| Author |
 Topic  |
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
 Posted - January 04 2005 : 1:37:35 PM
|
There are no markers on the summit, Irish, because that's where they put the monument, and everything was sort of elbowed down a ways
DC before I reply to your post in detail can you confirm the above and post sources.Can anyone else confirm that markers were removed from the summit to make way for the monument? |
  |
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - January 04 2005 : 2:37:25 PM
|
They were not removed. They were never there before the monument was placed. Custer's body is often described as about six feet from the summit, which puts it far uphill from where his marker is, if the monument is actually on the then summit. Markland and Bhist have stuff on their sites, but this is no secret. In any case, Gray mentions it, I believe, in his Sweeney portion. But so what?
Warlord, perhaps you'd like to read the poem those lines are from: they're very famous, done by an Etonian, written by a close friend of General Haig, and beloved by the British military of the First World War, and one of the most popular of the 19th century. Although your fascination with gay issues predominates again, alone here on the forum, perhaps you should read William Manchester's The Arms of Krupp. There, you'll find that virtually all of the upper military of the Kaiser, including General Moltke, was as gay as they come. The letters these guys wrote each other are as graphic as they get, says Manchester, and they still exist, at least as of the Sixties - a long time ago - when Manchester wrote this book, a best seller and winner of many prizes. Is Manchester not a sufficient historian to you? Or is Kaiserine Germany not sufficiently military for you?
Then, you can explain why Frederick the Great ("Get your sex in the barracks"), and General Blucher (who entertained Wellington with an explanation of how he, Blucher, was pregnant by a French soldier....) are not great generals if they were gay?
And then, in your hissy fit, show us how sneering at pomp and glory differs in any marked respect from General Sherman's thoughts on the same subject. You know, the speech about how war is hell, and he damns these very same things. Are you saying Sherman knows nothing of war? Or that you know more? Explain.
And while I don't care if you think me gay - it's a common defense accusation of insecure men - you're as far at sea with that one as you are with all your other accusations. No doubt we're about to be thrilled by your military daring do in song and story. Just make sure to include all info so it can be verified against your actual record. Oh, I bet it was a government conspiracy that erased all of that, huh, Warlord? |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - January 04 2005 : 4:52:43 PM
|
DC I was making the point that the last stand was no more than a public relations exercise.One of the points I was basing this on was the position of the markers on LSH which indicated that Custer was stopped before he reached the summit and you posted this----
There are no markers on the summit, Irish, because that's where they put the monument, and everything was sort of elbowed down a ways by people who wouldn't believe blood would be spilled over the relevance of every button, casing, angle of corpse repose.
That statement is totally inaccurate and misleading as shown in your next post----
They were not removed. They were never there before the monument was placed.
They had ample opportunity to display whatever skill they had,Where and how?
Once they stopped and dismounted, they were dead.
It would be more accurate to say they were stopped.
standing heroically on the summit per se means you're a target from a full 360 degrees.
Are you saying Custer stopped short of the summit to avoid this.He and the survivers must have made easy targets for the Indians firing down on them from the cover of the crest.
More to the point, I don't think the markers mean very much at all. Where bodies ended up after the battle after two days of drag and slice,
The position of individual markers might not mean very much at all,but taking them all together they are very relevant and give a very good indication of the dynamics of the battle.
If you subtract off the Reno markers and then imagine that, say, 20% of the remainder don't really reflect where the body died as opposed to where it was found and/or buried (and that's not a huge stretch), things could be a lot different in interpretation, couldn't they?
I dont agree.The markers reflect a shape and pattern not a random scattering.
I have no doubt that Calhoun and Keogh fought well - the three officers above say they seem to have - but how and in what fashion did they save the honor of the regiment? In fact, how was that honor, however defined (and we soon will), under threat?
It was under threat because Reno ran for his life.It was under threat because Custer ran for his life.Two runners in the one day would threaten the good name of any regiment.
Even given the fact we don't know how people with Custer fought, you can't say they weren't honored. Keogh and Calhoun had forts and things named for them. Not like it was slipped under the rug.
Sure but Custer got a spurious LS named after him.A fictitious historical action passed off as fact will long outlast the name of a fort.
|
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - January 04 2005 : 6:19:30 PM
|
Sigh. By paragraph.
1. I grokked your point, and don't disagree. But as units of precision, the markers don't cut it. There were the original grave markers, whatever they were, from June 27, stakes, with officer ID supposedly indicated. But as Godfrey says, bodies were moved that day to where they could be buried, and those first markers "as a rule" indicate where a body was buried, not fell. Page 377, Graham. Thirteen months later, Michael Sheridan's guys exhumed the officers and did a better job with the men, one supposes. Maybe moved again. In 1879 they swept everything together they could then find in a log pyramid where the memorial is now, on top of the hill. Some time later, the granite obelisk arrived. Years later, the marble markers came. Last chapter, Gray. On page 410, Connell, he lays out the issues about Custer's body. Kanipe(Knipe) has him at the peak of the ridge, others beneath. But he was not where his marker is now. And so what? It's a memorial, is all. And since only officers were really buried the first time, it's quite possible the Custers migrated a bit to their first grave from where they fell. So, while the original markers - if they were still there in '79 - had to have been moved to install the pyramid, it's an additional suspension of belief to think that wooden markers on a field dug up by animals and nudged by horses and buffalo and who knows, really represent specificity. I'm guessing, but I think that black marker is about fifty feet from the monument, now. All reports, if true, have him on the top of the ridge or very near it.
To locate by satellite beam these marble markers and claim precision of a corpse's first contact with mother earth is like finding a shell casing and claiming you can tell the hour it was fired, by who, at what. Well, yes, they do that, but it's bogus on its face, Wild. Come on.
2. During the battle, Wild. It's what they do for a living, and they were in combat for a while. It doesn't count because it's dusty and someone's shooting back? They're good soldiers except for these unfair conditions?
3. Which would pass for clever except they can't mount without becoming an easy (-ier) target. This assumes the horses aren't down or gone anyway.
4. We have no real idea, Wild. Around the summit is the best we can do.
5. Anyone firing from that close renders the cover issue void. It's not a razor back ridge.
6. To a far lesser extent than has been suggested. The guys that buried them don't say that about the graves. Read Godfrey again in Graham. It would only make sense if the markers indicated where they fell. They might, for all I know. But its wishful thinking so far.
7. But the multiple burials based rather often on utter guesswork (green growth is a favorite indicator)and borne out by the skeletons they still find unmarked, means that some of the markers denote nada. In aggregate with the spurious ones from Reno.......
8. Really? It's their duty to die in place, Wild? Or to win - not all the battles - but the war. Indians, Boers, Vikings, anyone with brains will get away to fight again if they can, absent clear purpose. That's stupid to do otherwise, cruel to insist others do it for your emotional thrill, childish to worship it. Everyone from Sherman to Patton stomped on that crap. Remember? Make the other guy die for his country.
9. We don't know it's fiction, and without it nobody would recall any of these names anyway.
Oh, and by Sweeney in a previous post I meant Sweet. I also autopilot Gibson and Gibbon incorrectly a lot. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
Edited by - Dark Cloud on January 04 2005 6:23:42 PM |
|
|
|
Anonymous Poster8169
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - January 05 2005 : 12:20:21 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by wILD I
There are no markers on the summit, Irish, because that's where they put the monument, and everything was sort of elbowed down a ways
DC before I reply to your post in detail can you confirm the above and post sources.Can anyone else confirm that markers were removed from the summit to make way for the monument?
If you have a copy of Hardorff's "Custer Battle Casualties, II" on page 194 there's a photograph taken in 1877 by J. H. Fouch of the spot where the monument is today. At least one wooden stake is clearly visible, and James Brust, who's writing the captions, claims to "clearly" see another five, though I can't make them out in the reproduction. In any case, graves were there. In both of Hardorff's books he has for easy reference a number of accounts agreeing that the top of the hill on June 27 was occupied by the bodies of Custer and some officers and some men.
The grave markers are, at best, approximate. Simply put, there are 252 markers today where no more than 210 or 211 men could have died, and when you count known instances of men dying off the field (Butler, Foley) the number of spurious graves grows higher. They were only put there to honor the men who died, not to aid historians in reconstructing the fight. The government didn't own the land where Reno had died, so except for the markers of officers (which in the case of McIntosh ended up being moved around for years afterwards by farmers annoyed by the obstruction on their property) they put all the markers meant for Reno's men on Custer's field. Any markers put in Deep Ravine for the dead there would have quickly eroded away, so they placed them all on the nearby higher ground, thus creating the "South Skirmish Line". The markers probably do represent pretty well the main soldier positions, but I don't think it's safe to make an argument based on their not being somewhere.
R. Larsen
|
|
|
|
BJMarkland
Colonel
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - January 05 2005 : 03:00:03 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Warlord
... Hmmm. Made a mistake about an author's name huh! Interesting!
Good one WL.
It has just not been DC's night.
Billy |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - January 05 2005 : 08:51:24 AM
|
Except for the fact none of the four is an author, Sweet/Sweeney and Gibbon/Gibson are in the nature of typos, I cheerfully admit error as I generally do, and I'm not trying to cover up anything it's exactly the same.
To mistake Gray for Michno is like mistaking Tennyson for Rod McKuen. But the clear fact is there is nothing in any of Warlord's posts to indicate he's done any reading on the battle whatsoever. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
Edited by - Dark Cloud on January 05 2005 08:52:00 AM |
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - January 05 2005 : 09:14:45 AM
|
DC
But as units of precision, the markers don't cut it.
The markers indicate the following.
1 Approximate position of original graves.
Because of the condition of the bodies no attempt was made to move them and they were buried close to where they fell.
2 Approximate position of officers graves.
3 Approximate final position of Custer's units.
4 Ties the action to prominent features in the landscape.
5 Indicates direction of action.
Gray says"What is more important,the first three parties had remounded and remarked all the graves,and even the last had remarked the sites with wooden stakes.These parties had all included personnel,both soldiers and scouts,who had witnessed the original burials.Thus physical evidence of the location of gravesites was preserved,even if less perfectly,and kept alive in memories.
You post this---They were never there before the monument was placed.And Larsen posts[and I'm grateful for the info]If you have a copy of Hardorff's "Custer Battle Casualties, II" on page 194 there's a photograph taken in 1877 by J. H. Fouch of the spot where the monument is today. At least one wooden stake is clearly visible, and James Brust, who's writing the captions, claims to "clearly" see another five,
So can we take it that having first of all stated that the markers were "elbowed" downhill to then posting that there never were any markers on the summit only for Larsen to post proof that in fact there were,you in fact know precious little about the placing of the markers?
The grave markers are, at best, approximate.
Agreed Larsen but not the area or the troop which for the purpose of understanding the battle is more important.
To restate my contention based on the above 5 points .Custer's retreat mirrored Reno's.Retreat becoming a rout,battalion split in two [C,F,E and I,L] with casualties mounting all the way to "LSH".
Larsen points to a small number of stakes on the summit but I feel that the location of the majority of the markers on LST accurately reflects the final act in the battle.The 7th never took posession of the summit and surrounded, outnumbered and interdicted from above were finished off very quickly.
A "last stand" sounds so much more heroic than a rout.It is easy to accept that Custer's overall leadership was faulty.Easy to forgive the gallant cavalier who gambled and lost but to face up to the fact that he also failed miserably in actual combat is hard to stomach.
As Warlord posted He may have been vainglorious, he may have cheated on his wife, he might have gambled and he made some bad tactical mistakes. He was a man and men make mistakes, thats what life is about. Nevertheless, he is our hero for better or worse.Reno of course was never seen as a hero.Reno failed in combat.But Custer one of the civil war glory guys ,[captured Lee he did] would never be accused of actually failing in combat.Some people actually go apoplectic at the suggestion that the casualties among the Indians was as low as 30.Thus the myth of the heroic last stand.
|
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - January 05 2005 : 10:15:40 AM
|
Wild. Can't do this by paragraph because there aren't any.
I used "markers" for both the marble markers and the original stakes. Sorry. We started off talking about the marble markers, and they were never on the hill's peak. The stakes were, and they were elbowed down. That was bad writing on my part, yet the meaning was clear in the context of the posts, since Larsen understood it, and so did you, since you mentioned it as a contradiction. Again, Wild, you have an awful habit of trying to deceive by hoping enough time has passed that people forget. I posted the references, after all, said bodies had been moved. You got indignant, sputtered, and denied that happened, and who's right? Yet, you accuse me of knowing nothing about the marker placement?
So these marble stones are approximate only to the extent they're on Custer Hill, Wild, is all. As Larsen says, the stakes on Custer Hill were elbowed down. Godfrey states flatly bodies were moved the first day of burial to where they could be buried. It's to be doubted such complete difference in ground composition would be found very close by.
In any case, they do not necessarily reflect where the bodies were found, and where the bodies were found does not exactly and always reveal where they died. I've said I thought (I can't recall) that Custer's stone is about fifty feet from where it's described as being. In the context of LSH placement mania, that's significant. Certainly to your proclaimed thesis.
Again, of the roughly 265 stones on the field, about fifty (about 20%-ish) are off by four miles. Haven't they found bodies on the field not reflected by the stones at all? Aren't there three stones on the field for bodies never found at all? Can we add another 12% for general error placement? Sure.
Then all the talk about placing stone by lush growth, which could be horse, could be human, could be anything. Can we add another percentage to total guesswork in marker placement? Sure. Make it five percent. Then round it up for no reason other than to get an additional twenty percent, easy for me.
That means, Wild, of the stones on the field, perhaps around forty percent have no meaning as to graves. That's a huge percent (to a greater or lesser extent true), about two companies. Visually, remove and move those markers around some, and not far. New and perhaps correct placement might imply things were much, much different. What's an arguable skirmish line now might become two guys shot dead standing there in confusion.
None of them can be proven to be exact for body location. And body location three days later doesn't mean they fell there anyway. Unless someone contradicts Godfrey's summations, the markers don't mean much, and were never intended to.
I don't argue with the Last Stand issue. It's a literary motif.
Reno had not always failed in combat, Custer did not "capture" Lee and had already been accused of screwing up during the CW. Custer isn't my hero and, for contrast, neither is he Merritt's, or Sheridan's, or Grant's, or Crook's, or many people's. Many people don't have a need for heroes, and function well without them.
Of the ones who have this need, they often try to dress it up as something else - more adult, less childish - and they lie about it. Lie through their teeth. And they'll fabricate history as a cover story for their personal, emotional needs. Worse, there are those - like the History Channel - which panders to that need with the cover story treated as viable theory. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
Edited by - Dark Cloud on January 05 2005 10:16:52 AM |
|
|
|
dave
Captain
Australia
Status: offline |
Posted - January 05 2005 : 10:53:14 AM
|
Out of curiousity DC, did Benteen, Edgerly, Godfrey or any officer of the 7th leave an analysis of the action on Battle Ridge.
Graham in "The Story of the Little Bighorn" unfortunately glosses over many of the details of the battle, and the only post battle reports on the Battle Ridge seem to concern how serene Custer was in death, and a letter from James Bradley to the effect that most of the bodies weren't mutilated.
Where did Foley die Larsen? |
|
|
|
BJMarkland
Colonel
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - January 05 2005 : 11:16:23 AM
|
Dave, according to Godfrey in article "Custer's Last Fight" (link is in the Research thread near the end), on page 383 he mentions mutilation twice. Once saying, "According to my recollection, nearly all were scalped or mutilated...". Further in the page, he goes on to state, "Other bodies were mutilated in a disgusting manner."
Since he was there and seems to have been a pretty methodical observer, I will go with his observations. Plus, for what reason would the Sioux, et. al., have had for NOT mutilating?
Best of wishes,
Billy |
Edited by - BJMarkland on January 05 2005 11:55:26 AM |
|
|
|
dave
Captain
Australia
Status: offline |
Posted - January 05 2005 : 12:05:37 PM
|
Billy,
Graham quotes (pg 108, "The Story of Little Bighorn") a report from James Bradley (lieutenant 7th Inf. Verbatim Bradley's quote reads
"Of the two hundred and six bodies buried on the field, there were very few that I did not see, and beyond scalping, in possibility a majority of cases, there was little mutilation. Many of the bodies were not even scalped, and in the comparatively few cases of disfiguration, it appeared to me the result rather of a blow with a knife, hatchet or war club to finish a wounded man than deliberate multilation. The bodies were nearly all stripped, but I saw several entirely clothed, half a dozen at least".
According to Graham, Walter Camp supported the view that there was little mutilation, with the exception of those troopers whose remains were found in close proximity to the camp.
Graham also quotes an Indian agent who said that the mutilation was extensive and shocking. Who do you believe? - I don't know. Maybe Bradley was somewhat de-sensitised. Or maybe Godfrey was a bit squeamish.
BTW I meant to thank you for the URL you provided to the Battle of Beechers Island. It was an absolutely fascinating read, and really brought the battle alive to someone who has never set foot in America, let alone the old west. |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - January 05 2005 : 2:54:08 PM
|
Dave,
Not that I know of. In fact, I don't think they ever found a pressing need to reimagine this battle in thirty second increments like it has been. All of the Army's firsthanders don't seem to vary much in their impression it was a fiasco and rout except, again, for the casings with Calhoun that showed a measured fire from the same positions for awhile. I'm not the guy for that stuff, though.
Godfrey and Gall supposedly had a detailed conversation around the field at the 10th Anniversary. Who knows.
Bradley is probably the most puritan of those named here. He was the guy that got very upset and uncomfortable with the "compelled to do their bidding" remark in the found note of that captive woman, although I cannot recall which one. I think he would be most likely to try and protect the minds, hearts, and ears of American womanhood or the public in general.
Since they had the time and motivation, I suspect virtually all the bodies were mutilated. In fact, the drawings the Indians made were pretty graphic, so I don't believe Bradley, and think many who say no mutilation were either trying to protect the Indians from revenge or just calm folks down. Reasonable, anyway. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - January 05 2005 : 4:59:35 PM
|
Wild, you have an awful habit of trying to deceive by hoping enough time has passed that people forget.
DC I have no idea what you are talking about.I have never intentionally set out to deceive anyone on the board.
Godfrey states flatly bodies were moved the first day of burial to where they could be buried. It's to be doubted such complete difference in ground composition would be found very close by.
There was no general movement of the bodies for burial.The troops detailed for this work were actually getting sick.Anything I'v read on this subject described the bodies as bloated and putrefying.A few shovels fulls of sandy soil constituted a burial.What was important was the stakes marking the positions. And although Sweet set out 40 spurious marble markers he did not interfere with the general shape or location of the original markers.
If you draw a line from Deep Ravine to LSH that ground is littered with markers.Now the burial parties could move bodies 100 yards left or right of this line without altering the scenario that the action started in the region of Deep Ravine ford and ended at LSH.The same goes for troops I and L.Regardless of the number of spurious markers or their position it is obvious they were split off from Custer and fought a seperate action.
Custer isn't my hero and, for contrast, neither is he Merritt's, or Sheridan's, or Grant's, or Crook's, or many people's. Many people don't have a need for heroes, and function well without them.
Perhaps individuals don't need heros but institutions ,sports,religions and certainly armies need heros-----man of the match,best sales ex,holy martyrs,best soldier.Custer was the US army's hero whether Grant liked it or not.So screw Custer and you screw the army. |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - January 05 2005 : 5:48:18 PM
|
By paragraph.
1. Hm. Reflect on the Light Brigade. Sobs, mobs.... And you do bring up ancient posts that often reference things quite different. You're not trying to fool The Board, but to confuse me, sometimes. Admit it.......
2. You start after the fact. Only the officers were buried, really. The others were wolf food for a year. They all fought at Calhoun Hill then moved to Keoghland, then to Custer Hill, and a few rushed from there. No? Prove it. (I don't think that, but can't prove it.) The bodies could as easily be interpreted that way, or moving the other way. Could be sequential, could be separate. What dif? And you really think land pounded hard is going to be soft and responsive to shovel just a few feet away? How close are the Custer markers today. How close were they by description on June 27th?
3.Custer was not the Army's hero, Wild. He gave the upper ranks gas and always had. He was the hero of a portion of the Public who read Ned Buntline type books, not necessarily the sharpest, then or now. He'd been courtmartialed, half his command couldn't stand him, he was resented for elevation above known ability (opinion, but it was there). Armies need competence and dedication. Lust for martyrs is an admission of defeat. I don't think sizeable proportions of our servicemen long for heroic death, anymore.
Just for the sake of me, look at the marker map and remove 20% for Reno's guys. White out every five markers on Gray's map. Then find a number you can live with as other error. I think you could agree ten percent is conservative? So, just move twenty-one of the additional guys alternatingly ten yards in opposite directions. Then look at it. It doesn't take much change to leave a much different effect to the eye. And it's probably much worse than ten percent.
I agree that it was a fiasco, and they were mostly slaughtered heading up, so I mostly agree with you but we have no proof. Just whiteout every four on Grays map. How's she look now? Now place two of every four back, but somewhere else. Such little change makes a huge image difference.
I've always puzzled at Wooden Leg's description of them at the end, walking but moving their arms as if they were running. Like they were wounded and willing themselves forward. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
Edited by - Dark Cloud on January 05 2005 7:17:48 PM |
|
|
|
Anonymous Poster8169
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - January 05 2005 : 5:58:57 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by dave
Out of curiousity DC, did Benteen, Edgerly, Godfrey or any officer of the 7th leave an analysis of the action on Battle Ridge.
I'll quote from what came out in the Reno Court of Inquiry.
Lt. Wallace's testimony, pgs. 67-68 of the Nicholl edition:
Q. After leaving Calhoun's [position], then whose did you find?
A. Captain Keogh's.
Q. In what order were they?
A. They were lying halfway down the northern side of the slope.
Q. Between Custer and Calhoun?
A. Between Custer and Calhoun but halfway down the slope, and they appeared to me to have been killed running in file.
Q. Was their position such that it indicated that they had been brought into skirmish line?
A. I don't know whether they were in skirmish line or not. They were killed at intervals but from their position I don't think they could have been in skirmish line....
Q. They were scattered along?
A. Yes sir, as they went toward Custer.
Lt. Edgerly, pgs. 453-54, said:
"I ... went on till I came to Captain Keogh's company. They were in an irregular line. My impression was that they had formed a line on the left of Lieutenant Calhoun and had fallen back, and some retreated faster than others. Captain Keogh had evidently been wounded as we found that his leg had been broken and the sergeants of his company had got around him and were killed with him. There were no regular lines but still evidence that there had been a line.... There were evidences of rallying points about General Custer, and about Captain Keogh and Lieutenant Calhoun were evidences of fighting, but not of being rallying points."
quote:
Where did Foley die Larsen?
South of the battlefield, in the Medicine Tail area. The spot where Sgt. Butler's marker is today matches better with the recollections of where Foley was found than it does with Butler. Butler's marker was placed there about 60 years ago, on guesswork.
R. Larsen |
|
|
|
Anonymous Poster8169
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - January 05 2005 : 6:24:20 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Cloud
Bradley is probably the most puritan of those named here. He was the guy that got very upset and uncomfortable with the "compelled to do their bidding" remark in the found note of that captive woman, although I cannot recall which one. I think he would be most likely to try and protect the minds, hearts, and ears of American womanhood or the public in general.
Fanny Kelly. Bradley may have been a little prudish, though I think he knew the world better for what it was than some others. I'm surprised that Mrs. Kelly's claims that nothing at all happened to her while with the Indians are believed by so many, including (IIRC) Connell.
R. Larsen |
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - January 06 2005 : 04:34:33 AM
|
You're not trying to fool The Board, but to confuse me, sometimes. Admit it.......
Perhaps an attempt to introduce a hint of humor by grossly distorting a minor point such as sobbing reenactors,Custer capturing lee or generals shooting elephants.A pathetic attempt at emulating a real hero,the bold Oscar himself.
They all fought at Calhoun Hill then moved to Keoghland, then to Custer Hill, and a few rushed from there. No? Prove it.
Your scenario would mean that Calhoun was hit first.And if the action began here Custer would have had time to mass his troops in a defensive position.Secondly Indians react instinctively and would have hit whatever formatation was nearest to themwhich was Custer and his lead troops.There is no logic in suggesting that the indians ignored the head of the column and rode 1/2 a mile around it to attack the rear.There were no convoluted manoeuvers by either side it was a primitive bloody brawl.
The positions of the markers are anchored to the main features in the landscape.Sweet used the original stakes as guide lines when setting out his marble markers.Adding a few more markers to Custer's final position perhaps gave the illusion of a last stand.
Custer was not the Army's hero, Wild.
Well as you say he was resented for elevation above known abilityso someone likedwhat he was doing and in a Union army of incompetant plodders whoya goin turn to incompetant dashers ?
I've always puzzled at Wooden Leg's description of them at the end, walking but moving their arms as if they were running. Like they were wounded and willing themselves forward.
You know DC this has a ring of truth about it.At an all Ireland championship football match Ionce saw a player of a team making their first appearance in a final chase a ball but he was so nervious that although his arms andlegs were moving he remained rooted to the spot. |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - January 06 2005 : 11:57:53 AM
|
I don't disagree, Wild, all I'm saying is there isn't really anything approaching proof for any half way decent theory. Never will be.
I've never understood the emotional need - and it is - to recreate to the last button the manner and placement of everyone's death and who struck the blow and with which hand. If, for example, Tom Custer panicked at the last minute and tried to use George for cover, or the General vomited or killed himself, what dif? It doesn't change anything and should not change estimations of the man's life. In great pain and trauma people can fall apart without any condemnation. Be nice if that could be accorded the 7th in 1876. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - January 06 2005 : 1:40:31 PM
|
Be nice if that could be accorded the 7th in 1876.
Agreed DC.Well put.
And for for what it's worth let me say to the board that although I'v had a go at an American hero there was never any disrespect intended.
Myths and heros abound in all countries.And just to illustrate where I'm coming from let me tell a story of an Irish hero.
We have a small highly professional defence force in Ireland.It's service with the UN is second to none.Back in 63 we had a battalion serving in the wartorn Congo.A company [120 men] of this battalion was sent to secure a town called Jatotville.They were surrounded by according some estimates 2000 Belgian led rebel forces.For the next six days they fought off ground and air attacks but running low on water and ammo the commandant of the company decided that further resistance was futile and laid down his arms.
The country went into a state of shock.The fighting Irish had surrendered to native forces.Many people here including the army would have prefered to see the company wiped out rather than have the army's honour sullied .That incident has been airbrushed out of Irish military history.The company CO became known as Jatotville Jack yet he brought home 120 men to their families and in my book is a true hero.
The moral of the story if there is any is all countries have their Little Big Horns. |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
|
|
hunkpapa7
Lieutenant
United Kingdom
Status: offline |
Posted - January 06 2005 : 6:47:06 PM
|
The LBh did bring home heros,the guys who fought at Reno Hill.
I agree that they all firstly fought at Calhoun Hill,after a little set too at Medicine Coulee[although a good bit from the river]the door was shut for a return to Weir Point etc.As the Indians came over in masse,GAC was left with no alternative but to head Northward,fighting as they went.
I dont discount the number of Indian dead either,especially when everything was in there favour of having cover,at least to CH,when close combat took place.
If you consider the losses at the Rosebud after fighting for hours,when the Indians fought from Horseback mostly,and the retreats from both sides which was completely different to LBH you can see how they lost so few in comparison. |
wev'e caught them napping boys
Aye Right ! |
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - January 07 2005 : 11:26:53 AM
|
DC
Still don't get what honor would be had by fighting to the death for
It's a substitute for reason.When there is no reason give them honor.
It sounds like simple racism, though. 'How could you surrender to them.'
What war is not racist?And the world in 61 was a world of Alabama and Sharpesville.
Hard to see what benefit accrues to anyone or any institution by this sort of thing.
It is not possible to accomadate an action which undermines a military system.I can't imagine there being too many military hand books with instructions on how to surrender.
hunkpapa7
I agree that they all firstly fought at Calhoun Hill,after a little set too at Medicine Coulee[although a good bit from the river]the door was shut for a return to Weir Point etc.As the Indians came over in masse,GAC was left with no alternative but to head Northward,fighting as they went.
I can't understand how you arrive at the above scenario.
Keogh and Calhoun were furthest from the village from where the attack came.My understanding is that it was Gall who engaged Calhoun and Keogh and he had at least 3 miles to cover while the forces led by Crazy horse had only to cross the river.Calhoun had time to form a skirmish line Custer had not.Most of E troop died in Deep ravine but it's officers were found on LSH.This would indicate that the action was in the direction of LSH.If as you say the action began with Calhoun what in heaven's name was Custer doing?You say he had no alternative but to head North.If Keogh and Calhoun had the time to form skirmish lines then why not Custer?Did he abandon troops I and L?
Interested in your views.
|
|
|
|
joseph wiggs
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - January 16 2005 : 4:49:03 PM
|
I certainly do not suggest that we all, en masse, blindly toss ourselves off a cliff like lemmings in a sacrificial frenzy for any cause. However, it appears to me that to denigrate a personal choice to die for a notable point is certainly no answer either.
There are those who wholeheartedly believe that under the right circumstances, a fight to the death is preferable to life under physical subjugation and dishonor. |
|
|
|
whistlingboy
Lieutenant
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - January 20 2005 : 10:25:20 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by bhist
Someone else brought this to my attention, so I can't take credit for it -- it appears that whistlingboy and warlord are the same person. I think it might be a good idea, if Rich has time, to verify by checking out the IP address or anything else he has access to.
The last thing we need on this board is this kind of game playing.
|
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Responsibility At Little Bighorn
