Replies

Finally, these "silly forensic studies" took down a half dozen "myths" that were accepted by historians as "fact"....such as when Custer was killed, flow of the battle, etc etc etc.

Interesting. Can you elaborate or do you have a link? I am not a close student of the battle but I always took the conventional view as fairly plausible -- namely, that Custer brought the head of the column off the bluff down the ravine to the river, commenced skirmishing, and tried to fall back to the high ground when Indian numbers became apparent. His battalion was pursued, flanked, and swamped in line of march, with the various companies dying more-or-less in place (with the last survivors, of course, making a break for it).

The key thing as I understand it was Crazy Horse, et.al -- the warriors from the downstream camps -- making directly for the high ground themselves instead of rushing to the sound of the guns (the rearguard skirmish), which ensured that the column would be flanked and the retreat cut off. Is this picture incorrect?

What evidence is there to show that Custer died early or late in the engagement? As far as I see it, he could have been killed at any point. He was presumably leading the movement to the high ground when the column was hit, pinned down, and overrun, but he personally could have fallen at any time. Taking his location as the site of the last stand was always a romantic convention, but as a practical matter, did Custer's death make a difference as to how the 7th fought its fight? I mean, when you're getting overrun, command and control disappears pretty rapidly.

"Interesting. Can you elaborate or do you have a link? I am not a close student of the battle but I always took the conventional view as fairly plausible -- namely, that Custer brought the head of the column off the bluff down the ravine to the river, commenced skirmishing, and tried to fall back to the high ground when Indian numbers became apparent. His battalion was pursued, flanked, and swamped in line of march, with the various companies dying more-or-less in place (with the last survivors, of course, making a break for it)."

No, I don't have a link, although I suspect others participating in this thread do. I would suggest you hit The History Channels website on this topic.

The same forensics used at a modern day crime scene were applied. The results are simply amazing. The investigators indentified several dozen different weapon types used by the Indians in this battle, which completely and forever has changed the modern view of what actually happened.

In one segment, they show using a computerized map of the battlefield the movements of several of the Warriors, and the Troopers, based on matching the fired cartridge casing found on the field.

I found it very compelling, others have a differing viewpoint. Thats what makes it fun to discuss.

1) In the company C area it showed how the soldiers fought in a traditional way, with the accepted spacing to fight on foot, where on last stand hill there was no organized fight and panic had set in.
2) It gave the name of "Henryville" to a portion of the battlefield where a group of Indians using Henry repeaters was firing on the troops.
3) My favorite part was where they could trace an individual weapons across the battlefield based on the distinct marks left by the firing pins on the cartridges.

Taking his location as the site of the last stand was always a romantic convention, but as a practical matter, did Custer's death make a difference as to how the 7th fought its fight? I mean, when you're getting overrun, command and control disappears pretty rapidly.

If the soldiers were cut off from one another (or groups I should say) then I doubt how he died or when he died made a big difference.

When you look at the planning that Sitting Bull and Crazy Horse did, and just how good those under them were, it's hard to imagine that anything Custer did or had done to him during the battle itself made much difference.

I have a good friend who became a military historian after he retired, and teaches a few classes, and he likes to look at long time spans. He told me once that he thought the Sioux were some of the finest light cavalry this land has ever produced, and man for man, as good as the finest from other parts of the world (Mongols, etc.) and different eras .

I think Custer should have listened to his scouts and had a little bit more respect for the Sioux.