| Author |
 Topic  |
|
whistlingboy
Lieutenant
USA
Status: offline |
 Posted - January 20 2005 : 10:56:14 PM
|
| Disregard the previous post--went to wrong place---still learning, I am. duh! |
  |
|
|
dave
Captain
Australia
Status: offline |
Posted - January 21 2005 : 9:24:00 PM
|
Larsen, a question regarding you last post. I noticed in your response a quote regarding Keogh's company
quote:
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.
The question is; were Keogh's men running on foot when they were killed, or is running simply meant as in quickly retreating. Or is the evidence insufficient to say?
I'm curious because if they were on foot then you would have to assume they were part of a skirmish line operating with Calhoun's men - wouldn't you? |
Edited by - dave on January 21 2005 10:08:16 PM |
|
|
|
Anonymous Poster8169
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - January 21 2005 : 10:06:19 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by dave
The question is; were Keogh's men running on foot when they were killed, or is running simply meant as in quickly retreating. Or is the evidence insufficient to say?
I really can't say. Wallace doesn't elaborate. I'm unfamiliar with the ins and outs of 1870s military terminology, and maybe "running in file" indicates something more precise like that than it does to a layman like myself.
quote:
I'm curious because if they were on foot then you would have to assume they were part of a skirmish line operating with Calhoun's men - wouldn't you?
Actually, the very next question asked Wallace was about this. You and Major Reno's counsel must have been thinking along similar lines.
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.
R. Larsen |
|
|
|
movingrobewoman
Lt. Colonel
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - January 22 2005 : 12:03:55 AM
|
Skirmish lines are/were generally denoted by the relatively equal distance between those who fell (or their used ammo piles). During LBH, and I am pushing my memory here--I believe five yards was considered the standard distance. This was more the case with the Keough sector (maybe L as well?) and less the E company's movements (where, after I looked at their markers, was just a frantic run off LSH). This might have been talked about in the History Channel's "Battlefield Detectives," featuring LBH historian Richard Fox.
Could be completely wrong, though. |
movingrobe |
|
|
|
whistlingboy
Lieutenant
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - January 22 2005 : 01:43:00 AM
|
| Warlord: I'm sure you'd be a great guy to be but I'm stuck with me. Frustration in all of its disguises can turn a blue sky to gray and then to red in a heart beat. I think I will let this 'mystery' go. This is a great place to be and I'm not going anywhere, yet. Will continue to look forward to your posts. Thanks. |
|
|
|
joseph wiggs
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - January 22 2005 : 11:00:54 AM
|
Warlord is correct, I think it would be virtually impossible to distinquish between the two; running file or skirmish. Movingrobewoman is correct also, a skirmish line should have been represented by deposits of spent ammunition spaced equal distances apart. An example would be the Calhoun position. Fox suggests that "L" company deployed in such a line and, possibly, two others.
From Indian accounts, at one point, horse handlers were forced to control eight horses or more which is contrary to the prescribed four horses per controller. These sources also state that at a critical point numerous, unattended horses rushed off the ridge. This, needless to say, would render many troopers without mounts. Possible scenario: as the "L" troop skirmish line collapsed, a portion of the troopers remounted horses, still available, to make their escape. Left behind, other troopers were forced to flee afoot. Mounted Indians reported riding into the midst of exhausted, fleeing soldiers clubbing them as they struggled to run in the heat and dust. I suspect that the "line" leading to the Keough sector were those poor unfortunants who could not, for reason or another, remount. A few soldiers with Keough, small pockets of resistance, stood their ground but were overwhelmed. |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - January 22 2005 : 11:35:18 AM
|
I don't understand how, when what little actual first hand testimony we have from trained observers like Godfrey is offered, it's immediately questioned and subject to extremes of fanciful interpretation, but an imagined dream explained fifth hand by decendents of someone related to a tangent participant is as a court document notarized by God, and it's an insult to an entire people not to believe it on its face.
Why must bodies of soldiers running afoot be found all over the field, rather than shot in line? They ran a ridge, it makes sense.
While I understand there was melding of units, Wiggs, Godfrey isn't saying L ran north. He's saying 'I' ran north. Godfrey, an experienced witness, did not think I's men were in skirmish line, but killed while running. He was there soon after, he'd likely know and certainly had the experience to know and recognize this scenario. Else is just wishful thinking. It is highly unlikely, unless man and horse were shot dead and dropped simultaneously, that these men weren't on foot. They'd also not likely be close enough together if they were mostly mounted.
What Indian source states something happened at a "critical point." And since it is not first hand testimony, how many people stand between these alleged witnesses and our ears? Further, in what way was that point critical compared to prior or subsequent events? If you didn't feel the need to melodramatize iffy and sometimes outright imagined events, Wiggs, it wouldn't seem so silly so often. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - January 22 2005 : 12:20:22 PM
|
I'v heard of dead men walking but not running.How is it possible for anyone trained or otherwise to tell if butchered bodies were running at time of death?
|
|
|
|
movingrobewoman
Lt. Colonel
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - January 22 2005 : 1:28:31 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by wILD I
I'v heard of dead men walking but not running.How is it possible for anyone trained or otherwise to tell if butchered bodies were running at time of death?
Richard Fox says to look at *patterns* that can be determined through forensic evidence (bullets, bodies)--and a skirmish line SHOULD appear much differently and much more orderly than a chaotic run. At least that's what he said at the CBHMA thing last summer when discussing Keogh's battalions. And I apologize for my earlier post's mistake. It was L that formed a predetermined line at the time the other companies (but not I)--headed towards MTC.
And "amateur" archaelogists have been recording these "patterns" since day one.
Regards, |
movingrobe |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - January 22 2005 : 1:49:55 PM
|
It's true, Wild, we cannot know and Godfrey didn't know for sure nor say he did, but he'd seen enough death in battle to recognize certain patterns, I would imagine, and he felt confident enough to say so to no benefit to himself under oath. This is first hand info from someone there. What better evidence do we have? None. Zero. It gets no better, nor will it. And essentially, it's ignored if it cannot be twisted around. As to the butchery, what are the first hand descriptions of those particular dead?
I'd imagine bodies with mostly heads heading north, no cartridges indicating firing in place, and the absolute lack of cover with 360 degree vulnerability might have shaped his thought. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
joseph wiggs
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - January 22 2005 : 4:46:25 PM
|
No one is suggesting that it is medically posibble to determine wheather a person was walking or running at death. What possible difference would it make. More importantly, a "line" of dead troopers were stretched from Calhoun Hill towards the Keough sector. That would be from a southern position to a position further north (towards Keough.)
At a critical point, a point in time, sometime, between now and then, after that moment, before this moment, during the interim, somehow, some where, the "L" troop skirmish line collapsed. Regarding Godfrey's exclamation of "I" ran north, I don't have the slightest idea as to what you are talking about, please elaborate. |
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - January 22 2005 : 5:30:24 PM
|
As to the butchery, what are the first hand descriptions of those particular dead?
I have read that Keogh's body was the only one not mutilated because he was wearing a papal medal.
I'd imagine bodies with mostly heads heading north,
Ya mean the ones that were not hanging in the village.And of course the Indians were noted for their delicate skill in striping a body.
Really DC!!!! |
|
|
|
Anonymous Poster8169
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - January 23 2005 : 03:40:55 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Warlord
Well, I shouldn't do this, but after thinking about it for awhile, how could you possibly tell if a group of men were killed in a skermish line or killed in a running file? It would appear to me that were they running, they would be scattered all over the hill. If in a more or less line that would contribute to a skermish line theory. I am am indeed skeptical of "a killed in running file theory".
I think he was more talking about the appearance of the thing; there are places on the field where it does look like a line of men were killed, fighting or running. (This is based on the markers, which of course may not, and some are certainly not, accurate). Doesn't mean they actually did operate in a line.
At the Keogh group, for instance, you can almost see where one body of men kept to the side of the ridge, heading towards Custer Hill, dying along the way, while another, smaller group tailed off towards the top of Battle Ridge, cresting it and then continuing on the west side of the road towards the same place. A line of markers to mark the path. It gives a vague appearance of order, but I think it's probably just that: appearance.
Even two days after, and with better evidence, Wallace himself admitted that he couldn't know. With skirmish lines there at least would have been cartridge evidence.
R. Larsen
|
|
|
|
joseph wiggs
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - January 23 2005 : 4:05:19 PM
|
"with skirmish lines there at least would have been cartridge evidence."
Exactly!
|
|
|
|
hunkpapa7
Lieutenant
United Kingdom
Status: offline |
Posted - February 20 2005 : 7:15:31 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by frankboddn
I noticed there was one vote for the Crow and Arikara scouts? What in the world did they do to deserve a vote, except tell Custer there were too many darned Indians?
Frankbodin,maybe they thought the Crow & Ree scouts told Custer to attack now,that day,as if he would let a scout make his mind up.
or maybe they didnt do there job right with the horses. |
wev'e caught them napping boys
Aye Right ! |
|
|
|
joseph wiggs
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - February 20 2005 : 7:28:58 PM
|
Ironically, quite a few wild accusations were charged against the scouts after the battle. In an effort to understand how savages could defeat the elite 7th.Cav., many folk believed that Sitting Bull attended the Westpoint Academy in his younger days. Some believed that renegade white men assisted the indians in developing military tactics against Custer. Others believed that some of the scouts led Custer into a well executed trap devised by the Indians.
As ridiculous as these charges appear today, in 1876 they were considered "facts." |
|
|
|
BJMarkland
Colonel
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - February 21 2005 : 09:38:09 AM
|
"Some believed that renegade white men assisted the indians in developing military tactics against Custer."
Strangely enough, I was just reading that in Terry's original telegrams of the LBH disaster. The statement is contained in telegram sheets 19 and 20 of Terry's report of the battle dated 6/27/1876:
"...Major Reno is very confident that there were a number of white men fighting with the indians [sic]."
Also, the initial report has Reno & Benteen giving estimates of the Indians "engaged" as approximately 2500 (p. 18-19) with the village size of "...about three miles."
Isn't that what current scholars are now saying as far as numbers and village size?
If anyone wants copies of those telegrams, I can scan them and post them at my site.
Best of wishes,
Billy |
|
|
|
whistlingboy
Lieutenant
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - February 21 2005 : 11:00:57 AM
|
I have those telegram copies also, Mr. Markland, and they are, in fact, quite interesting. I like the 'First Report' sent East after viewing the bodies of General Custer and his men. (And they refer to Custer as 'General Custer') A civilian scout delivers the news to the nearest telegraph office at Ft. Ellis (not sure where that is at the moment)from where the 'news' is sent to Chicago first and then to Washington, D.C. to Army Hdqtrs. There was a 'delay in service' between Ft. Ellis and Chicago and subsequently,...." the highest officials in the U.S. Army in Philadelphia attending the grand Centennial Exposition, learned about Custer's fate--not from this report--but from a July 6 newspaper story."
My satellite service got knocked out by high winds the other night and the service was off quite a while...I wonder what that 'delay in service' from Ft. Ellis to Chicago amounted to, any ideas? Good post. (Would've liked to have seen the 'Shockers' win that game on ESPN2 the other night.) |
|
|
|
Frank Spencer
Private
Status: offline |
Posted - February 21 2005 : 3:20:26 PM
|
Poll - Would Frank Spencer have handled the Little Big Horn better than Custer?
A. YES
B. NO |
|
|
|
hunkpapa7
Lieutenant
United Kingdom
Status: offline |
Posted - February 21 2005 : 4:57:43 PM
|
Billy,
I would appreciate it. |
wev'e caught them napping boys
Aye Right ! |
|
|
|
BJMarkland
Colonel
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - February 22 2005 : 10:32:20 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by hunkpapa7
Billy,
I would appreciate it.
Hunkpapa, I will attempt to work on the scanning today at lunch. I will post the locations over at Research when complete.
Best of wishes,
Billy |
|
|
|
Little White Dove
Private
Status: offline |
Posted - April 05 2005 : 1:30:54 PM
|
Hi I am new to this so please be patient with me, okay? I'm a student in college, and one of the subjects we are studying is this battle. I'm not a big fan of guns, battles and those kind of things. And my knowledge, if you will forgive me is not as great as yours.
I was just wondering Mr. Markland made a comment about the numbers of Indians there, 2500, right? Well, it seems like to me it was crazy for Custer to order his soooo tiny a force to attack them. Why did he do that? I don't know, what did he have 500 soldiers? It just seems like such an awful waste of precious lives, wouldn't you agree? |
|
|
|
joseph wiggs
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - April 16 2005 : 10:28:21 PM
|
The deplorable tragedy of war is the countless lost of lives of the innocent mis-fortunates who pay the ultimate price for the dictation of government policy. While some wars are necessary, others are not.
This war was not necessary. However, once declared, the American government moved forward at an aggravated pace. Custer was selected for this assignment for specific reasons. His superiors en-visualized his calvary as striking a lightening blow against the Indian village which, undoubtedly, would result in blind panic and terror among the Native Americans. The resulting wholesale trepidation among the warriors would ensure complete victory for the military. The warriors refused to play their designated role in this drama. Hindsight being twenty-twenty, it is simple for us to condemn these men who fought this battle. |
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - April 17 2005 : 3:20:59 PM
|
| Custer wasn't selected he pleaded to be allowed to join his regiment. |
|
|
|
joseph wiggs
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - April 17 2005 : 8:44:27 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by wILD I
Custer wasn't selected he pleaded to be allowed to join his regiment.
Custer was selected to lead the 7th. in place of its commander, Col. Sturgis who was on assignment. Custer, subsequently, offended Grant and was removed by him from that position. He then pleaded to be re-assigned. |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
Responsibility At Little Bighorn
