quote:

---

Originally posted by Benteen

In looking back over the threads, I don't believe this one has been individually addressed. Can it be for certain known when, and perhaps even where, Custer's fight began? This in relation to other known battle events. Most of this of course will be left to "interpretation" of events through the eyes and ears of the participants themselves, and who may have been the most reliable of sources. The when and where should aid in other questions under present consideration, choose wisely.

Benteen

---

quote:

---

I just don't know. Somehow I get an itch that I just can't scratch when it comes to this question. Heavyrunner's assertion makes sense as it explains the chaos that would have immediately ensued after Custer was struck at MTF. Now comes the unreachable itch. I believe that Custer with troops "E" and "F" traveled north, behind the present Last Stand Monument, down Cemetery Ridge to the area of the present day cemetery. I believed they waited 20 minutes or so for Benteen and Reno to arrive. While waiting, they received fire from warriors which started to take a toll. The units then moved towards Last Stand Hill were they witnessed the tragedy at Calhoun Hill. The end occurred approximately twenty minutes latter.

Having said all this, tomorrow morning I'm going to pull out all my resources to back my perspective before the terrible onslaught of AZ.

---

quote:

---

Miller wrote, if I recall correctly, that the first shots were fired on Custer as he hit the river at MTC. Also, if I recall correctly, he wrote that Custer was likely one of the first hit by defending fire, thus beginning the calamity that rolled the 7th back up the hill.

I've always felt that this made sense. In viewing the field, there appears to have been a complete breakdown in the command, with individuals and small groups scattered about--at least from looking at the markers.

---

quote:

---

I don't have an opinion one way or the other after MTC.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Benteen

quote:

---

I don't have an opinion one way or the other after MTC.

---

And why is that? Why should Weibert's be any more or any less convincing to you? As opinionated as you are upon everything else, it is most difficult to believe that you "don't have an opinion one way or another after MTC". So this should be "Safe" territory to discuss without the constant upbraiding you give to someone whose "opinion" on the subject past MTC differs from yours? You either painted yourself into a box on this one, unintenionally, or perhaps you would like to recant and rethink your answer and indeed state an opinion, "where was Custer"?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Heavyrunner

Geez...thanks for the warm and kind words, lads.

I've been to the battlefield three times and would've walked it had they not had the paths closed (rattlesnakes, you know). Although I think I've read every book about this, beginning in junior high, Miller still sticks with me the most because his work was the first for me.

I tend to believe that Custer was hit first because he would so likely have been at the head of the column, catching the first volley from defenders. I also suspect that his chest wound, probably mortal, began a collapse in the chain of command. The head wound, I believe, was either self-inflicted or a coup de gras.

So, back to my first viewing of the battlefield: I'm no military expert, but I think the style of battle then would have called for some coherence in the skirmish lines, etc. The field, however, looks like bodies were scattered like confetti, with a few markers together at Calhoun Hill and the greater number at Last Stand Hill--sans discovery of those missing 36, or so, in Deep Ravine.

I trust the knowledge and, for the most part, the judgement of those who post here--great expertise and plenty of research. I also trust my perceptions. And what I perceived while looking at the place was a scattered, every-man-for-himself fiasco as the 7th was rolled back up that hill. I believe strongly that, had Benteen come to Custer's aid, his only accomplishment would have been to add another 120 names on the monument.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Heavyrunner

Geez...thanks for the warm and kind words, lads.


So, back to my first viewing of the battlefield: I'm no military expert, but I think the style of battle then would have called for some coherence in the skirmish lines, etc. The field, however, looks like bodies were scattered like confetti, with a few markers together at Calhoun Hill and the greater number at Last Stand Hill--sans discovery of those missing 36, or so, in Deep Ravine.

I trust the knowledge and, for the most part, the judgment of those who post here--great expertise and plenty of research. I also trust my perceptions. And what I perceived while looking at the place was a scattered, every-man-for-himself fiasco as the 7th was rolled back up that hill. I believe strongly that, had Benteen come to Custer's aid, his only accomplishment would have been to add another 120 names on the monument.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Heavyrunner

Thinking hard about it, there must have been multiple reasons for the scattered remains of the 7th, the proposed wounding of Custer perhaps being the first.

Maybe we should start a thread on whether a different battle plan, one that did not divide the forces, could have resulted in a different outcome. Or what might have happened had Benteen been available.

I think Custer, et. al, were on their way to being whupped pretty good,regardless, that coming from a healthy respect for Indian numbers,fighting skills, riding skills, armament and their incredibly pissed off attitude. However, there might have been considerably more survivors via retreat.

---