Waterloo50
Major
- Joined
- Jul 7, 2015
- Location
- England
is there anybody (besides a couple of posh narcissists) who think war has anything in common with sports
I don't think so, besides I'm British old chap, no point asking me.
is there anybody (besides a couple of posh narcissists) who think war has anything in common with sports
I have no idea who the posh narcissists are, I don't think you could possibly mean me, I'm not posh, I am in fact quite common, just ask my butler.right, haven't you been among those guys' henchmen for some time?
Absolutely, thanks for keeping us in check.Speaking of henchmen, what say we get back to the topic of Custer?
So after my long post, my question is what is the accepted authentic timeline of the battle and which historian/archaeologist do people place their faith in when it comes to telling the story of LBH.
Welcome to the mystery of the Little Bighorn. There is no accepted timeline of the battle, at least not for the 5 troops that died with Custer, just some theories. These are based on known facts of course, but where the facts end, timing studies, archaeology and Native American accounts take over (not to say that Native American accounts aren't factual, they were just told in way that "white men" had trouble understanding). I could go on and on. Suffice to stay that the hardcore LBH students spend days and days walking, or better yet, riding the battlefield trying to piece things together.
Fox's theory kind of shocked me when I first read it, but it is consistent with Benteen's observations about the position of the bodies. He only saw signs of organized resistance on Calhoun Hill. Then again, Benteen has been accused by some of lying or at least not telling everything he knew at the Reno Court of Inquiry....so who knows.
Start with your favourite book on the battle, get a hold of a good map of the area with at least the markers shown (so you know approximately where the soldiers bodies were found), use Google Earth and develop your own theory about what happened.
I'm going to put you on the spot here, I hope you don't mind.. what are your thoughts on the last stand, did it happen? No problem if you don't want to respond to that.The Native Americans tended to describe only what they, personally, saw happen. They didn't incorporate what they might have heard from another person, like the European American would. For example a warrior might have said, "Custer did not go to the river" which the interviewer (probably Walter Camp) took as an absolute statement. What the NA was saying was that he "did not see" Custer go to the river. As you can imagine, this lead to perceived inconsistencies between witnesses, until it was sorted out many years later. "Lakota Noon" by Greg Michno is a good book on NA testimonies/observations.
By the time the interviews were conducted the Native Americans were again "wards" of the government. It's quite possible that some thought it was not prudent to tell the exact story and so may have talked a about a stout resistance or last stand that in fact didn't happen. They may have said what they thought the interviewer(s) wanted to hear.
Keogh was no slouch when it came to a fight, so it was something that came quickly, without much warning.
Do you think Keogh may have been hit early? His leg wound pretty much corresponds to the wounds on his horse Comanche, so Keogh was likely still mounted when wounded. Perhaps Keogh was unable to exert much control over I Troop for very long.
Something caused a panic in "horse holder ravine" which was the area between Last Stand Hill and Calhoun Hill occupied by Keogh's "I" Troop. It was probably a charge.....either the one led by Lame White Man or something that Crazy Horse led, and it may have come from the east.
But back to the original post on how good of a cavalry leader/soldier he was. In my opinion he performed above average. In my opinion he was brave and courageous and rallied his men when the odds were not in his favor. He usually got things done.
Of course, Keogh was stripped but not mutilated. So he must have been in command long enough to do something to impress the natives. The other possibility is the natives didn't mutilate Keogh because they saw his papal medals and thought they were big medicine. I've also read that he did not wear his papal medals in the field but was wearing a Catholic emblem of some sort around his neck that might have been off putting to the natives.