Yes Gordie yes, I am indeed Devon David for my sins, although I would live nowhere else, so yes I am at the same address, no need to worry about the confidentiality and beer: I naturally take that as read.
Fascinating map -- thanks for posting it. I'm particularly intrigued by Harrington's marker, since I thought he was one of the officers that remained unidentified after the battle. Could you please give some pointers as to the research that indicates that he might have ended up near LSH?
Post by thehighwayman on Feb 1, 2009 15:55:18 GMT -5
Harrington (in my opinion, and not universal in acceptance) was in command of C Troop during the battle and as you say was not identified afterwards. There is no evidence or research to suggest he died anywhere near the Custer cluster on Last Stand Hill. Someone, at the time, stated that a few dead horses ‘probably from C’ were found there. That’s about it.
The placement of the marker for him there was a totally arbitrary decision. As I recall, one for Porter, another missing man, was placed there too. My opinion as to several other markers in the fenced area has already been given.
that's a relief, there's nothing worse than exploding girths, so it's good to see that there are still people out there who will help out in any situation, albeit that they may not even like the deadly brew but will, out of duty, consume it all the same.
Thanks for the thoughts on Harrington. Turns out I mis-read Billy's post, and thought that the map represented the markers *after* he'd removed the spurious ones. Hence my surprise at seeing Harrington's marker.
I agree that Harrington probably fell elsewhere; in "They Died with Custer", the authors speculate that the location was somewhere in the Keogh area, based on portions of a skull found there that contained period dental work. Dentistry as we know and fear it was a brand-new practice back then, and apparently Harrington would have been one of the few in the right place (West Point, I think) at the right time to avail himself of it.
Circumstantial, of course, but reasonably compelling.
Conz, when in doubt, listen to Gordie. When not in doubt and Gordie disagrees, rethink your position.
But, if you don't wish to do either, take a look at the earliest photos of Custer Hill in Where Custer Fell. A look towards the top of the hill from the west by southwest shows only nine, maybe ten wooden markers or piles of rocks indicating graves. Not the couple of dozen or so markers currently there.
If you don't have the book with the photograph, I'll dig out the photographer's name-Fourchet maybe, or scan it for you.
I agree with you on Gordie, and I take his information very seriously.
As to the evidence above, what do you think this means? That those few stick and stone in the photo mean there aren't 50 bodies found on LSH? Does anyone believe that only a dozen men died on LSH due to the sticks and stones in this photo?
Or is there something else to be interpreted from this evidence that I'm missing?
Very nice job. Hard to key the markers map to the top maps, but it looks pretty close.
I would be inclined to take that (C Co) designation, and put it on Battle Ridge in that small gap between the group of five and the group of four. I'm not sure about where you have Kellogg and Butler - there are still questions to be resolved, if they ever can be, about those two. Foley is pretty close, as far as I can tell.
There are still too many in total, and I think that the E company men you have in Deep Ravine should be on the ridge/slope/whatever. And maybe move that white one over to opposite Deep Ravine. But it is quite different from what is there now, don't you think?
Eventually, I will get around to transferring my large scale maps into a more manageable size, the key word being eventually, and I will see that you get one so that you can post it, if you like - I have no idea of how to do that stuff, and don't care to know, otherwise I'd simply be spending all my time posting music and videos to You Tube, and photos to Facebook.
Very nice job. Hard to key the markers map to the top maps, but it looks pretty close.
When time comes, I'd be glad to help transfer your detailed map to topo as a neat visual, perhaps from a different angle. The trick will all be in the scale...my portrayal had to use one cross for about four markers to just be manageable, but a very large one can be done, if folks don't mind zooming in and out.
I would be inclined to take that (C Co) designation, and put it on Battle Ridge in that small gap between the group of five and the group of four.
Aye, that is why it is in parens. Only C Co was scattered all over, with no real "formation" of bodies except at the Finley point. Normally this would be indicative of a catastrophic tactical event on a unit (if you can say it suffered more than the other annihilated companies <g>)...meaning it had more "tactical distress" and lost cohesion, where the other companies have little indication of this.
I'm not sure about where you have Kellogg and Butler - there are still questions to be resolved, if they ever can be, about those two. Foley is pretty close, as far as I can tell.
Yeah...no one can tell, but analysts will get the idea. I also didn't put those "eight bodies" the Natives reported...that report is just too dubious to justify, much as I like Native witnesses. If it is true, where would you guess it might be? Only three real choices, I think...ford B, Deep Ravine ford, or a northern ford D location.
There are still too many in total,
Looks like I have about 203 or so shown, counting white crosses as one (although the Sharrow one is two). We have 210 casualties...that accounts for seven men not shown...aren't I short crosses, then?
...and I think that the E company men you have in Deep Ravine should be on the ridge/slope/whatever. And maybe move that white one over to opposite Deep Ravine.
In your notes you don't really explain why you think the innumerable witnesses of 28 or so men in the gully is wrong, but I guess you are relying on that author...is it Michno?...to make that case. Will be very hard to negate current evidence.
The justification that it isn't tactically feasible that they should be there cannot be used, I think, since I have offered a very reasonable explanation, tactically sound, how they got into that gully. If folks can believe that E Co tried to attack across it and 'fell in,' then you still have a "breakout" attempt that was pushed into there. But I don't think an author can reasonably make an argument that his model shouldn't put them in there just because he can't figure out why they went there. <g>
But it is quite different from what is there now, don't you think?
It is interesting that you think so...why? I see absolutely no difference in interpreting the current park markers and interpreting this excellent, and more accurate, body location accounting as you well portray. It is better and more accurate evidence, but I don't see how it changes anything, at least in the common models that I've seen around.
Companies are in the same locations and still pretty well together, considering. Same looking formations and tactical conditions.
Eventually, I will get around to transferring my large scale maps into a more manageable size, the key word being eventually, and I will see that you get one so that you can post it, if you like -
I would love to do that for you...we'll even design our own "markers" and put them in place instead of the current ones.
But there should only be a maximum of 197 within the fenced area, perhaps fewer. I only got it down to what? 199? and that does not include the 8 you mention as having been found by that passing party of warriors.
As to Deep Ravine, you are entitled to hold whatever opinions you choose, but as to evidence, you need to re-read the "preamble" sections, where it is clearly shown that A) bodies were buried substantially where found, with a few notable exceptions B) there is no credible evidence that the bodies supposedly buried in Deep Ravine were ever brought out, and C) there has been no evidence found in any of the explorations of Deep Ravine of bodies in there, anywhere, but to the contrary, there WERE significant finds on the SSL.
It makes no difference to my reconstruction of the Custer fight, whether those men of E Company were indeed shot down along the edges of, or in, Deep Ravine, because I know where they were and what they were doing, and when they were killed.
And no, I don't agree that the marker locations show any military disposition of the troops, because of other evidence of how they got where they got - and I'm sorry but I cannot, and will not share that evidence.
And you should have a marker up near the top of MTC [the spot does not appear on your posted map, but I will one day post the co-ordinates to you, once I have finalized the location from generalized to specific [if I can]. Four, and perhaps five troopers were killed there - the first casualties from the Custer command . Not all on the same spot, but within fairly close confines.
And Highway - you're not too far wrong about that. Even got the cyanide pills left over from, well you know - and an older Colt Woodsman which still works great.
Location of those two markers, and many others, is always a matter of dispute, but most historians agree that Kellogg was further down near the river, and Sharrow was further away from the hill than the markers indicate. How close my indicators on the map are to reality, only Gordie knows, and he ain't telling.