|
Post by Allen Wiener on Oct 1, 2010 11:19:53 GMT -5
Here are pictures from my visit to the Little Bighorn Battlefield, September 11, 2010. This is a LOT of pictures and many may find them repetitious, but I am posting all of them for those who are interested in the fine details of the battle and the terrain. However, I came away convinced that you cannot really get a grasp for the terrain or the battle unless you walk the ground yourself. Allen travel.webshots.com/album/578678299oIQrHQ
|
|
|
Post by garyzaboly on Oct 1, 2010 15:53:30 GMT -5
Great pics, Allen! A virtual tour of the battlefield, and something that would be valuable in a bound book form. Too bad the artwork on those site markers is so sub-par, and doesn't give a true idea of the places marked, or the actions that occurred there.
|
|
|
Post by Allen Wiener on Oct 1, 2010 16:24:31 GMT -5
Thanks Gary. You're right; the painted markers seem quite old, although I understand they are actually an updated iteration. I found them somewhat useful to get my bearings by trying to see where the actual locations were that are pictured in them. It's also problematic that you cannot actually go down from the ridge to the river & location of the Indian encampment, except in one place (Deep Ravine). On our way back to Billings from the Black Hills, we drove by the Battlefield again and I noticed that it is possible to get a better view from that perspective via an access road (the Garryowen Road, which has its own exit from the interstate). I could clearly see Last Stand Hill from the road as I went past.
I think you're familiar with the book "Where Custer Fell," which attempts to use photographs, past and present, to show the key locations of the battle and how the battlefield has changed over time. It's black & white and, frankly, I found it difficult to follow, but in all fairness it is just too big, broad and convoluted a terrain to really capture in photos. I think the photos help AFTER you've been to the battlefield and spent some time there.
One last round of applause, please, for my wife, who braved a full 7 hours at the battlefield (albeit on a gorgeous day) while I ran amok. Of course, she said herself that it was far preferable to spending 7 hours in Hardin!
Allen
|
|
|
Post by TRK on Oct 1, 2010 18:12:16 GMT -5
Whoa, nice photo collection, Allen! I'm jammed at the moment but definitely find time to look at this photo album in depth. One of the best parts of the trip is the aftermath, when you get to sort through the photographs.
|
|
|
Post by Seguin on Oct 1, 2010 19:39:25 GMT -5
Great photo collection! I´ve never seen pics of all the monuments, markers, and signs before, so that was quite a treat. Thanks, Allen...
|
|
|
Post by Allen Wiener on Oct 1, 2010 21:54:21 GMT -5
Thanks guys! I'm glad you're enjoying them! I set out to make a detailed photographic record of the visit and I guess I did. Once you have been there, these photos make a lot more sense.
|
|
|
Post by garyzaboly on Oct 2, 2010 5:53:43 GMT -5
Thanks Gary. You're right; the painted markers seem quite old, although I understand they are actually an updated iteration. I found them somewhat useful to get my bearings by trying to see where the actual locations were that are pictured in them. It's also problematic that you cannot actually go down from the ridge to the river & location of the Indian encampment, except in one place (Deep Ravine). On our way back to Billings from the Black Hills, we drove by the Battlefield again and I noticed that it is possible to get a better view from that perspective via an access road (the Garryowen Road, which has its own exit from the interstate). I could clearly see Last Stand Hill from the road as I went past. I think you're familiar with the book "Where Custer Fell," which attempts to use photographs, past and present, to show the key locations of the battle and how the battlefield has changed over time. It's black & white and, frankly, I found it difficult to follow, but in all fairness it is just too big, broad and convoluted a terrain to really capture in photos. I think the photos help AFTER you've been to the battlefield and spent some time there. One last round of applause, please, for my wife, who braved a full 7 hours at the battlefield (albeit on a gorgeous day) while I ran amok. Of course, she said herself that it was far preferable to spending 7 hours in Hardin! Allen Don't have WHERE CUSTER FELL....one of the many Custer books I don't have, even though my Custer library is at least 60 volumes. I do have an old ((1963) book, CUSTER COUNTRY, that offers aerial views of not only the battlefield but of the 7th's entire line of march, and it's been helpful over the years in providing a bird's-eye view of things. I'm sure if some writer was embarked on a special project to shoot the key points in the battlefield, he'd get permission from the site. I hear you on the patience of wives! Mine has been a saint during my peregrinations through history as well.
|
|
|
Post by Allen Wiener on Oct 2, 2010 11:56:03 GMT -5
Thanks for the tip on that book Gary; I'm going to see if i can scare up a copy. Aerial views would be very helpful.
|
|
|
Post by garyzaboly on Oct 2, 2010 14:55:21 GMT -5
Thanks for the tip on that book Gary; I'm going to see if i can scare up a copy. Aerial views would be very helpful. Ralph E. Scudder was the author. I just checked AbeBooks (bless that site). It has 18 copies of this (CUSTER COUNTRY) available!
|
|
|
Post by Chuck T on Oct 4, 2010 9:45:56 GMT -5
Allen: These are wonderful pictures. A lot of the markers must be fairly recent in that most of the ones you have pictures of were not there when I last visited, and it is obvious that they have replaced some that were marked rather poorly on my visit. I see you are in full "Campaign" uniform.
Did not see them until my return this morning. I spent the weekend at my reunion as you know. I did get a chance to visit the recently re-opened Naval Academy Museum. The place is a Valhalla for model shipbuilders like myself. Also through a friend on the Steel Navy Site I had a tour of the workshop in the basement. The collection contains thousands of ship models, only a very small portion being on display. The Rogers collection on the 2nd floor of the museaum will blow you away, considering most of these models were constructed in the late 17th and throughout the 18th century. Very much worth the trip from your place..
|
|
|
Post by Paul Sylvain on Oct 7, 2010 19:19:31 GMT -5
Fantastic photo tour. I've only seen the handful of pix that one usually finds in books and on line. This is the first time I've seen such an extensive photo presentation of the site. For one who has yet to visit the site, but hope to one day, it does lend some perspective to the size of the overall battle site. My mind envisioned something much smaller, but clearly this was a long, extended fight over miles of fields and ravines and rolling hills. Incredible.
You have whet my appetite to go and see this myself. While I know you have to walk the site to fully understand how the terrain and other factors affected the outcome of the fight, your pictures go a long, long way to giving folks like me the next best thing.
Thanks so much for posting.
Paul
|
|
|
Post by Allen Wiener on Oct 8, 2010 21:23:40 GMT -5
Thanks for your kind remarks Paul; I'm happy if the pictures are any help to others.
I think a lengthy visit to the battle site gives you a very clear, and perhaps new picture of what happened. I came to think that the outcome revolved much more on Custer's on-the-fly decisions, and the Sioux/Cheyenne responses to the attack than I had realized. Nothing was fore-ordained; one Park Ranger reminded me that, years later, Sitting Bull, said it was "a very close affair," meaning that his thought at the time was that it could have turned out very differently. Had Custer been able to engage in an attack to support Reno much sooner, and/or had Benteen hurried to the battle, rather than dawdled, things might have been very different. The trouble is that Custer had little or no real, reliable intel and went in mostly blind. He had no idea how large the village was or how difficult the terrain; how elusive a crossing location turned out to be, how long it took him to find one; how large the village actually was.
By all means, I strongly encourage anyone really interested in the battle to visit the battlefield and plan to spend at least a day there.
Allen
|
|
|
Post by Chuck T on Oct 8, 2010 23:27:18 GMT -5
Paul: I must agree with Allen. My visit some years ago clarified how I envisioned the battle taking place. Do I have a perfect handle on it, no, but I think I am pretty close. I think walking the ground is a must, for it gives you so many answers and probably causes you to ask a lot more questions.
I believe that Allen will agree that Custer made one fundamental error. He split his command into five parts, retaining two under his immediate control. It was not the splitting of the command where the fault lies. It was splitting the command without firm knowledge of the terrain. He had used the tactic before and thought it would work here. He was wrong.
Little Big Horn was a battle that should have been won by Custer. He lost it and he alone must bear the responsibility for the loss The Indians won largely because Custer gave them the gift of interior lines, where they were able to react and counter every move he made. This in itself is amazing given that Indian command and control was at a very rudimentary level.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Sylvain on Oct 10, 2010 20:15:06 GMT -5
So true, but like most things in history, there were a lot of contributing factors, some of which were Custer's doing, and some not. The Indians had repeating rifles (and other more primitive weapons, of course) against the breech-loading, non-repeaters of the soldiers. We know that the soldier's breech-loaders were subject to jamming.
Custer chose to leave the Gatlings behind because he feared it would slow him down. That's probably true, but one wonders if these guns would have helped, had he brought them.
While the Indians (some) had repeating rifles, they generally lacked ammunition, and had to be more selective in their firing. While many more Indians used primitive weapons, such as bows and arrows, they were expert in their use and could pour in numerous arrows within a minute. There are stories of Crazy Horse (when he was a young boy) honing his skills with a bow by shooting grasshoppers with arrows. Those were the types of games young Sioux played in preparing for hunting and warfare.
I do agree though, that splitting his command, then blindly going into attack mode late in the day (a very hot day) with tired soldiers and horses, and lacking knowledge of the terrain and the size of his enemy ultimately spelled doom for his immediate command. All the rest just sealed the deal, but the hand was already dealt.
Paul
|
|
|
Post by TRK on Oct 11, 2010 11:35:50 GMT -5
Custer chose to leave the Gatlings behind because he feared it would slow him down. That's probably true, but one wonders if these guns would have helped, had he brought them. Just like the breechloaders, Gatling guns of the day were prone to jamming. I'd lay odds that had Custer brought one or two with him on the campaign, at least one if not both would have had a fatal jam before it was over. Plus, I wonder how far a Gatling gun carriage and caisson would have made it over the rough terrain of LBH battlefield before having a breakdown? I'm not even sure Gatlings could have negotiated the trails Custer followed en route to LBH.
|
|