefest duration.
Where they fell is, by definition, the critical point -- it is where the decision was reached. It's where the killing occurred.
quote:
Keogh's men could have fired from what later became Calhoun's position. They could have fought together till Keogh went north.
If that happened it had to happen before Calhooon was decisively engaged, which is to say, before the serious fighting started.
quote:
What "isn't likely" is that assumptions based on guesswork are of much value. Fun, but who knows? A Sioux with a new gun and lots of ammo walks the field from north to south with, say, Cooke's carbine and could leave the same evidence on Keogh and Calhoun's position as you've described while assuming the opposite. And he could have done this on Monday.
Yes - but we have to invent this Sioux. That is, we have to assume he existed and did what we suppose. We don't have to invent Calhoon or Keough's men. We know they were there.
quote:
If Custer's men took 70 loads and at a later time science - Ommmmmmmmmm, Bow and Scrape Ye Inferiors!!!........Science! - improves to where we can tell what load the casings are, and they were 55, then none of the casings found on the field could belong to Custer's men and would be valueless, indicating nothing of the battle. Or vice versa. But we don't know enough to eliminate the possibility of them not having been part of the battle, but fired hours after or the next day when there were plenty of guns and ammo for a fun family activity before taking off. LBH is one of the few battlefields of the Indian Wars with enough personnel to warrant (ent?) study with evidence assumed from the battle. Things may suggest, but they are far, far from proof.
As I said, if metaphysical proof is your standard, there is not very much that we know at all.
quote:
Again. Look at your map and where the markers are. A huge number of about 20% do not belong there, but at Reno or across the river. About five are missing and need to be reintroduced. Twenty-seven, I think, are on the hill but should be in one of the coulees where the bodies still, supposedly, are.
Yes -- and if we were talking about a different incident in the action, that might be germane. But in discussing the location of the five companies Custer had with him, it is clear they were divided into two groups -- and those two groups were not mutually supporting.
When we look at Keough and Calhoon's companies, we see they were not mutually supporting. And locating some bodies more accurately (such as those who fell fleeing toward or in the coulee or across the river) doesn't change the basic facts.
I think we can agree that -- regardless of errors in placing some markers -- Companies C, E, F, I and L fell where the map shows.
[quote]Without conflicting with any evidence, you can move the remainder around a lot, and what seemed firing lines vanish,
Which firing lines vanish? Which companies are significantly "moved" and to where?
[quote]or in some cases what looks like a last stand with lots of stones, looks like else without as many. And that's assuming the stones are accurate. We know Custer's and that group are not accurate, and were moved for the monument. So stretch out whatever number in that clump to the top. Looks very different.
How does it look significantly different? In what way does it "move" companies C, E, F, I and L? |
|
|
|
Vern Humphrey
Captain
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - November 28 2005 : 5:28:41 PM
|
quote:
If anyone has any evidence that Custer did get more than three companies into action simultaneously, let him post it.
I think the evidence shows Custer was trying to get his companies out of action.
Which bolsters my case that he didn't get more than three companies into action at any one time.
quote:
As regards using Keogh and Calhoun as a rearguard there was no rear.
How do you square this with your comment that "the evidence shows Custer was trying to get his companies out of action?" To get out of action, he had to move away from the threat. At the time Keough and Calhoon's companies were dropped off, that was to the east.
quote:
Only if you choose to ignore evidence. Cases found within a position are not the same as cases found on an indian position without the defenses.
If Calhoun went down first then most of his troop's weapons and ammo were used in and around Keogh's position.
There are two key points here:
1. In and around are two different things -- and we find most known indian cartridge cases around, not in the positions.
2. In all liklihood, most of the carbines lay where they fell and were picked up later. We know the indians stripped the corpses before going after Reno and Benteen again, and most weapons were probably picked up at that time. |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - November 29 2005 : 12:07:57 AM
|
1. But the evidence very heavily favors Calhoon's company being overrun before Keough's.
What evidence would that be?
2.No. There are many facts that can be collated -- cartridge case positions plus battle positions, for example. The collated facts tell us more than any single fact looked at in isolation.
"Battle positions" are often based on cartridges, and markers; neither are strong for surety. You're collating assumptions, not "facts" regarding time. Reasonable, yes, but not fact.
3. You'll have to explain that to me -- just how was Keough supporting Calhoon, or vice-versa?
I didn't say they did, only close enough to if they actually fought from those final positions. You definitely said they were too far apart, and I disagreed.
4. Where they fell is, by definition, the critical point -- it is where the decision was reached. It's where the killing occurred.
Where the kill occured, maybe (bodies and wooden stakes were dragged and moved...) but nothing else. You could fight for an hour at a point, then run fifty yards in panic and be shot.
5. If that happened it had to happen before Calhooon was decisively engaged, which is to say, before the serious fighting started.
You know that how? How do you know Keogh wasn't engaged before Calhoun?
6. Yes - but we have to invent this Sioux. That is, we have to assume he existed and did what we suppose. We don't have to invent Calhoon or Keough's men. We know they were there.
We're not inventing him; we just can't name him. We don't know a particular Sioux's name, but we know he was motivated to desecrate the dead, had nothing to stop him, and ample opportunity and arms. It would be bizarre is such did not happen in contravention of every other Sioux and Cheyenne battle for centuries before and years after. He was there as surely as Calho -u -n's men were and Keogh's. We know this was as likely or more so than our assumptions about Custer's alleged firing lines.
7. As I said, if metaphysical proof is your standard, there is not very much that we know at all
What about my example smacks of the metaphysical? I'm contesting your assumptions of evidence.
8. When we look at Keough and Calhoon's companies, we see they were not mutually supporting. And locating some bodies more accurately (such as those who fell fleeing toward or in the coulee or across the river) doesn't change the basic facts.
I don't see why they could not have supported each other. We aren't looking at the companies, we're looking at questionable markers, 20% of which need to go away. Where do you say Co. C fell, because those bodies were all over, and their horses missing? (Or, for that matter, E?) Where Sweet put the extra markers IS a big deal, because it's quite possible the "South skirmish line" isn't, and those stones should be in a gulley. But I said firing line, not skirmish. My error.
It takes a believing mind to think wooden stakes marking bodies covered with notional dirt survived the winter, and that bodies weren't dug up and dragged around by men and beast. The stones could be accurate but are more likely to be, as someone told me, an artistic interpretation.
In any case, if you do what I suggested with the marker map, you have to decide where the fifty odd markers have to be removed from. If you assume that the spurious markers were placed in proportion, as Gray did, it looks much more lonesome. But if Sweet put them in convenient spots along the hogback with Keogh or just on Custer Hill, it really changes a lot if you take them out. We don't know at all, but with the 27 supposed buried in the coulee, that means 70 odd markers disappear from sight on the field. Out of only 260 something, that's quite a bit and changes what the view traditionally has implied to people. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
Smcf
Captain
Status: offline |
Posted - November 29 2005 : 06:27:02 AM
|
Wasn't there doubling up of markers as a clue to the placement of the 43 extras? I think Gray makes a very good case for Sweet preserving the shape of the battlefield, given the difficulties he faced.
Harping on again about the cartidge weights, the question of the carbine's role in the LBH defeat was addressed by assessing the failure rate due to heavy fire. The carbine was exonerated with a very low failure rate - but the ammo used was 44/55. To my knowledge, no such tests were carried out with black powder 45/50 ammo in carbines, which raises the ghost of weapon failure again.
As to Varnum, the feeling I get from the responses on this thread is that the 7th were hardly the most proficient outfit in terms of weapons training, yet strong weight is attached to his assertion that his company carried rifle rather than carbine ammo. The only reference I have of him firing on Reno Hill was when he popped a few rounds from over the bluff on Reno Hill - and he had to borrow someone else's weapon to do it. |
Edited by - Smcf on November 29 2005 06:49:02 AM |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - November 29 2005 : 09:02:51 AM
|
SMCF,
I like Gray, and he makes a reasonable case, but the fact is we do not know if reason, laziness, imp of the perverse, or boredom motivated Sweet. Really, the reasonable thing was to bunch the Reno dead in a clump and saying these represent those four miles away so as not to distort the field. Even, however, if Gray is 100% correct and you take away 1 out of every five in sequence, and then take 27 or whatever and put them in the coulee, it really, really changes the feel of the field and images of the last stand. It's about one third of the stones missing from sight, and it's hard to claim such a deduction isn't rather stunning. As Wild and others have suggested, if most or all the spurious markers were put on Custer Hill (which needs to have a significant percentage of whatever markers there spread out over the monument area), or along the Keogh, Calhoun Trail, it really looks much thinner, scarier, and far less like an organized fight, the evidence for which has never been strong.
My harping on the ammo is only to point out that we simply do not even know the ammo used by the soldiers, yet look at the threads of "analysis" concerned with "ballistics" in attempts to prove whatever. People argue about fouling of the weapons without knowing the ammo used, and as you say, that's rather relevant, although I still hold that the training would have revealed the problems had it occured. That's why I think it silly, often enough.
I give no strong weight to Varnum, except he was the guy who thought the Indians' best weapons were the carbines from Custer, that he noted the difference from the zip to zing sound of heavier loads, and that he had assumed others had grabbed the 70 load as well. Just saying, you need to know the ammo before claiming ballistics evidence, I'd think, and using it to suggest how a battle was fought. I'm low in my supposition it can be done anyway. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
Vern Humphrey
Captain
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - November 29 2005 : 10:07:04 AM
|
quote:
1. But the evidence very heavily favors Calhoon's company being overrun before Keough's.
What evidence would that be?
The terrain, the position of the bodies, indicating men ran from Calhoon's company to Keough's (and not vice-versa) and the finding of Calhoon cartridge cases in Keough's position.
quote:
"Battle positions" are often based on cartridges, and markers; neither are strong for surety. You're collating assumptions, not "facts" regarding time. Reasonable, yes, but not fact.
The facts are the physical aspects of the field.
quote:
3. You'll have to explain that to me -- just how was Keough supporting Calhoon, or vice-versa?
I didn't say they did, only close enough to if they actually fought from those final positions. You definitely said they were too far apart, and I disagreed.
Since there is no way Keough could have supported Calhoon, nor Calhoon supported Keough, the assertion stands -- there was no mutually-supporting defense.
quote:
4. Where they fell is, by definition, the critical point -- it is where the decision was reached. It's where the killing occurred.
Where the kill occured, maybe (bodies and wooden stakes were dragged and moved...) but nothing else. You could fight for an hour at a point, then run fifty yards in panic and be shot.
And the evidence clearly shows when that happened. When bodies are found thickly together, almost all from the same company, with many cartridge cases, those men fought and fell together.
When the bodies are scattered, when companies are intermixed, they those are survivors who fled, or who came together for a last stand.
quote:
5. If that happened it had to happen before Calhooon was decisively engaged, which is to say, before the serious fighting started.
You know that how? How do you know Keogh wasn't engaged before Calhoun?
Because no one ran from Keough's position to Calhoon's -- it was just the other way around.
quote:
We're not inventing him; we just can't name him. We don't know a particular Sioux's name, but we know he was motivated to desecrate the dead, had nothing to stop him,
How do we know that? The eye-witness testimony is contrary to that.
We invent a man when we need him to make our theory work.
quote:
and ample opportunity and arms. It would be bizarre is such did not happen in contravention of every other Sioux and Cheyenne battle for centuries before and years after. He was there as surely as Calho -u -n's men were and Keogh's. We know this was as likely or more so than our assumptions about Custer's alleged firing lines.
The Sioux and Cheyenne who were there were real. The ones who behaved in a specified way in order to make a theory work are invented.
quote:
7. As I said, if metaphysical proof is your standard, there is not very much that we know at all
What about my example smacks of the metaphysical? I'm contesting your assumptions of evidence.
You demand the highest standards of proof from me, then introduce indians who must act in a certain way to make your theories work -- and in opposition to eye-witness testimony.
quote:
I don't see why they could not have supported each other.
Then explain how they supported each other.
quote:
We aren't looking at the companies, we're looking at questionable markers, 20% of which need to go away. Where do you say Co. C fell, because those bodies were all over, and their horses missing? (Or, for that matter, E?) Where Sweet put the extra markers IS a big deal, because it's quite possible the "South skirmish line" isn't, and those stones should be in a gulley. But I said firing line, not skirmish. My error.
We have enough solid evidence to draw conclusions.
quote:
It takes a believing mind to think wooden stakes marking bodies covered with notional dirt survived the winter, and that bodies weren't dug up and dragged around by men and beast. The stones could be accurate but are more likely to be, as someone told me, an artistic interpretation.
It takes an even more believing mind to think the stones were deliberately placed to change the picture entirely.
quote:
In any case, if you do what I suggested with the marker map, you have to decide where the fifty odd markers have to be removed from.
No, you have to do that. You have to show how moving markers would materially change the field. And you have to justify each marker you move.
quote:
If you assume that the spurious markers were placed in proportion, as Gray did, it looks much more lonesome. But if Sweet put them in convenient spots along the hogback with Keogh or just on Custer Hill, it really changes a lot if you take them out. We don't know at all, but with the 27 supposed buried in the coulee, that means 70 odd markers disappear from sight on the field. Out of only 260 something, that's quite a bit and changes what the view traditionally has implied to people.
Again, how does it change the tactical picture? |
|
|
|
Smcf
Captain
Status: offline |
Posted - November 29 2005 : 10:21:06 AM
|
With regard to the markers, it rather depends on how they look at various sectors in comparison with reports by soldiers who viewed the field before and during the original burials.
Ammo - I suppose there's so much not known, that its tempting to at least try and elicit some concrete info that really should be in the record anyhow. |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - November 29 2005 : 12:06:20 PM
|
1. The terrain, the position of the bodies, indicating men ran from Calhoon's company to Keough's (and not vice-versa) and the finding of Calhoon cartridge cases in Keough's position.
Assumptions. If Keogh's men fought with Calhoun's or before Calhoun got to that position and moved north, the same cartridges would support that theory as well. There is no proof those are Calhoun's cartridges at both sites. And, as I said, they could be Cooke's fired by an Indian for all you know. The cartridges don't conflict with your theory, but it isn't proof for it. The dead with their heads north could have been dispatched to support Keogh, not running from a previous Calhoun disaster. There is absolutely no evidence either way, and the terrain doesn't address that issue, much less serve as evidence for much.
2. The facts are the physical aspects of the field.
Okay. You mean the opposite, I think. You say the facts are evidence for your claims. They can be evidence for many different scenarios, and proof for none. What are the "physical aspects" that support your claim to the exclusion of others?
3. Since there is no way Keough could have supported Calhoon, nor Calhoon supported Keough, the assertion stands -- there was no mutually-supporting defense.
There is a "u" in Calhoun. I've stood on the field and don't see the impossibility of support you do. I think all the companies fought separately, but I have no proof either.
4. And the evidence clearly shows when that happened. When bodies are found thickly together, almost all from the same company, with many cartridge cases, those men fought and fell together.
When the bodies are scattered, when companies are intermixed, they those are survivors who fled, or who came together for a last stand.
Not necessarily at all. First, when you take out that 20% spurious markers, how thick were the bodies? Second, there was a lot of guesswork at trooper, and therefore company, identification three days later. Many of the bodies were beyond ID. It was a rough estimate, "they those" were. And mixed dead could just be those killed in sequence at the same place as units moved.
5. Because no one ran from Keough's position to Calhoon's -- it was just the other way around.
How in the world does anyone know that? Could be true. Prove it.
6. How do we know that? The eye-witness testimony is contrary to that.
We invent a man when we need him to make our theory work.
It's not my theory, I just made it up to show that the evidence for your theory supports any number of theories, and so fails as proof. And what eye witness testimony are you referencing?
7. The Sioux and Cheyenne who were there were real. The ones who behaved in a specified way in order to make a theory work are invented.
My Indian blasting bodies is every bit as real as your Calhoun troopers running to Keogh. I'm not saying it happened, but your suggested evidence supports me as much as you.
8. You demand the highest standards of proof from me, then introduce indians who must act in a certain way to make your theories work -- and in opposition to eye-witness testimony.
No I don't. I have no dog in the fight after MTC. We don't know. Neither do you. You claim eye witness testimony again. What is it?
9.Then explain how they supported each other.
Saying they could have supported each other is not saying they did. No way to know. But by covering fire. You say they could not. I disagree.
10. We have enough solid evidence to draw conclusions.
And what is it? The guessed ID's of the bodies? The moving stakes and stones? The fake stones? Where is there any solid evidence? It's only conflicting testimony from officers and men hurrying about a revolting task.
11. It takes an even more believing mind to think the stones were deliberately placed to change the picture entirely.
But I did not claim that. I only claim the current stones are very misleading. If you follow my suggestions, it's pretty clear. Take any photo of the battlefield and remove 20% of the stones in the shot.
12. No, you have to do that. You have to show how moving markers would materially change the field. And you have to justify each marker you move.
Why do I have to justify each marker I remove without a justification for each marker placed? We know that 20% of the markers should have been on the Reno field but were put on the Custer field since the Reno field was private property. We don't know which ones. We know about 27 bodies (by one count)were buried in a ravine where they fell. We know that the bodies on top of LSH were moved down to accomodate the monument, including Custer's. Those are, as you say, facts. I've done it on my maps, and I suggest you try it on yours. No matter which 20% you remove, it changes the look of the field, and what seemed positions look more like scattered deaths.
13. Again, how does it change the tactical picture?
That depends on which you take out. But to follow your lead, if you spread Custer's bodies to the top of the hill and remove 20% of the markers on the hill, it looks less like a last stand, whatever a last stand would look like. The "bunching" theory goes away (I thought it more likely a dead horse for cover evidence), and that has attracted much attention. Or, maybe Sweet placed the stones where it was easiest: along the hogback with Calhoun and Keogh. Maybe there were much fewer men killed there, and they ran to Custer Hill. Maybe all fifty need to be removed from Custer Hill, which would make it very comparitively sparse, indeed. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
Edited by - Dark Cloud on November 29 2005 1:10:36 PM |
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - November 29 2005 : 1:29:25 PM
|
I have posted this before but here goes again.Keogh and Calhoun's units totalled 107 men, there are 131 markers on this section of the field ???????.
As regards tactical movements on the field such as rearguards and such like there are no indications.
With 200 plus men caught out in the open in line of march Custer had only one option and that was to mass his firepower.The only movements indicated is a dash to LSH and a forlorn skirmish line in the Keogh/Calhoun sector. What was it Benteen said ?There was no order or organised defence just bodies scattered as you would scatter a handful of grain. |
|
|
|
Benteen
Lt. Colonel
Status: offline |
Posted - November 29 2005 : 2:01:03 PM
|
I've been following along with interest on everyone's post. I am not sure of the order in which anything happened after mtf. The general feeling one gets is that it was a "buffalo hunt" kind of thing. To explain the concept is really very simple.
The indians would more or less corral the buffalo and literally stampede them over cliffs to their deaths. Or at the very least broken legs. So when the native amercians compare the battle or segements of it to a "buffalo hunt", that is what they were referring to. The implication then is that Custer's men were stampeded in a certain direction, and all killed.
The other thing that seems to be important to some is the cartridge cases, and/or bullets found. This is spurious evidence at best, just like the markers. The main reason is that no one knows whether the indians had any trapdoor springfields before the battle. Which by the way is very difficult to believe that they didn't have them. They had just about every other kind of weapon imaginable, so I don't see why one assumes that only the troopers had them, in the first place.
Forensic firearms analysis is a good thing. Don't get me wrong. But on a battlefield such as the LBH, nothing concrete can be nailed down by it. It's just as mythical as Gray's assumption that Custer feinted at ford b. Like Gray's theory, the forensic battlefield analysis fits, but it doesn't meet all the necessary criteria for solving everthing. And in the end you end up asking more questions about the surrounding events that don't fit.
Just my 2 cents. :)
Benteen
|
|
|
|
Vern Humphrey
Captain
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - November 29 2005 : 6:25:26 PM
|
quote:
I have posted this before but here goes again.Keogh and Calhoun's units totalled 107 men, there are 131 markers on this section of the field ???????.
Correct -- extra markers were set amongst those of Calhoun and Keough's companies.
But this brings us to a key point -- they were set amongst the markers for those companies -- they were not isolated. So while the markers for these two companies would not be as thick on the ground if this had not been done, they would still be there.
This is what I mean when I say show how the picture is changed in any meaningful way.
quote:
As regards tactical movements on the field such as rearguards and such like there are no indications.
That's incorrect. First of all, Custer's force died in several distinct locations. In the east, Calhoun's and Keough's companies, and in the west, Smith, TW Custer and Yeates' companies.
Now, does anyone dispute this? Is there any indication that Yeates' company was with Keough and Calhoun? Or that Keough was with Smith and TW Custer? If anyone has any evidence to show that was the case, speak up.
Once we grant that separation -- two forces well out of supporting distance of each other -- we can then examine the disposition of those forces.
Men from Calhoun's company unquestionably fled from the original position toward Keough's company -- Calhoon, himself fell between the companies. There is no evidence of a reverse movement (from Keough's to Calhoon's) This tells us Calhoun's company ewas overrun first -- when men run from a massacre, they go away from the enemy and toward a spot where they think they may be safe.
quote:
With 200 plus men caught out in the open in line of march Custer had only one option and that was to mass his firepower.quote:
Which he failed to do -- and that's my whole thesis. He did nor manage to get all five companies with him into action at the same time, as part of a coordinated, mutually-supporting defense.
[quote]The only movements indicated is a dash to LSH and a forlorn skirmish line in the Keogh/Calhoun sector.
That's exactly correct -- a forlorn skirmish line in which first Calhoun and then Keough's company were over-run. Survivors made a dash for Last Stand Hill.
In the three remaining companies, there was a more coherent defense, but it ended the same way -- a dash for Last Stand Hill.
[quote]What was it Benteen said ?There was no order or organised defence just bodies scattered as you would scatter a handful of grain.
Benteen was correct as far as it goes -- he never made a detailed study of the battlefield. |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - November 29 2005 : 6:40:07 PM
|
Driving bison off a cliff was handy a hundred fifty years previous before everyone had horses. While the concept is simple, there aren't a lot of handy cliffs where there are buffalo. Like dog soldiers and the stake in the ground, it was a custom made pointless by the horse.
In any case, I'd think what was meant was that they rode and shot among their prey without much danger, that buffalo are pretty easy to kill. To say they were stampeded to a place gives the Indians too much credit for a competence nowhere exhibited that day. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Springfield Carbine
