|
Post by Herb on Mar 22, 2011 12:30:31 GMT -5
many in Deep Ravine (although no bodies have been found to date there; maybe they were moved; didn't someone say the recovery party just through some dirt on them? Deep Ravine was a lot deeper than I expected when I saw it). Allen, this is one of the troubling things for me. No finds of any sort seems to indicate to me that this isn't the right place. Even poor burials and flash floods should have left some remains. I don't know if/how we'll ever determine the timing of this event - although it seems critical to me if we're ever to understand what really happened. A skirmish line deployed to cover the movement from vicinity the cemetary is a radically different thing then a mad escape attempt from LSH. While I agree, there was no by the dicitionary "Last Stand", I feel most of us use the term to mean no survivors not a literal "last stand". True by the dictionary "Last Stands" are very rare things.
|
|
|
Post by Allen Wiener on Mar 22, 2011 13:41:55 GMT -5
All good points, Herb; can't disagree. Wherever they ended up, it was their last stand. I don't know if all of the mysteries will ever be solved, but that's what keeps us coming back for more. I'm not at home now, but I hope to take another look at the books that have the most details or theories on Deep Ravine. The place may not have been where they died, but I didn't see another place around there that could fairly be described as "deep" the way that one is. I'm only guessing here (without books), but didn't the initial info come from the burial details? Does "Where Custer Fell" or any other illustrated book have pictures of the burials in that area -- away from LSH toward the river? Another problem is that access is not permitted to most of the river area, although there is a path to Deep Ravine. It was frustrating to not really be able to see the river, although I later drove past the post office area and I think you'd get a much better look from there. Next time.
|
|
|
Post by Richard Weddle on Mar 23, 2011 11:47:45 GMT -5
If Gen. Custer took his own life, thereby denying the Sioux the glory of killing him personally, he did a brave thing.
Richard
|
|
|
Post by Chuck T on Mar 24, 2011 10:09:41 GMT -5
Richard: First of all, it is highly doubtful that the hostiles knew they were facing Custer. From most accounts I have seen from their side they thought that the troops were the same ones they fought at the Rosebud a week earlier. Second there is absolutely no evidence either way that Custer took his own life - none. Third, we differ on the definition of bravery.
|
|
|
Post by Chuck T on Mar 24, 2011 10:24:44 GMT -5
Herb and Allen: As you see I have not changed my user name yet. That is for later today.
The South Skirmish line is one of the great mysteries of the LBH fight. I think it is a result of getting pushed off of the cemetery. Herb, I am in general agreement with you about the purpose of the move north by E and F - reconnaissance. That begs the question reconnaissance for what. I do not believe that it was for a crossing at Ford D as I once did. I think now it is more likely that Custer was looking for a defensive position where he could withstand the mounting pressure on him.
If the scenario was Custer leaves Keogh in contact with C,I, and L and moves off with E and F to find a place to make a stand, hoping then when it was found for Keogh to break contact and join him, then it makes all kinds of sense to me. A friend of mine and I recently explored this scenario and he pointed to a piece of ground in the vacinity of the cemetery which if properly organized Custer could have held.
Allen get out the old pictomap again and look at the ground immediately south of the Park Service access road on the cemetery's northern border that leads down to the river. South of that road and west of the back fence of the cemetery is the ground. Tell me what you think.
No bodies were ever found in Deep Ravine. I think there is good reason for this, that being that Deep Ravine and Cemetery Ravine have been confused one for the other. That should spark some discussion on the so called "attempted escape" Hope so.
Chuck
|
|
|
Post by Herb on Mar 24, 2011 12:21:57 GMT -5
. I think now it is more likely that Custer was looking for a defensive position where he could withstand the mounting pressure on him. If the scenario was Custer leaves Keogh in contact with C,I, and L and moves off with E and F to find a place to make a stand, hoping then when it was found for Keogh to break contact and join him, then it makes all kinds of sense to me. A friend of mine and I recently explored this scenario and he pointed to a piece of ground in the vacinity of the cemetery which if properly organized Custer could have held. Chuck Chuck, an interesting idea, and something I'll have to think on, but if Custer was looking to go on the defensive, why move further away from the rest of the regiment - why not move with all 5 companies toward where Custer thought Benteen would be (deploying a rearguard as necessary ala Godfrey on the withdrawl from Weir Point) and eventually move toward uniting with Reno?
|
|
|
Post by Chuck T on Mar 24, 2011 12:32:58 GMT -5
Herb, Allen, et all: I think it might be helpful to fully explain my friend's observations and subsequent model of how he thinks things unfolded after Martin left with the "bring packs" message. None of this can be proven absolutely of course, but it is an interesting theory that should be explored.
The task organization of the Custer Battalion was as follows:
Hqs and Company E Keogh's Squadron (Companies C and I) Yates Squadron (Companies F and L)
The entire force moves down Cedar Coulee. Yates goes to Nye-Cartright. Hqs and E along with Keogh's squadron remain in MTC. Custer moves forward to recon MTC Ford, either alone or with a few scouts. Custer decides to draw hostile intention to MTC Ford taking pressure off Reno. E moves to demonstrate at MTC Ford covered by Keogh's Squadron from Geasy Grass Ridge. E withdraws. Keogh's Squadron withdraws by bounds to avoid decisive engagement.
Meanwhile F and L go to Calhoun Hill. L covers the withdrawl of Keogh's Squadron. The command is united on Calhoun Hill. Meanwhile hostile pressure increases and the option to return to Nye Cartright (a very good defensive position) is negated. Custer switches task organization at this point taking Yates with F and with E forms a new squadron, leaving L with Keogh. Custer moves north to recon for a defensive position, finds it and sends for Keogh. By this time Keogh is decisively engaged and cannot break contact. The hostiles detect Custer on Cemetery Ridge, drive him off the ridge and back up onto LSH.
I have tried for a week to punch holes in this model without success. The evidence fits. The only question that remains in my mind is how Custer was driven from Cemetery Ridge. Was the force he sent to that location only Company E? Was it even that many? Was he discovered in the midst of his recon? Was Company F left on LSH to cover his movements? The Cemetery Ridge position is very good for defensive operations with bluff to the west and good fields of fire all around. Something must have happended there. The only question is what and in what sequence.
|
|
|
Post by Chuck T on Mar 24, 2011 12:42:30 GMT -5
Herb: I think that option was taken away from him. Recall all of the cartridge cases found on Blummer-Nye-Cartright and Luce Ridges. E must have stirred up a hornets nest at MTC and the hostiles returning from the Reno fight must have built their force a heck of a lot faster than I have heretofore thought by coming up over Weir Ridge and into MTC during the withdrawl from MTC Ford. I think that would explain it. I have no doubt that Custer did not want to go on the defensive. There is also the possability that he left with E and F before Keogh joined Calhoun. So there maybe a couple of different reasons that we can only speculate about.
|
|
|
Post by Richard Weddle on Mar 24, 2011 13:32:20 GMT -5
Richard: First of all, it is highly doubtful that the hostiles knew they were facing Custer. From most accounts I have seen from their side they thought that the troops were the same ones they fought at the Rosebud a week earlier. Second there is absolutely no evidence either way that Custer took his own life - none. Third, we differ on the definition of bravery. I said if. IF. IF. IF. I don't disagree with a word you've said, Chuck, except to think like a Sioux Indian, as Custer did when confronting the hostiles. It takes courage to deny the enemy the satisfaction of killing you on the field of battle when you realize that you can't win, especially when you know your enemy interprets his killing of you as an empowerment -- medicine -- in his favor. By taking your own life you deny the enemy that empowerment, that face-gain among his people. Custer may not have known that the Sioux didn't recognize him, or it may not have mattered if they recognized him or not. To deny the enemy the satisfaction and empowerment of killing you is a brave thing. Which is not to suggest there isn't other kinds of bravery, because there is. In those last moments, the battle is fought physically and on a higher level; call it spiritual, tactical, or cultural. Custer's bravery is a matter of record, indisputable so far as I am concerned. Richard
|
|
|
Post by Chuck T on Mar 24, 2011 13:44:15 GMT -5
Richard: The fact that Custer consistantly displayed courage under fire throughout the totality of his career is beyond question. He also consistantly displayed recklessness but that is another issue.
Your definition of bravery with regard to a self inflicted wound under any circumstances, is not my own. A brave man fights with his every ounce of strength until the breath leaves his body. I will leave it to you to decide what I think of a man who willing takes his life, in any circumstance less the medical state of depression.
|
|
|
Post by Richard Weddle on Mar 24, 2011 13:53:39 GMT -5
That was not my definition of bravery. The was my interpretation of a behavior under an extraordinary circumstance.
You have a narrow definition of bravery. That's fine. You're entitled to it. But I happen to know it is a narrow definition because it does not take into account all the realizations and realities that Lt. Col. Custer and his men had to take into account when they were in the thick of it. In the face of defeat, you deny the hostiles as much of a victory as you can, be it only a sliver.
They should all be decorated, every single one, whether they committed suicide or not.
Let's fight.
Richard
|
|
|
Post by Chuck T on Mar 24, 2011 14:01:22 GMT -5
Richard: You seem to desire an argument. I do not share that desire. You are free to believe anything you wish. Do not even suggest that I do not have the same right.
|
|
|
Post by Richard Weddle on Mar 24, 2011 14:10:19 GMT -5
No, not at all. As I said, you are entitled to your views, and I am entitled to my mine.
On the question of bravery, Custer's behavior at the battle of the Little Big Horn was entirely consistent with his previous behavior in battle; he acted bravely, even if bravery called for denying the hostiles the spiritual victory and tribal-empowerment of killing him.
Is there anyone here who does not see this point?
Richard
|
|
|
Post by Jim Boylston on Mar 24, 2011 17:41:24 GMT -5
POSTS DELETED.
Feel free to continue the Custer discussion, but leave the personal comments out of it.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Sylvain on Mar 24, 2011 20:45:33 GMT -5
POSTS DELETED. Feel free to continue the Custer discussion, but leave the personal comments out of it. Amen. Spirited, passionate discussion is always welcome, and I for one can see some merit in both sides of the debate posted here of late, but please, please, please -- let's keep it civil and try to be respectful to each other. Paul
|
|