The wife and I ppent a few hours at the site this week. 2nd visit to the site.
I am not much of a horseman but would be interesting to ride the site. They must have had some darn tough horses back then. Reno's retreat uphill from the river timber did not look easy if at high speed. Custer's troops were seperated a long distance from the rest. If Custer and all knew where Reno and Benteen were located, the order to bring up packs was not expected to be a quick proposition. Something must have gotten screwed up beyond Reno's problems.
Odd thing is the area where the battle occurred was only under Lakota and Tsisitas control for 30-40 or so years prior and maybe not complete control then.
I used to buy guns from a friend in Canada. I call him a friend even though I never met him because he was totally honest and great to deal with. Had to go through a broker to get them into the U.S. Although history is something I totally enjoy I am not an expert on this battle. Ok after my background information that I often do lol. I believe the natives escaped into Canada. My friend told me that the natives he knows told him that Custer was taken alive and tortured by the women. Something that I don't think is in any history books. I believe him personally. Just thought I would share this.
I have been there. It is very tough terrain. I don't see how Reno's men could have climbed that bank and gotten out of the river.
You would be surprised at how much 600 Indians could motivate you…
Exactly what I was going to say. Wife and I spent an afternoon there shortly after the anniversary. I was following the army from Ft Riley through NE, WY and MT.
The Indians did not choose their camp site haphazardly, randomly, or by accident. A few miles north or south the terrain provides much less protection from the east. Due to the engagement a few days prior on the Rosebud, they had to have suspected that they might be pursued.
It is entirely possible that Custer was taken alive and tortured. Squaws were expert at that, and it happened to many troopers on that day. If that were true, the Army would never have let that story out. They did let it out that his brother Tom was cut all to pieces by the squaws.
It is entirely possible that Custer was taken alive and tortured. Squaws were expert at that, and it happened to many troopers on that day. If that were true, the Army would never have let that story out. They did let it out that his brother Tom was cut all to pieces by the squaws.
Custer's body was found with his troops on Last Stand Hill as it is called. He suffered two bullet wounds one of which was a shot to the brain. He had a chest wound also. I have read speculation that his brother Tom may have finished him off. Some of the troops most certainly committed suicide to avoid capture and torture.
I thought it was interesting in that it wouldn't fit a narrative thanks for the information. I enjoy the comments from those of you that are historians on this subject.
I have seen multple videos on the battle from both sides including a great step by step series. This one below is very the best. I have defended Custer from the usual crowd that love to slap the arrogant racist moniker on him and dismiss him but, yeah, he had warnings enough.
It is entirely possible that Custer was taken alive and tortured. Squaws were expert at that, and it happened to many troopers on that day. If that were true, the Army would never have let that story out. They did let it out that his brother Tom was cut all to pieces by the squaws.
That didn't happen. Much of what is talked about is rumor and gossip. You can't rely on the Indian's accounts without some real investigation, as they had nothing to lose by embellishing their stories.
There are some good books that cover Custer and the battle, but most of the books are written by people that read other books...
I'm not saying I know for a fact that it is what happened to Custer as you can't say for a fact it didn't happen. Books are usually written by the winners. It is very reasonable to think it may have happened. Instead of going down in a blaze of glory with his bulldogs.
Was the area under Lakota and Tsisitas (Cheyenne) control at all? Crow Agency is right there.
If I remember correctly, the Crow were pushed out of the area around 1840 or so. Lakota were in the bighorns in the 1860s. Skirtmishes and raids between the two groups likely continued.
The Crow might have got the reservation area in exchange for cooperation with U.S. gvtmnt. Psa Toka scouts with Custer. I don't know the answer.
I'm not saying I know for a fact that it is what happened to Custer as you can't say for a fact it didn't happen. Books are usually written by the winners. It is very reasonable to think it may have happened. Instead of going down in a blaze of glory with his bulldogs.
Yes, I can say with certainty, that did not happen. Custer and all his immediate command were dead and left on the battlefield by late afternoon. He and his troops were found the next day on Last Stand Hill, Custer with 2 mortal wounds. No Indians were romping around and having their way with him or any other trooper.
They did mutilate, but it is recorded that torture was only done to Isaiah Dorman…
Ok it couldn't of happened cause what you read was a concise eye witness account that couldn't by chance omitted details that that would have put a national hero in a worse then favorable light. I look at probabilities and circumstances. History shows that things that happened have never been reported. Because of negative light it would bring to our hero's during wartime. There were atrocities on both sides such is the nature of war. I wasn't there so I can't say what happen but I do not take every thing I read as true. I read it so therefore it is true. If you think it's true good for you but you don't know is my point.
The beauty of the place is what struck me. The stark divide the river makes between the lumpy hills to the north and the flat plain to the south where the tribes were camped. The genocidal intent of the soldiers and their arrogance is hard to imagine. They paid dearly for it as the scattered tombstones tell so vividly. It must have been a horrible surprise.
Ok it couldn't of happened cause what you read was a concise eye witness account that couldn't by chance omitted details that that would have put a national hero in a worse then favorable light. I look at probabilities and circumstances. History shows that things that happened have never been reported. Because of negative light it would bring to our hero's during wartime. There were atrocities on both sides such is the nature of war. I wasn't there so I can't say what happen but I do not take every thing I read as true. I read it so therefore it is true. If you think it's true good for you but you don't know is my point.
The point is, you continue to spend time listening to rumors and stories of Ulysses. I have studied this battle, been over the battlefield countless times with credible historians, helped produce a documentary on aspects of the battle and then you come along with a fairy tale that you want to believe.
Believe it all you want, it still didn’t happen that way and there is ironclad evidence that no such torture ever happened to Custer.
I have been by there many years ago. If I go by again I will be sure to stop. That was over 40 years ago. An amazing part of our history. I understand the sight has been totally escavated. Please don't let a meaningless pissing match to highjack the thread. I just have a problem with absolutes lol.
Ok let's see the ironclad evidence. I was merely adding what I had heard. Never said it was true but possible. So if it doesn't fit your narritive of your documentery and you want to school me lets see the ironclad evidence I'm sure many people are interested. A report from a relative that was there is worth taking into account. A fairy didn't tell me.
The beauty of the place is what struck me. The stark divide the river makes between the lumpy hills to the north and the flat plain to the south where the tribes were camped. The genocidal intent of the soldiers and their arrogance is hard to imagine. They paid dearly for it as the scattered tombstones tell so vividly. It must have been a horrible surprise.
It is tough country and terrain would seem to make it difficult to recon and maneuver long distance. Not a military tactician so I may be off base. I do know a heck of a deer herd could be 50 yards away and you'd never see them.
Someone posted the Lakota, Cheyenne and Arapahoe chose their camp location well and it is true. I seem to remember from somewhere that some had camped there before.
As for arrogance of the troops... I never served but know some who did and some paid dearly mentally and physically.
I suspect that it was the same then and there. No arrogance... just some men doing a job they were told to do. Asking why you were doing it brought nothing but trouble. A good percentage of the army, 7th cavalry included, were recent immigrants -many probably had a hard time with English.
The tombstones in groups of two, three, or alone show how they fought and died up and down the hills. Three to fight and one to hold horses (memory is weak- Might have been 2 and 2).
I suppose when the SHTF there was no arrogance, just some poor souls fighting for their lives and the life of the fellow next to them. I doubt whether most of the officers had little or no respect for the aborigine's abilities, either.
Ok let's see the ironclad evidence. I was merely adding what I had heard. Never said it was true but possible. So if it doesn't fit your narritive of your documentery and you want to school me lets see the ironclad evidence I'm sure many people are interested. A report from a relative that was there is worth taking into account. A fairy didn't tell me.
Well it’s pretty hard to torture a man with a gunshot wound to the chest and one to the head…
I will be going to the 150th anniversary in 2026. I hope to connect with shrapnel and get a tour from him. I was their for the 140th anniversary. The place is a must see for anyone. More East/west coast liberals need to see it.
It has been many years since I visited the site, circa, 1981 or so. My memory is a bit wacked, but tough terrain did not enter my feeble mind when I was there, especially for horses that were bred for the conditions. Anyhoo, some of you wing nuts would be better served to spend some time with your nose in the history books from that era instead of running your speculative, ignorant pie holes!
The genocidal intent of the soldiers and their arrogance is hard to imagine.
The Indians were brutal savages. If the country was going to be settled and farmed there could not be murderous highly mobile nomads ransacking and killing at will. Actually Custer was in hot water in Washington for reporting misuse of money appropriated for Indians. Those soldiers had a job to do and I suspect many were reluctant to kill which may have affected the outcome. Custer did make several blunders which ended up dooming his battalion but branding the soldiers as genocidal and arrogant is wrong unless unknown to me you are a mind reader that can exercise that talent back almost 150 years.
It has been many years since I visited the site, circa, 1981 or so. My memory is a bit wacked, but tough terrain did not enter my feeble mind when I was there, especially for horses that were bred for the conditions. Anyhoo, some of you wing nuts would be better served to spend some time with your nose in the history books from that era instead of running your speculative, ignorant pie holes!
Lost we are all ignorant in many ways I prefer to be taught rather then preached to. Enjoy the thread. You have nothing to apologize for. Glad you shared your experience.
The wife and I ppent a few hours at the site this week. 2nd visit to the site.
I am not much of a horseman but would be interesting to ride the site. They must have had some darn tough horses back then. Reno's retreat uphill from the river timber did not look easy if at high speed. Custer's troops were seperated a long distance from the rest. If Custer and all knew where Reno and Benteen were located, the order to bring up packs was not expected to be a quick proposition. Something must have gotten screwed up beyond Reno's problems.
Odd thing is the area where the battle occurred was only under Lakota and Tsisitas control for 30-40 or so years prior and maybe not complete control then.
Need to do some more studying.
On the approach to the battle horses were going down from exhaustion. That factor and green troopers going up against desperate battle hardened Indians that were able to use the terrain to their advantage was a huge issue. It's pretty obvious that panic set in and the defense disintegrated. That is if there ever was truly an organized defensive position.
I've been to the battlefield several times and studied as many opinions and facts as I could find.
I believe Custer's main blunder was when he dismissed Capt. Benteen's advice to keep the whole outfit together. The Springfield rifles and disciplined fire from the troopers on the flat side (west) of the river would have had an excellent chance of repelling any Indian counter attacks. This is where Reno attacked with only 3 companies and he was apparently somewhat timid. In this alternate scenario the Indians may or may not have gotten away but they certainly would have had to abandon their tepees and anything else they couldn't carry off.
As it was 7 out of the original 12 companies survived in a very imperfect defensive position under the command of Capt. Benteen.
Was the area under Lakota and Tsisitas (Cheyenne) control at all? Crow Agency is right there.
If I remember correctly, the Crow were pushed out of the area around 1840 or so. Lakota were in the bighorns in the 1860s. Skirtmishes and raids between the two groups likely continued.
The Crow might have got the reservation area in exchange for cooperation with U.S. gvtmnt. Psa Toka scouts with Custer. I don't know the answer.
The Cheyenne reservation is very close also.
I believe I recall reading that the Lakotas moved west in numbers in response to the power vacuum created by the devastating smallpox epidemic of 1837 that effectively took out the Arikara, Mandans and Blackfeet especially, leaving few survivors.
Have you guys checked out Medora and Mandan area in North Dakota it's not far away and I would think it would be of interest.
Check out the Three Affiliated Tribes Museum, New Town ND. They have an original painted buffalo robe there detailing the original owner’s exploits.Including killing a noted Cheyenne war leader in a pre -arranged duel.
Kinda sad was a painted exploit where the guy lay waiting hidden in brush for six days outside a Chippewa village until the opportunity came to kill and scalp a woman and daughter early in the morning and make his escape. All that endurance and daring for such a petty and tragic outcome.
In that museum there’s a medicine bundle. The owner and his young daughter were out on the plains in the 1870’s when they were surrounded by enemy Lakota. The father, the owner of the bundle, put his daughter on a horse with the bundle and she escaped.
For the next few generations the bundle was passed down in the family but nobody opened it because they didn’t know the correct songs. Eventually someone in the family gave it to the museum, where it still sits, unopened.
Ok it couldn't of happened cause what you read was a concise eye witness account that couldn't by chance omitted details that that would have put a national hero in a worse then favorable light. I look at probabilities and circumstances. History shows that things that happened have never been reported. Because of negative light it would bring to our hero's during wartime. There were atrocities on both sides such is the nature of war. I wasn't there so I can't say what happen but I do not take every thing I read as true. I read it so therefore it is true. If you think it's true good for you but you don't know is my point.
The point is, you continue to spend time listening to rumors and stories of Ulysses. I have studied this battle, been over the battlefield countless times with credible historians, helped produce a documentary on aspects of the battle and then you come along with a fairy tale that you want to believe.
Believe it all you want, it still didn’t happen that way and there is ironclad evidence that no such torture ever happened to Custer.
The genocidal intent of the soldiers and their arrogance is hard to imagine. They paid dearly for it as the scattered tombstones tell so vividly. It must have been a horrible surprise.
You can make a strong case that up until the very end that, a few infamous massacres notwithstanding, more Indians were killed by other Indians than were ever killed by White people, and diseases wiped out many times morethan the best efforts of both combined.
The Crows willingly led the cavalry down on the Sioux and Cheyenne on the LBH because those two tribes represented a much greater immediate threat to their women and children than the White folks.
Also if those Sioux,Cheyenne et al had remained on the then Great Sioux Reservation, encompassing most of the Dakotas, they wouldn’t have been attacked by the US. I
Also typically underreported is the enormous desth rolls inflicted upon mostly unsuspecting White men, women and children by Indians in times of war.
1760’s French and Indian War/Pontiac’s Rebellion: ~1,500 settlers killed by Indians, most in Pennsylvania.
1770’s-1790’s American Revolution: ~7,500 settlers killed by Indians along the whole frontier.
1830’s-1870’s Texas: ~1,000 settlers killed by Indians.
Most immediate to the LBH, 1963, Santee Sioux uprising: Estimates run as high as 800 settlers killed in Minnesota in just three weeks.
Like wolves today, sympathy for Indians decreased the closer you actually lived to them.
...and by the 1870’s, the US Army was often the Indian’s best friend, Custer notwithstanding.
Was the area under Lakota and Tsisitas (Cheyenne) control at all? Crow Agency is right there.
If I remember correctly, the Crow were pushed out of the area around 1840 or so. Lakota were in the bighorns in the 1860s. Skirtmishes and raids between the two groups likely continued.
The Crow might have got the reservation area in exchange for cooperation with U.S. gvtmnt. Psa Toka scouts with Custer. I don't know the answer.
The Cheyenne reservation is very close also.
I believe I recall reading that the Lakotas moved west in numbers in response to the power vacuum created by the devastating smallpox epidemic of 1837 that effectively took out the Arikara, Mandans and Blackfeet especially, leaving few survivors.
Yes. Smallpox wiped out the Mandan. Strangely, The Lakota were more closely related to the Crow than their Algonquin allies, the Cheyenne and Arapahoe. The latter three pushed west from MN and north and east by other tribes.
My memory let me down. The Crow were given/ assigned the Powder River and east yellowstone country in the early 1850s Laramie treaty. The Lakota and Cheyenne were assigned areas to the east. The current Crow agency is quite a way east of the original agency. Red Cloud changed the dynamics of the Black Hills and west in the 1860s. To the west of the little BH, the Crow fought the Lakota allies to a standstill.
Point I was trying to make was the Custer fight was on land the US gvnent might have been in the process of planning to take from their Crow allies. Did the Lakotah view the land as disputed rather than Lakotah? Even Red Cloud and his allies?
Ok let's see the ironclad evidence. I was merely adding what I had heard. Never said it was true but possible. So if it doesn't fit your narritive of your documentery and you want to school me lets see the ironclad evidence I'm sure many people are interested. A report from a relative that was there is worth taking into account. A fairy didn't tell me.
Well it’s pretty hard to torture a man with a gunshot wound to the chest and one to the head…
The Indians believed that a person could not pass on to the afterworld if their body was not intact. It was common practice, fighting against fellow Indians, or against whities, for Indians to mutilate a corpse to deprive him of his entrance into heaven.
After the battle, the squaws did cut up some of the dead soldiers of the 7th Cavalry.
Yes there are accounts that Custer was tortured. And an account that the bodies were mutilated and Custer was found stripped but untouched. I don't think that sounds accurate. I applaud anyone that has done the research and teaches history. I would encourage those interested to do your own research and keep an open mind. History is a quite fluid as more information and technology uncover evidence that changes said history. I did alittle research as I became more interested I guess due to what I perseved as as an insult to my intelligence and integrity. Have a good day !
Colonel Benteen’s words On locating Custer’s corpse. Reno and Benteen and most of their men were convinced in their own minds that Custer had abandoned them and rode off northward to join Terry’s column. Many of the officers and men of the Seventh and other units identified Custer’s body, along with the fact that the Indians had not desecrated it. Some of the Southern Cheyenne present claimed that he was a relative through his relationship with Mohnaseta after her capture at Washita. I stated in a previous thread, that growing up in the 1970s, I had a decidedly negative opinion of Custer. But the more I read about him, the more I have come to admire the General in spite of his faults. His bravery and aggressiveness in battle had won him much recognition, and in his time he was viewed as a great leader and a hero by many. The admiration unfortunately didn’t extend to some of his subordinate officers though, namely especially was Benteen, along with Colonel Reno. Their dislike of the General sowed the seeds of defeat at The Little Bighorn. 7mm
Search did general Custer have an arrow shoved into his penis and have his ear drums pierced by an sewing awl. Take one account and it's gospel lier fu do some research kool-aid drinker. Do some research nitwit.
Colonel Benteen’s words On locating Custer’s corpse. Reno and Benteen and most of their men were convinced in their own minds that Custer had abandoned them and rode off northward to join Terry’s column. Many of the officers and men of the Seventh and other units identified Custer’s body, along with the fact that the Indians had not desecrated it. Some of the Southern Cheyenne present claimed that he was a relative through his relationship with Mohnaseta after her capture at Washita. I stated in a previous thread, that growing up in the 1970s, I had a decidedly negative opinion of Custer. But the more I read about him, the more I have come to admire the General in spite of his faults. His bravery and aggressiveness in battle had won him much recognition, and in his time he was viewed as a great leader and a hero by many. The admiration unfortunately didn’t extend to some of his subordinate officers though, namely especially was Benteen, along with Colonel Reno. Their dislike of the General sowed the seeds of defeat at The Little Bighorn. 7mm
This is much how I have viewed Custer and the battle. He was much more the heroic figure than many recognize. His accomplishments are legion, though not without some failure. Show me the perfect man and you will still find detractors, critical of his faults and disregarding his successes.
Is it true that no weapons from the fallen 7th Cav members were ever recovered? Or personal effects?
The Indians made off with the guns and ammo and actually used the very effective Springfield .45 caliber rifles and ammo in their unsuccessful attempt to dislodge the Reno- Benteen defenders.
Ok it couldn't of happened cause what you read was a concise eye witness account that couldn't by chance omitted details that that would have put a national hero in a worse then favorable light. I look at probabilities and circumstances. History shows that things that happened have never been reported. Because of negative light it would bring to our hero's during wartime. There were atrocities on both sides such is the nature of war. I wasn't there so I can't say what happen but I do not take every thing I read as true. I read it so therefore it is true. If you think it's true good for you but you don't know is my point.
The point is, you continue to spend time listening to rumors and stories of Ulysses. I have studied this battle, been over the battlefield countless times with credible historians, helped produce a documentary on aspects of the battle and then you come along with a fairy tale that you want to believe.
Believe it all you want, it still didn’t happen that way and there is ironclad evidence that no such torture ever happened to Custer.
Is it true that no weapons from the fallen 7th Cav members were ever recovered? Or personal effects?
The Indians made off with the guns and ammo and actually used the very effective Springfield .45 caliber rifles and ammo in their unsuccessful attempt to dislodge the Reno- Benteen defenders.
I have a few items from the battlefield and adjacent property that we have worked on as we have been pursuing just this aspect of the battle. Hundreds of books have been written about the battle, but little is known about this stuff. What we have been seeking is the whereabouts of the lost artifacts that were taken from the bodies on the Battlefield.
There is historical evidence of the existence of this stuff, but very little and hardly any knowledge to it's location. Finding out these tidbits of information isn't easy and you have to be careful of what your sources are. This book that was written by Meketa, Bookwalter and Weibert, is one of those rare resources that helps define where things started and where they ended. I doubt many even know of it's existence let alone how to get a copy.
Another resource is the Book Custer in 1876, which is a collection of the documents that Walter Mason Camp compiled as he interviewed Indian and Cavalry survivors about the battle, years after it was no longer a threat to the Indian's welfare.
I have quite a collection of different books and periodicals to help assist us in our search for the lost artifacts.
I have a lot more, but it takes time to post and time to read what you post, so it is best sometimes to be brief, and answer questions as they arise.
Meanwhile, you keep running into the rumor mill and the loyal followers that keep spewing the same uniformed diatribe that is puzzling, but for some reason those people are as certain that the stories they heard through the grapevine are as valid as exhausting research.
The government said it so its true the natives had time to collect arms and ammo strip the body's mutilate but they stripped Custer and didn't touch him because he was loved and adored by the Indians. As I stated there is many conflicting stories easy to find just look. Personally I would trust a elf I mean a natives and the numerous sites and testimony. To repeating old history books this was during the dime store novels all the stories about the gunfighters were true too haha. To say these are all rumors and gossip is lazy intellectually. I am not arrogant enough to think I know everything. At least one should have an open mind. And continuing research should be encouraged not dismissed in a very impolite way. We can only surmise what happened . This started as a post from me on this thread and turned into personal attacks. Personally I welcome differing views and conversation that is done in an adult manner. I could put people on the spot and embarrass them I prefer not to do that. Have your opinions don't attack other views.
The government said it so its true the natives had time to collect arms and ammo strip the body's mutilate but they stripped Custer and didn't touch him because he was loved and adored by the Indians. As I stated there is many conflicting stories easy to find just look. Personally I would trust a elf I mean a natives and the numerous sites and testimony. To repeating old history books this was during the dime store novels all the stories about the gunfighters were true too haha. To say these are all rumors and gossip is lazy intellectually. I am not arrogant enough to think I know everything. At least one should have an open mind. And continuing research should be encouraged not dismissed in a very impolite way. We can only surmise what happened . This started as a post from me on this thread and turned into personal attacks. Personally I welcome differing views and conversation that is done in an adult manner. I could put people on the spot and embarrass them I prefer not to do that. Have your opinions don't attack other views.
You may not be arrogant, but you are stupid.
You can’t write a cognitive sentence or make a decent point. This isn’t an attack on you, just an observation…
Ya boys the earth is flat. Columbus discovered America The earth is the center of the universe Right Shapnel you are the difinitive expert Your no researcher you just repeat what you read in you old books. Why don't you address the points I have brought up People agree with you but have they even done any checking. Have you checked out the account of Custer ear drums punctured arrow up the penis. You have not countered anything I have said other calling names. Common sense out the window full steam ahead. Maybe give the accounts and describe how they came from fairies I'm stupid you haven't come up with any intelligent explanations. Address my comments instead of name calling. What a joke bean you know what you can do with that shovel. Both your posts have absolutely no substance.
Historians are still trying to figure out what happened for sure. Why don't you look into them ( other accounts ) and explain your reasons for not believing they are true the discussions are out there. That would be very interesting. Many agree with you others are still struggling to sift through the evidence and come up with a theory to disprove other accounts. I don't know for sure what is accurate. If it was my wheelhouse I would do this and it would make for some very interesting theories. And opinions. My problem isn't what you perceive is correct it is the way you are close minded to any other views. I can assure you nobody has considered me stupid.
One thing a few historians have mentioned is that, aside from Custer's aggressive tactics during the War Between the States, he gained a lot of confidence (perhaps over-confidence) in his overwhelming "victory" over the big Cheyenne village on the Washita River in Oklahoma in November of 1868. It was also relatively large, and strung out along a river--but I have visited both sites (the LBH many times) and they are very different in terrain, despite both being plains areas. And the Cheyennes on the Washita were really surprised--unlike the LBH.
One thing a few historians have mentioned is that, aside from Custer's aggressive tactics during the War Between the States, he gained a lot of confidence (perhaps over-confidence) in his overwhelming "victory" over the big Cheyenne village on the Washita River in Oklahoma in November of 1868. It was also relatively large, and strung out along a river--but I have visited both sites (the LBH many times) and they are very different in terrain, despite both being plains areas. And the Cheyennes on the Washita were really surprised--unlike the LBH.
I read an Indian account that said they were surprised and didn't know Custer's cavalry was in the area. But I can't recall the source. I've read a bunch about the battle and for awhile I was on a LBH message board where things were discussed and argued ad nauseum. Everything I've read and heard has kind of run together. Anyway the Indian said they thought it was Crook coming back at them from the Rosebud battle.
It seems to me there would have been a dust cloud kicked up by Custer's bunch that someone out 2000 or more Indians would have seen.
I am going back to the LBH battlefield this September.
Shrapnel: Do you think Reno was drunk at the time he led the attack on the south end? Do you believe the Custer battalion would have survived had Benteen rode through Reno's defeated battalion without stopping to combine and organize them? I suspect the whole outfit would have been destroyed.
I know it is said you ride to the sound of the guns, but Benteen did "come On" and did "bring packs". And I'm sure it was obvious to him that Reno was in no condition to command troops. He was at the village and Reno did either order or ask Benteen to stay and help him saying "I've lost half my men".
I'm leaving Louisiana for Montana on the 5th and will pickup my wife at the Bozeman airport on the 10th. Depending on how it goes on my wandering trip to Montana I may go to the LBH before or after the 10th. The battle has become very interesting to me and I'll admit feeling some sympathy for Benteen.
I've wondered why Custer didn't give Benteen or Tom the hugely important attack on the south end.
I suspect he didn't like Benteen's (and my) preference for keeping the whole outfit together because of the probability of the Indians escaping to the hills.
Shrapnel: Do you think Reno was drunk at the time he led the attack on the south end? Do you believe the Custer battalion would have survived had Benteen rode through Reno's defeated battalion without stopping to combine and organize them? I suspect the whole outfit would have been destroyed.
I know it is said you ride to the sound of the guns, but Benteen did "come On" and did "bring packs". And I'm sure it was obvious to him that Reno was in no condition to command troops. He was at the village and Reno did either order or ask Benteen to stay and help him saying "I've lost half my men".
I'm leaving Louisiana for Montana on the 5th and will pickup my wife at the Bozeman airport on the 10th. Depending on how it goes on my wandering trip to Montana I may go to the LBH before or after the 10th. The battle has become very interesting to me and I'll admit feeling some sympathy for Benteen.
I've wondered why Custer didn't give Benteen or Tom the hugely important attack on the south end.
I suspect he didn't like Benteen's (and my) preference for keeping the whole outfit together because of the probability of the Indians escaping to the hills.
I would consider a trip to the battlefield if I am not hunting elk.
There is too much “probability” and “maybe” to discuss on this forum. I live within 3 miles of the airport, get in touch and we could visit about it. I would discuss the aspects with you and use the proper resources to help create the best image of what really happened. It is always subjective once you look at the data and try to recreate the battle and what went wrong vs what was planned.
One thing most people don’t know is Custer wasn’t wrong in his plan to take the village, but a lot of things did go wrong and Custer gets the blame…
We were at LBH in June. The last time we were there was 1983. As an observation by an old infantryman, Last Stand Hill was a poor spot to set up a defensive position against a superior force. Too many covered approaches from the river and the north side. But perhaps that was the best they could do in the moment. The victory for the tribes hastened the end of their lives as they knew it. Probably no one would know the Custer name if he hadn’t gotten his men and himself massacred. Garry Owen!
Seems to be a pattern Hastings you just can't let it go and you are the one trying to to stir the pot. I guess it's from dealing with people like you. And I don't like it so I guess it found me. Why don't you let the folks enjoy the thread. I did not feel I was treated with respect, I didn't like it. I haven't seen you debate or address anything I have said. Shapnel just offered to take a fellow to the the battle field and he said there are too many probabilitys and maybe to address here. Hats of to him for that.
Shrapnel: Do you think Reno was drunk at the time he led the attack on the south end? Do you believe the Custer battalion would have survived had Benteen rode through Reno's defeated battalion without stopping to combine and organize them? I suspect the whole outfit would have been destroyed.
I know it is said you ride to the sound of the guns, but Benteen did "come On" and did "bring packs". And I'm sure it was obvious to him that Reno was in no condition to command troops. He was at the village and Reno did either order or ask Benteen to stay and help him saying "I've lost half my men".
I'm leaving Louisiana for Montana on the 5th and will pickup my wife at the Bozeman airport on the 10th. Depending on how it goes on my wandering trip to Montana I may go to the LBH before or after the 10th. The battle has become very interesting to me and I'll admit feeling some sympathy for Benteen.
I've wondered why Custer didn't give Benteen or Tom the hugely important attack on the south end.
I suspect he didn't like Benteen's (and my) preference for keeping the whole outfit together because of the probability of the Indians escaping to the hills.
I would consider a trip to the battlefield if I am not hunting elk.
There is too much “probability” and “maybe” to discuss on this forum. I live within 3 miles of the airport, get in touch and we could visit about it. I would discuss the aspects with you and use the proper resources to help create the best image of what really happened. It is always subjective once you look at the data and try to recreate the battle and what went wrong vs what was planned.
One thing most people don’t know is Custer wasn’t wrong in his plan to take the village, but a lot of things did go wrong and Custer gets the blame…
We were at LBH in June. The last time we were there was 1983. As an observation by an old infantryman, Last Stand Hill was a poor spot to set up a defensive position against a superior force. Too many covered approaches from the river and the north side. But perhaps that was the best they could do in the moment. The victory for the tribes hastened the end of their lives as they knew it. Probably no one would know the Custer name if he hadn’t gotten his men and himself massacred. Garry Owen!
They didn’t pick last stand hill for a defensive site, they were forced there and made the stand.
Custer, on the other hand, had already made his mark in History and would not have been remembered as he is today, but he still would have been remembered, as he was one of the greatest Civil War heroes and that is why there was such shock at his demise by a bunch of savages.
Custer’s leadership throughout the Civil War, was unmatched and very aggressive. He was always at the front of the charge and although his casualties were high, the Civil War was known for that and again, he gets blamed for his bravado, while at Gettysburg there were 10’s of thousands of casualties and little is discussed in regards to that. Yet, on the backside of Gettysburg, Custer and his Michigan Wolverines, took on Jeb Stuart and turned him back with odds on Stuart’s side.
A very interesting person, Custer, and a very misunderstood figure that people hate and revere, yet he was one man that lived one life…
Seems to be a pattern Hastings you just can't let it go and you are the one trying to to stir the pot. I guess it's from dealing with people like you. And I don't like it so I guess it found me. Why don't you let the folks enjoy the thread. I did not feel I was treated with respect, I didn't like it. I haven't seen you debate or address anything I have said. Shapnel just offered to take a fellow to the the battle field and he said there are too many probabilities and maybe to address here. Hats of to him for that.
If you are having the same issue over and over it is probably something you are doing. There was a pattern with my career as a game warden. Quite a few of the serious poachers are also somewhat crazy and feel entitled. When one got the idea I was dogging him it would set him off. I'm not going to go into the details because it would take pages but 2 ended up in prison and 2 ended up shot (not by me) over their paranoia.
Hasting your assumptions about me are Ludacris comparing me to your career as a game warden. Read the posts. To judge someone about a post and then do the same thing I was referring to. And then this. Is this an example of your cop mentality and shooting someone comes to light on this subject. You can't make this up. Is this a pattern of yours making unfounded accusations. Guilty till proven innocent mentality. Like I said let people enjoy the thread. Nobody cares.
And by the way I'm retired never been arrested have a concealed carry licience which means I have had the feds check me out. I take pride in not taking schit and if you don't like it I could care less.
Too compare me to poachers that are crazy and feel entitled is also crossing the line. You sir should pick your words carefully. That is a very serious thing to say and is an assault on one's integrity.
I am not the one that started this schit show and didn't start calling people stupid. In fact there has been no debate on any issues only attacks. I try to treat people as I would be treated. So excuse me if I don't care for it when I'm not treated the same.
Too compare me to poachers that are crazy and feel entitled is also crossing the line. You sir should pick your words carefully. That is a very serious thing to say and is an assault on one's integrity.
I think you misapprehended what I was trying to convey. You have said you have history of getting into spats with people that cross you. That is a pattern. I had a history and pattern of setting off crazy reactions in known poachers that would get upset and react with undue threatening behavior when they discovered they were targets.
Don't get upset I was only noting that which you already acknowledged. A pattern of disagreements when you feel insulted.
We were at LBH in June. The last time we were there was 1983. As an observation by an old infantryman, Last Stand Hill was a poor spot to set up a defensive position against a superior force. Too many covered approaches from the river and the north side. But perhaps that was the best they could do in the moment. The victory for the tribes hastened the end of their lives as they knew it. Probably no one would know the Custer name if he hadn’t gotten his men and himself massacred. Garry Owen!
They didn’t pick last stand hill for a defensive site, they were forced there and made the stand.
Custer, on the other hand, had already made his mark in History and would not have been remembered as he is today, but he still would have been remembered, as he was one of the greatest Civil War heroes and that is why there was such shock at his demise by a bunch of savages.
Custer’s leadership throughout the Civil War, was unmatched and very aggressive. He was always at the front of the charge and although his casualties were high, the Civil War was known for that and again, he gets blamed for his bravado, while at Gettysburg there were 10’s of thousands of casualties and little is discussed in regards to that. Yet, on the backside of Gettysburg, Custer and his Michigan Wolverines, took on Jeb Stuart and turned him back with odds on Stuart’s side.
A very interesting person, Custer, and a very misunderstood figure that people hate and revere, yet he was one man that lived one life…
Thanks Shrapnel. I always appreciate your input on this subject. You probably forgot more about the LBH than most here know.
I’d like to add, I believe it was at Ft. Buford I read that the Farwest riverboat got the wounded back to St. Louis in 9? days. Yellowstone to the Missouri…
And by the way I'm retired never been arrested have a concealed carry licience which means I have had the feds check me out. I take pride in not taking schit and if you don't like it I could care less.
So has anyone else who's bought a gun from an FFL since 1993.
You may certainly believe Custer was tortured/mutilated by Indians. That's your right. But I've not seen much in the way of proof to back your opinion.
Some people believe Billy the Kid wasn't killed by Pat Garrett. Some believe the Grassy Knoll story.
Whatever.
When you engage in these theories, you put yourself out there on the table too.
Yup I don't have a problem with that, but there are conflicting reports. A person should still be treated with respect. I never made any attacks only offered what I thought was an interesting bit of information.
We were at LBH in June. The last time we were there was 1983. As an observation by an old infantryman, Last Stand Hill was a poor spot to set up a defensive position against a superior force. Too many covered approaches from the river and the north side. But perhaps that was the best they could do in the moment. The victory for the tribes hastened the end of their lives as they knew it. Probably no one would know the Custer name if he hadn’t gotten his men and himself massacred. Garry Owen!
They didn’t pick last stand hill for a defensive site, they were forced there and made the stand.
Custer, on the other hand, had already made his mark in History and would not have been remembered as he is today, but he still would have been remembered, as he was one of the greatest Civil War heroes and that is why there was such shock at his demise by a bunch of savages.
Custer’s leadership throughout the Civil War, was unmatched and very aggressive. He was always at the front of the charge and although his casualties were high, the Civil War was known for that and again, he gets blamed for his bravado, while at Gettysburg there were 10’s of thousands of casualties and little is discussed in regards to that. Yet, on the backside of Gettysburg, Custer and his Michigan Wolverines, took on Jeb Stuart and turned him back with odds on Stuart’s side.
A very interesting person, Custer, and a very misunderstood figure that people hate and revere, yet he was one man that lived one life…
Custer certainly had his well earned civil war merits.
Custer’s Brother, Tom who also died at the LBH, wasn’t he the recipient of 2 Medals of Honor from his exploits and performances in the civil war?
They didn’t pick last stand hill for a defensive site, they were forced there and made the stand.
Custer, on the other hand, had already made his mark in History and would not have been remembered as he is today, but he still would have been remembered, as he was one of the greatest Civil War heroes and that is why there was such shock at his demise by a bunch of savages.
Custer’s leadership throughout the Civil War, was unmatched and very aggressive. He was always at the front of the charge and although his casualties were high, the Civil War was known for that and again, he gets blamed for his bravado, while at Gettysburg there were 10’s of thousands of casualties and little is discussed in regards to that. Yet, on the backside of Gettysburg, Custer and his Michigan Wolverines, took on Jeb Stuart and turned him back with odds on Stuart’s side.
A very interesting person, Custer, and a very misunderstood figure that people hate and revere, yet he was one man that lived one life…
I've been there several time & it's a very very interesting part of history.
While all you say above in true, it's hard to come to a conclusion that at LBH, Custer, for whatever reasons we'll never really know, fu^cked up.
150 years later, hindsight is surely 20-20 by a bunch of armchair quarerbacks though.
Obviously, splitting his command as he did left him vulnerable...............but when he made that decision, he also, obviously, didn't know the magnitude of what he was facing. Had he known, maybe he would have acted differently.
But that's the mystery & we'll never really know now, will we?
I agree with Shrapnel in that Custer and his men probably didn't have a choice for their last stand location. My guess is that they were overwhelmed, started to retreat, had that "oh schit" realization, and then it was every man for himself.
A bigger picture aspect was communication or lack thereof. If I remember correctly, there was supposed to be a three-way pincher movement with Terry from the north, Crook from the south, and Custer from the east. Did Custer know that Crook got whupped and wasn't coming up or not as fast? Did Custer jump the gun, thinking be could take advantage by surprise? Custer may have had better knowledge of his adversary if he knew what happened to Crook. And Terry with more knowledge of events may have updated the plan.
In any event, Custer was a hard-charger, needed in war warts and all, aka Patton, etc. That the research, discussion and interest still today is a testament to him and history. It was tragic, the good guys don't always win or maybe leaders don't always make the right decisions. However, that event, was probably the catalyst for a focused effort to end the Indian wars.
I agree with Shrapnel in that Custer and his men probably didn't have a choice for their last stand location. My guess is that they were overwhelmed, started to retreat, had that "oh schit" realization, and then it was every man for himself.
A bigger picture aspect was communication or lack thereof. If I remember correctly, there was supposed to be a three-way pincher movement with Terry from the north, Crook from the south, and Custer from the east. Did Custer know that Crook got whupped and wasn't coming up or not as fast? Did Custer jump the gun, thinking be could take advantage by surprise? Custer may have had better knowledge of his adversary if he knew what happened to Crook. And Terry with more knowledge of events may have updated the plan.
In any event, Custer was a hard-charger, needed in war warts and all, aka Patton, etc. That the research, discussion and interest still today is a testament to him and history. It was tragic, the good guys don't always win or maybe leaders don't always make the right decisions. However, that event, was probably the catalyst for a focused effort to end the Indian wars.
The Indian wars were over, but battles lingered for some time. Indians saw the writing on the wall when Lewis and Clark went west in 1804.
There were no winners in the Indian wars, a huge difference existed between Stone Age inhabitants of the Americas when they were invaded by Europeans and technology of the day.
Many people criticize the policies enacted against the Indians, but in those times and setting, it couldn’t have been handled much differently…
I have relation in the Billings Mt. area and after a family reunion a few of us went to the LBH and I visited a couple of times thereafter. A Great Aunt always had a suspicion that the family had a relative that died there and later a techy young family member working on the family tree traced us back to Lt. Algernon Emory Smith. I visited his grave at Fort Leavenworth.
In 2016, I attended the Red Bird family LBH reenactment near the Crow Agency with the hope of maybe learning something new about the Indian perspective, I did not. However, what I came away with is I smelled and tasted Montana dust, smelled horse sweat and gunpowder, heard the squeal of horses, scream of the eagle bone whistles and Indians, the hooves pounding the ground, tink of saddle accouterments and bugler.
On another side of the family tree I have another connection to LBH, a Great Uncle served in the US Army during World War I and was a quartermaster in Europe where he met George Lone Hill, who was also in the same office. Lone Hill was from the Cheyenne Reservation near Busby, Mt and my uncle lived between Lewistown and Hilger MT. After they got mustered out they stayed in touch.
About 1924 or 1925, my uncle received a letter from Hill informing him that the US Government planned on eliminating 1000s of horses from the reservation and if he wanted any. He notified Hill that he and his brother were coming to look over the horses and they took a train from Lewistown to Crow Agency and met up with Hill and the owner of the horses, Sammy Akecheta (Soldier). My Uncle purchased three mares and one stud, loaded them in a cattle car at Crow Agency on the C B & Q RR which I believe transferred on to the Milwaukee Road and offloaded them at Lewistown. Some of the offspring of those four horses were registered at the AIHR (American Indian Registry) in the 1960s. Do we know for sure if bloodline was actually from horses at LBH, no. That is the problem with the fog of war and history, but I try to make sense of it the best I can.
There was an interesting Twilight Zone episode where National Guardsmen on a training day came over the hill with their M 16's. Their names are engraved on the monument. True story...Oh, BTW, those plains Indian tribes had fled to the Greasy Grass for one simple reason. They just wanted to be left alone. Sound familiar?
Following the Civil War, we had boatloads of leftover Muzzleloading Springfields. The Army decided to re barrel them using the trap-door conversion. They were .45/70, with the Cavalry carbine being slightly loaded down for recoils sake. They were better at longer range than the few lever action Henry’s and Winchester’s the Indians had, but remember also that repeating guns were a rarity in The Sioux and Cheyenne camps. Most of them had old muzzleloaders or bows and arrows. They also had overwhelming numbers. Had Custer kept the regiment together, he’d have survived, albeit with some egg on his face. As it was, he divided his command, hoping for a repeat of his victory at Washita. Indians always split up and ran away from soldiers... except this time they didn’t. 7mm
True, but few people realize the superiority of the trapdoor over the Henry in Indian warfare…
Shrapnel…. I respect the years of research that you’ve invested in the study of the LBH so I’d be interested in your opinion of why you believe the single shot Trapdoor was better for Indian warfare than a repeating rifle? I can understand how it was more accurate at distance and packed the punch to take out a horse but I think for the close up combat of either mounted or dismounted troops a repeating rifle would be preferable. I can’t help but to think that if those Troopers that day had all been armed with Winchester or Henry lever action rifles or Spencer repeaters the outcome might’ve been different?….the force multiplier those repeaters would provide of sustained fire against a superior number of enemy…..coulda, woulda, shoulda. 😁
I appreciate all those that contribute to these types of threads, I always learn something.
With that many Indians I’m not so sure a Gatling gun would’ve made much a difference.
Custer was offered a couple of Gatling guns but turned them down because they would have slowed him down. I don't think they could have been brought to bear at Last Stand Hill but they very well may have saved him by slowing him down enough that he and General Terry's troops coming in from the north would have converged on the camp simultaneously on the 27th. The Indians had problems defeating infantry or as they called them "walking soldiers".
True, but few people realize the superiority of the trapdoor over the Henry in Indian warfare…
Could you elaborate, please.
The military has a standard by which they choose weapons, tactics, armor and all sorts of things as they prepare for battle. That was true then, as it is today.
During the Indian Wars, the army tested firearms in regards to how well they would perform with the least amount of breakdowns or failures. They did have an acceptable rate that would still allow a less than perfect firearm become the issued weapon.
The idea of fighting plains Indians was built around fighting in a skirmish line of troopers several feet apart and firing in a battery with sustained fire of 8-10 rounds per minute and as every trooper would be firing in a separate cycle, the skirmish line became a force to be effective against Indian attacks.
The 45-70 was also a longer range rifle than a Winchester 1866 or Henry repeater. Once a repeating rifle is empty, it takes enough time to reload, that the person using that rifle is out of the fight for a sustained amount of time as everyone else is firing their guns empty. Consider the range and energy of the 45-70 and it becomes vastly superior in its lethality because a 45-70 can also put down a horse.
Comanche was Miles Keogh’s horse and sustained 7-10 small arms wounds and survived the battle. He would never have survived that many 45-70 wounds. If you can put an Indian’s horse down, you can take an Indian out of the fight.
So when you see where people comment about Custer being outgunned by the Indians with repeating rifles, you can tell how much they don’t know about the decisions made by the army in regards to how they equipped their cavalry.
Custer wasn’t outgunned, he was out numbered and beaten by superior tactics in a setting that can’t be calculated in a board room somewhere that will see every condition that could be met in the field.
With that many Indians I’m not so sure a Gatling gun would’ve made much a difference.
I had read somewhere that they had difficulty traveling with the Gatling guns. The parts would constantly come loose from the packs and cause the teamsters to stop and repack/lash them up again.
As for the Springfields, the one downside was the copper cases would cause jams which negated the speed at which they could be fired. I believe they were using the 45/50 which was a down loaded 45/70 for use with the carbines
With that many Indians I’m not so sure a Gatling gun would’ve made much a difference.
For 2 reasons:
The Gatling gun was pulled by condemned cavalry mounts and was so heavy and awkward, they would have slowed his advance down. Had Custer taken a Gatling, he would have survived, as he would have been 2 days later getting to the LBH.
Deploying a Gatling gun isn’t like a ma deuce on a tripod that would allow you to strafe a battlefield like we see done in the movies. That is another fault with perception and how many people base reality on what they see in the movies.
True, but few people realize the superiority of the trapdoor over the Henry in Indian warfare…
Could you elaborate, please.
The military has a standard by which they choose weapons, tactics, armor and all sorts of things as they prepare for battle. That was true then, as it is today.
During the Indian Wars, the army tested firearms in regards to how well they would perform with the least amount of breakdowns or failures. They did have an acceptable rate that would still allow a less than perfect firearm become the issued weapon.
The idea of fighting plains Indians was built around fighting in a skirmish line of troopers several feet apart and firing in a battery with sustained fire of 8-10 rounds per minute and as every trooper would be firing in a separate cycle, the skirmish line became a force to be effective against Indian attacks.
The 45-70 was also a longer range rifle than a Winchester 1866 or Henry repeater. Once a repeating rifle is empty, it takes enough time to reload, that the person using that rifle is out of the fight for a sustained amount of time as everyone else is firing their guns empty. Consider the range and energy of the 45-70 and it becomes vastly superior in its lethality because a 45-70 can also put down a horse.
Comanche was Miles Keogh’s horse and sustained 7-10 small arms wounds and survived the battle. He would never have survived that many 45-70 wounds. If you can put an Indian’s horse down, you can take an Indian out of the fight.
So when you see where people comment about Custer being outgunned by the Indians with repeating rifles, you can tell how much they don’t know about the decisions made by the army in regards to how they equipped their cavalry.
Custer wasn’t outgunned, he was out numbered and beaten by superior tactics in a setting that can’t be calculated in a board room somewhere that will see every condition that could be met in the field.
Correct, from what I could see on my visits to the LBH Custer's battalion was caught and pinned down in a place where they couldn't take advantage of the superior firepower of the Springfield. I'm sure this fight was the first for many of the troopers and panic set in making disciplined fire impossible .
With that many Indians I’m not so sure a Gatling gun would’ve made much a difference.
I had read somewhere that they had difficulty traveling with the Gatling guns. The parts would constantly come loose from the packs and cause the teamsters to stop and repack/lash them up again.
As for the Springfields, the one downside was the copper cases would cause jams which negated the speed at which they could be fired. I believe they were using the 45/50 which was a down loaded 45/70 for use with the carbines
It was actually downloaded to 45-55 and had a paper wrap inside the case that took up room inside the case to keep the case full of powder. Copper cases did stick once the rifle got hot and dirty, but battlefield forensics show that the failure rate was around 2%. If you are one of the 2% it could be catastrophic, but it wasn’t the cause of the battle to be won by Indians.
Because of the stuck cases, they put a trap door in the butt plate and put a cleaning rod in it to protect the shooter from the eventuality of a stuck case causing the death of the shooter. They also went to using brass for the cases…
True, but few people realize the superiority of the trapdoor over the Henry in Indian warfare…
Could you elaborate, please.
The military has a standard by which they choose weapons, tactics, armor and all sorts of things as they prepare for battle. That was true then, as it is today.
During the Indian Wars, the army tested firearms in regards to how well they would perform with the least amount of breakdowns or failures. They did have an acceptable rate that would still allow a less than perfect firearm become the issued weapon.
The idea of fighting plains Indians was built around fighting in a skirmish line of troopers several feet apart and firing in a battery with sustained fire of 8-10 rounds per minute and as every trooper would be firing in a separate cycle, the skirmish line became a force to be effective against Indian attacks.
The 45-70 was also a longer range rifle than a Winchester 1866 or Henry repeater. Once a repeating rifle is empty, it takes enough time to reload, that the person using that rifle is out of the fight for a sustained amount of time as everyone else is firing their guns empty. Consider the range and energy of the 45-70 and it becomes vastly superior in its lethality because a 45-70 can also put down a horse.
Comanche was Miles Keogh’s horse and sustained 7-10 small arms wounds and survived the battle. He would never have survived that many 45-70 wounds. If you can put an Indian’s horse down, you can take an Indian out of the fight.
So when you see where people comment about Custer being outgunned by the Indians with repeating rifles, you can tell how much they don’t know about the decisions made by the army in regards to how they equipped their cavalry.
Custer wasn’t outgunned, he was out numbered and beaten by superior tactics in a setting that can’t be calculated in a board room somewhere that will see every condition that could be met in the field.
Correct, from what I could see on my visits to the LBH Custer's battalion was caught and pinned down in a place where they couldn't take advantage of the superior firepower of the Springfield. I'm sure this fight was the first for many of the troopers and panic set in making disciplined fire impossible .
I don’t believe Custer ever thought he was licked, I could be wrong. There is evidence of his advance on the village to capture the non-combatants, but was repelled back up on last stand hill. At some point, he sustained 2 mortal wounds, that would end any cohesive line of command that would certainly have wrecked any chance of survival.
Regardless of the distaste for Custer by those that didn’t like him, he was a most capable battlefield commander and if anyone could get you through a mess, he would be your guy, but that would end with his death…
Some other interesting reading is about the Yellowstone Campaign. It was somewhat prior to this battle. Custer had problems with the Indians
Then also.
Possibly Shrapnel can comment on the battles of that campaign as well.
There were several expeditions into Montana and the Black Hills from 1872-1874. There were surveys along the Yellowstone to find where a railroad could be put to get supplies to Bozeman and Virginia City as the Bozeman trail was too dangerous to travel due to Indian conflicts.
There was even a Bozeman supported group of so called miners sent to the Bighorn in 1874 to get in fights with the Indians and hopefully gain enough support for the US military to put forts along the Bozeman trail for safety. They were funded by Bozeman business men and were acting as if they were miners to make it appear as a mining exploration, it they were heavily armed and had a canon and a howitzer to fight the Indians as they traveled east.
I have seen an actual letter from an Army Captain sent to his wife from the earliest expedition on the railroad survey, and the Captain told of how the Indians tried to lure them into an ambush and kill them. The army didn’t fall for the plot, they did have a parley with the Indians and he remarked how a particular Indian with a new black hat, representing the 7 Sioux tribes, by the name of Sitting Bull, and he was declaring war in the United States for their encroachment into Indian territory.
" ... Deploying a Gatling gun isn’t like a ma deuce on a tripod that would allow you to strafe a battlefield like we see done in the movies. That is another fault with perception and how many people base reality on what they see in the movies."
You mean like in the movie The Outlaw Josie Wales?
Anyone who’s been to the battlefield have any supernatural experiences to share?
Never been close to that area Been to the Chief Bowles monument on the Battle of the Neches site. Had one of those everything-got-totally-quiet moments and decided to leave
Anyone who’s been to the battlefield have any supernatural experiences to share?
I spent a whole day walking the battlefield and I could "feel" the ghosts. Didn't see any.
This fascinates me. I’ve heard it described as a “psychic echo,” the remnant of an incredibly strong emotional event. Doesn’t get much more stressful than literal life and death events.
![[Linked Image from i.postimg.cc]](https://i.postimg.cc/MG6X9gK7/IMG-0922.jpg)
![[Linked Image from i.imgur.com]](https://i.imgur.com/GDXpAJK.jpg)
![[Linked Image from i.imgur.com]](https://i.imgur.com/oeIiOOJ.jpg)
![[Linked Image from i.imgur.com]](https://i.imgur.com/AyNEsK6.jpg)
![[Linked Image from i.imgur.com]](https://i.imgur.com/oTtQi0M.jpg)
