|
Post by Hiram on Apr 19, 2010 19:22:42 GMT -5
I keep getting people who think Daniel Boone died at the Alamo, and/or think that Boone and Crockett were the same person. Like "What's the difference between Boone and Crockett?" Unreal. I "blame" my childhood hero, Fess Parker, on that one. When Walt Disney refused to sell the rights to Davy to Fess, Fess went with his second best option, Daniel Boone. As a result, I get that question on Boone's death at the Alamo at least once a week.
The best one ever, was the adult visitor, apparently capable of some abstract thought, who was of the opinion that Custer, Geronimo, and Maximilian all had some physical, real world connection to the Alamo. Just when you think ya heard it all...
|
|
|
Post by Chuck T on Apr 21, 2010 15:55:59 GMT -5
For allenw: I have read this thread from the begining and noticed your post about wanting to get to Little Big Horn this year. I hope you can because I don't think anyone can appreciate fully this battle without a visit. The sheer size of the battle area will impress you. One thing that I believe is critical to understanding at least the Custer phase of the battle is the nature of the terrain. It is quite broken and this poses great limitations on field of fire. This is something that you cannot acertain from a map reconnaissance. Particularly in the area of Calhoun Hill get out of the car, be careful, very careful, of rattlesnakes and drop down to one knee in a simulated firing position along a skirmish line. You will be amazed at how much you can't see.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Sylvain on Apr 21, 2010 20:36:19 GMT -5
Chieftan, it's funny you mention the rattlesnakes. I have an older Park Service brochure of the site and at the time the NPS actually printed a warning about looking out for rattlers. I don't believe it's in the ones since.
I've also read this in magazine yarns about the area. Apparently they are pretty thick up there.
Regarding the terrain, the interesting thing is that the troopers had much more ammunition, and expended a bunch of shells in the battle (despite being limited by the breech loading rifles) -- way more than the Sioux and Cheyenne they were fighting. The Indians had better firepower but a very limited amount of ammunition for those rifles. The Indians used the terrain to their advantage and picked their targets and shots carefully, while the troopers, perhaps out of panic, fired more rounds but wildly, and missed. This was born out when the grassy areas birned some years back, and researchers went through with metal detectors. Custer's command may have had the "high ground" but it was of no advantage against the gullies and hollows in the terrain.
Paul
|
|
|
Post by Chuck T on Apr 21, 2010 20:45:51 GMT -5
Paul: I think a lot of the ineffectiveness in return fire from the five companies of cavalry deployed across Battle Ridge was due to an ancient weapon - the bow and arrow. As I stood on top of that ridge the last time I could almost invision arrows being used as we would deploy light motrars and grenade launchers today, that being for surpressive fire. Another thing about the Springfield Carbines, although they had a low rate of fire they were still quite accurate for a carbine, but that story about the ammunition keeps coming up. In all of my reading about the Indian Campaigns I have never heard of a similar incident. Perhaps it was not recorded but you would think I would have run across something. I am more inclined in this instance to suspect a deficiency in training. Any of your thoughts would be most welcome.
Chuck
|
|
|
Post by Paul Sylvain on Apr 21, 2010 21:01:14 GMT -5
I don't have it at my fingertips, but I recall reading somewhere that many of the troopers riding with Custer were in fact green and ill trained. Take that and the panic that must have grew as the fighting intensified, and I can envision the inexperienced soldiers firing wildly. It must have been terrifying to say the least.
It appears that only true skirmish line was the first group which came under attack from Gall. The battlefield evidence showed a well-formed line that seemed to hold for a bit, before eventually being overrun. The second group did not appear to be that well organized and were fairly easily overrun. Custer was in the final group -- a small group -- that gathered on so called Last Stand Hill. However, the small number of shell casings and such indicates there really wasn't much of a fight on Last Stand Hill. By the time Custer made his "stand" the fight was pretty much over.
I'm in L.A. this week and most of next, and not at home. When I get back to Dallas I will have to see if I can find where I read that.
Paul
|
|
|
Post by Chuck T on Apr 21, 2010 21:51:09 GMT -5
Paul: I believe there is ample evidence that Company (Troop) E advanced as far as what is now the cemetary leading Custer's advance toward the river for the second time. Something stoped them as was done before at Medicine Tail Coulee. In any event the fell back a short distance, but in good order and formed a skirmish line with the right near the present Indian Memorial and their left extended toward the river to the west. The line extended for about 250-300 meters, Evidently they held this position for some time until casualties mounted and they were forced to their rear and right to end up on Last Stand Hill with Company (Troop) F.
By the way Company was the official designation at the time but the terms company and troop were interchangeable and in common useage at the time. Troop did not become the official designation until 1883.
When I was last there I steped out of the car at Weir Point to be greated by Jake and his Big Brother. Needless to say I did not venture into the grass.
Chuck
|
|
|
Post by Paul Sylvain on Apr 21, 2010 22:11:48 GMT -5
"Jake and his Big Brother"? I love that.
Paul
|
|
|
Post by Chuck T on Apr 21, 2010 22:23:29 GMT -5
Well for a few second I sure as hell did not
|
|
|
Post by Allen Wiener on Apr 21, 2010 23:02:22 GMT -5
Chuck - thanks for that tip. On Tom's advice, I picked up "Where Custer Fell," and I'm going through it carefully to plan how to get the most out of a day at the battlefield. I plan to take a very slow and careful drive over the entire battlefield if it takes all day. My main reason for wanting to visit the place (for at least 40 or 50 years!) is to finally get an idea of what it is really like; how it looks and feels; the size and contours of it, so that I can better appreciate what happened there.
Allen
|
|
|
Post by Allen Wiener on Apr 21, 2010 23:03:08 GMT -5
By the way -- none of the tourist literature mentions rattlesnakes! I hope they aren't that hard to spot and avoid! That's all my wife needs to hear! Oh, man!
Allen
|
|
|
Post by Chuck T on Apr 22, 2010 0:08:20 GMT -5
Allen: I just spent the last half hour composing a tome for your travel adventures, Then I got an automatic log off as my time on net had expired. It is floating around in cyberspace somewhere and it's to darn late to recompose. Needless to say it was the Gone With The Wind of travelogs. Let this be sufficient for now. You chose the book wisely. The best I know of and I have just as many on Custer as I do the Alamo.
What I did not say in the post above is that after the Weir Point serpent roundup my wife did not get out of the car for the rest of a long day.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Sylvain on Apr 22, 2010 7:04:24 GMT -5
Good grief, that would be my wife, too. I plan to make the trip someday for the same reasons you mention, Allen. Guess I better not mention "snakes."
|
|
|
Post by Allen Wiener on Apr 22, 2010 8:47:17 GMT -5
Do they sell snake repellent there?
Does snake repellent actually exist, or is the same as jack-a-lope repellent?
Allen
|
|
|
Post by Chuck T on Apr 22, 2010 9:25:00 GMT -5
Allen and Paul: Snakes are a fact of life in that copuntry. The area where you must be most careful is the off park portion. Perhaps I should explain. There are really two sites - Reno (Bluff) and Custer. Connecting them past Cedar Coulee, Weir Point, Medicine Tail Coulee is a road but on either side is private ranch land. In summer the whole area is covered with knee high or better prairie grass (as it was at the time of the battle). In the park owned land there are the various paths to take you where you want to go. As long as you stay on the paths you will have absolutely no problem. Don't wonder off them. The problem is with the grass so high you just can't see them until your on them unless you know to be constantly listening and be alert for even the slightest movement of the grass. Most of us when we visit these sites have other things on our mind than doing that.
The rub comes in the fact that the park does not own some of the significant places in the story like Custer's view from the bluffs, Cedar Coulee, Weir Point etc. In my particular case I stoped at Weir Point and pulled the car over to the shoulder of the road, got out, reached in the back seat for my field glasses , and then walked to the front of the car. About three feet from my front bumper half on the shoulder, half in the grass we two very pissed of rattlers who had had their noontime nap disturbed. Being the Sterling Hayden prototypical hero that I am, I decided that the better part of valor was to return to the car and view the battlefield from a different vantage point.
Allen, it's sort of like a snipe hunt.
|
|
|
Post by Allen Wiener on Apr 22, 2010 12:45:36 GMT -5
Many thanks for the heads-up (literally!) Chuck. I will be on the lookout for sure, and careful where I walk. I want to start at the Visitors Center, pick up a map, and listen to one of the Ranger talks, if they are still offered in September. I plan to stick to the path.
This is the second time I've been told to bring some binoculars, both to Yellowstone and LBH. How strong a pair would you recommend and what sort of price can I expect to pay for something decent? This trip is already costing us a lot, but it's well worth it and a few bucks more isn't going to make much difference.
Thanks for the info and the help!
Allen
|
|