| Author |
 Topic  |
|
AZ Ranger
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
 Posted - December 13 2007 : 06:26:04 AM
|
I will provide a quote from another board to assist in calculating that number.
quote:
As darkcloud has pointed out, and as I have several times remarked myself, there are far too many markers on the field. darkcloud says to reduce the number by 20%, and he is very nearly correct, so far as he goes. Without digging out my research papers, I think the number currently on the battlefield is something like 256. Considering the men who were killed and buried outside the battlefield fence, the number should be about 197 [Custer's 210 less about 13]. Whether or not one accepts the various accounts of 28 bodies in a ravine, that is a hell of a difference - 256 to 197. And if you do accept that 28 should have been in Deep Ravine, then that reduces the number in other areas to 169 [197 less 28]. That is about one third less than what are currently used to analyze the progress of the fight. Don't call me a liar for one or two, please.
So every time you use the markers to make a point, remember that there should be a third less, and in whatever specific area you are talking about, the disparity might be lesser or greater.
|
“ An officer's first duty is to his horses.”
SEMPER FI |
  |
|
|
Sgtmajor109th
Captain
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - December 15 2007 : 12:59:54 PM
|
One of the reasons I believe Custer did it better is indian testimony as
to the actions that took place that day. Now we have a choice you either
believe them or you throw them out. The other is Custer himself. He was
in what one may call a Deciscve Engagement. When a unit or command is fully
committed and cannot maneuver or extricate itself in the abesence of out
side assistance, the action must be fought to a conclusion and either won
or lost with the forces at hand. Custer found hisself in just this kind of
action. As to the weaspon used by Custer, as far as the battle goes it has
little or no importence to the battle itself.
It has been said that several carried their own weapons. As for Dark Cloud
and his post about the markers, he is correct, but if anybody who made any
kind of study about the LBH would know that, but these extra markers had
nothing to do with Jun 25, and most of them were in the Custer area of the
battlefield, and had nothing to do with the Keogh sector or Calhoun Hill.
There were a few spurious markers there, but most feel they were moved when
the road was put in.
Calhoun did establish a skirmish line and by indian testimony it was very
effective as their attacks in this area were repulsed. It was only after
they were able to close on there flanks were they able to make any progress.
It did not endure long, and the line began to disintegrate, which means
that those men began to group into small coponents, or small fragments of
troopers and moving to Keogh's area. None of this is imaginary, the events
of that day did take place, to say it was inmaginary says it never happened
and only takes place in ones mind. Which brings me to another point, if this
is so, we can't believe anything that was ever wrote, believe any of those
statements made by those who were there,or indian testimony.
We can only go by facts that have been written, or told by others, and by
those who were there. You either believe them or come up with some facts
that proves them to be wrong |
Sgtmajor |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - December 15 2007 : 1:33:22 PM
|
There is no Indian testimony, never was. We have accounts that purport to be the words of the Indian participants, but none of them spoke English nor could write. You, Sgtmajor, cannot tell us who the intermediaries are, if they actually spoke the languages needed, were smart and objective, made no errors themselves, or weren't recording the lucubrations of old men in the lodge trading stories. Neither can anyone, by the way, so please don't take that personally. That said, though, we are probably better off throwing them all out RATHER than allowing them ALL in or allowing some in by unvetted criteria.
You're saying the sworn testimony under powerful sanctions of 7th officers is no better than 6th hand accounts that have verbal tenses the original language did not, references geographic locations by names unknown to the account giver, and knowledge of name, rank, and unit of soldiers they'd never seen in an army whose divisions they didn't understand? I cannot do that.
Indians are just as honest or not as anyone, but Black Elk's tale is about 6th hand when we read it. Because it's in the first person we assume those are his words. Highly dubious.
I'd assume most of the spurious markers made the shortest journey remotely defensible by Sweet, but the fact is we do NOT know which are spurious, the testimony and recorded fact is that NONE of the markers were moved for the road (entirely proven by the photographs before and after in Where Custer Fell) and we really have no clue at all what really happened after Custer crossed MTC.
There were accepted literary templates for the recording of these events, and they were forced upon the LBH. Most people these days are ignorant of those templates, don't recognize them, and approach it as truth. That's silly. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
Sgtmajor109th
Captain
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - December 15 2007 : 4:45:42 PM
|
DC, I should have not used the word testimony wrong word. Nor I should also
state here that I was not saying there was anthing wrong with your findings
about the markers. Many good men have written about what indians have told
and said about the LBH battle. How do we judge if it is true or not, can we
honestly say that all of what Michno, Hammer and Hardorff say is not true or
unbelieveable. In Michno's book "Lakota Moon" writes that White Bull, tells
of beinging driven back from Calhoun by heavy firing, are we not to believe
it. Now as for the markers on Calhoun Hill. I was not aware that any photo's
had been conpared to see if any markers had been moved.
The only information I have on that respect is from Dougles Scott's book "They
Died with Custer". I have said it before and I will say it again. When it
comes to what happened to Custer's command once he crossed MTC is for the most
part guess work, on my part or anybody else. But we have to have a starting
point. And that only comes from those who do so much research and write about it
We would all like it to come out the way we want, but it will never happen.
It will always be just what it is. But maybe one of these days as we debate
here on the forum we may hit on something new. |
Sgtmajor |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - December 19 2007 : 8:30:35 PM
|
Where Custer Fell is an important book, because it demolishes a lot of long time assumptions, like moved markers and lowered LSH.
I'm always cynical when people say something like what you have here: "When it
comes to what happened to Custer's command once he crossed MTC is for the most
part guess work, on my part or anybody else. But we have to have a starting
point." First, it's not 'for the most part' guess work. It's totally guess work.
And starting point for what? If we bemoan the lack of answers, we should probably ask specific questions. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
Sgtmajor109th
Captain
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - December 23 2007 : 5:57:34 PM
|
DC, I went to my book dealer yesterday, and reviewed some comments on
the book, however you can't go by them. However I did order the book,
one reason you convinced me and also Brian Pohanka. I knew him and
chatted with him several times at Gettysburg some years ago. Looking
forward to reading it. You have a Marry Christmas and everyone else as
well. |
Sgtmajor |
|
|
|
AZ Ranger
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - June 05 2008 : 10:35:40 PM
|
| Finished that book yet? |
“ An officer's first duty is to his horses.”
SEMPER FI |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Springfield Carbine
