|
Post by Diane Merkel on Jan 22, 2007 9:41:49 GMT -6
Here's an article about a talk Rich Fox gave yesterday: USD professor: Battle of Big Horn a military debacle steeped in myth Custer's widow wanted husband cast as hero Article: tinyurl.com/278l82
|
|
|
Post by clw on Jan 23, 2007 10:36:41 GMT -6
Hardly seems a fair assessment, does it? I haven't read Fox yet, but apparently he's no fan of Custer.
|
|
|
Post by bubbabod on Jan 26, 2007 18:34:04 GMT -6
I don't think Dr. Fox takes a stand on whether Custer was a hero or not or if Fox is a fan of Custer or not; I think his position is that there was no "glorious last stand," as we see in the artists' depictions of "Custer's Last Stand."
|
|
|
Post by Scout on Jan 26, 2007 19:23:22 GMT -6
Bubbabod....no offense. Dr. Fox said there was no last stand but later changed that to no 'glorious' last stand. What kind of mumbo jumbo talk is this? Either there was or wasn't. 'Glorious' is just a word. We know the men on Custer hill fought for their lives. He needs to dispense with the silly talk. I have for one have always thought he got in over his head with his books on the LBH. If you read the Indian accounts there was a last stand...but then again, he relies only on what he finds and ignores these. I have never understood his popularity at all. Sorry.
|
|
|
Post by mcaryf on Jan 28, 2007 4:42:09 GMT -6
Unfortunately I think Richard Fox has attempted to generate PR for his somewhat dry book with his claims of no last stand. In general I think his book is a useful contribution but he is really playing with semantics in saying there was no last stand. He himself accepts that a fair number of officers and men died with Custer on LSH, his main argument is that others were killed a little time later after fleeing from the hill or stragglers found in other areas. Since the men on LSH were not killed last he can argue it was not a last stand.
Although we may never know I would probably ascribe to a view of the last attempt at some sort of organised resistance taking place on LSH. Thus I regret Richard Fox's attempt at some sort of notoriety by denying a Last Stand.
Mike
|
|
|
Post by harpskiddie on Jan 28, 2007 12:46:39 GMT -6
Mike:
Many of Fox's theories are founded on doubtful constructions of what the cartridge case evidence says or doesn't say. I don't believe that the stand on LSH was the last stand, because I think the flow of battle was actually in the opposite direction. But that is a far cry from what Fox believes. But that's just me.
As to hanging one's hat on a new theory: the fact is that another rehash of the same old same old will not get a book published, let alone bought by the public, so everyone interested in writing and publishing one has to find something new, even if it has to be created by adopting some outlandish theory or theories - and there have been numerous of these over the years.
Nobody seems to be content in finding out what happened, but what might have happened, or what might have caused whatever happened to have happened, there has to be something startling and new, like a conspiracy among subordinate officers to hang Custer out to dry and etc. etc...................
So you have people seeing things they could not possible see, from places that have no view, and not seeing things they could see from where they were; following routes that no sane rider would follow........ad infitum, ad absurdum.
There is a lot of good and useful information in Fox's book(s). I don't agree with the way he uses some of it. But that's just me.....................
Gordie
|
|
|
Post by elisabeth on Jan 29, 2007 13:11:34 GMT -6
Gordie,
Couldn't agree more.
To me there's something faintly distasteful about this book: Custer's been rubbished many times already, so hey, let's rubbish his men instead. It may not be entirely Fox's fault ... but he must have foreseen what the press would make of it. "The much-vaunted 7th Cavalry were cr*p -- they bunched -- they panicked" and all that. A zeitgeist thing, really. I can't remember exactly what was going on in 1993, when the book came out -- heavens, I can't remember last week -- but it came into a post-Dances With Wolves world where "military glory", and especially against Indians, was not what you could call flavour of the month. There are fashions in history as in everything else, and this pushed the right buttons for its time.
Ironically, the same thesis was put forward as early as 1879 at the RCOI, and the much-maligned Recorder Lee soundly squashed it. Again and again, he countered theories of "a rout, a panic" based on shell casings alone with the fact well known to him and the witnesses that Indians routinely collected them up for re-use. (All the more likely when they'd just acquired large quantities of Springfield carbines which their existing ammunition wouldn't fit.) Fox may have something ... but it's hardly definitive. In my humble opinion, of course!
|
|
|
Post by harpskiddie on Jan 29, 2007 14:30:37 GMT -6
Elisabeth:
My main argument with Fox's use of the cartridge case evidence [there were undoubtedly more cases in 1876] is his assumption that because a case was found at Point A, it must have been fired at point A, when really all it indicates is that the case was ejected there [it may have been fired there]: and that if a case fired from the same weapon is found at Point B, then the person must have travelled from Point A to Point B [when the reverse might be true, and the gun might have changed hands in between].
A Colt revolver shell only indicates where the weapon was reloaded or emptied, not where any of the cartridges were fired, except perhaps the last. The six might have been expended over a large area, especially if the shooter was horseback. If six shells were found at one place, one cannot assume other than that some of the cartridges may have been fired at that location.
The other things that cannot be determined from this type of evidence is how fast anyone was moving between points, what thier mental states were, whether or not they were following directions etc. etc.
When little piles of cases were found, as reported by some witnesses, either in lines or around individuals, that is pretty good evidence of continued resistance at that or those points.
Gordie
|
|
|
Post by Scout on Jan 30, 2007 7:42:20 GMT -6
Well put Gordie. Couldn't have verbalized it any better. You're putting thought into your theories and a lot of what-ifs to boot. That's what I'm talking about here. Guns could have switched hands...and probably did according to Indian accounts but Fox dosen't seem to think that way or is incapable of that thing called speculation. Helluva thing for him to make such proposals based on such a limited mindset which eliminates any what-ifs. Shells and bullets found on the battlefield have to merge with Indian accounts in order to arrive at conclusions. Making conclusions based on relics alone is very misleading.
|
|
|
Post by harpskiddie on Jan 30, 2007 10:31:20 GMT -6
Scout:
The basis for his No-Last-Stand at Custer Hill is that few soldier cartridge cases were found there. He seemingly didn't factor in the fact that, of all places on the field, that was the one that likely suffered the most vandalism and pilfering of relics, since that is where most visitors visited. Many visitors never went any further, especially in the early days, before the road.
Accounts say that the pilfering began as early as the 28th of June, perhaps even on the 27th.
Gordie
|
|
|
Post by chadron21 on Jan 30, 2007 11:13:52 GMT -6
He seemingly didn't factor in the fact that, of all places on the field, that was the one that likely suffered the most vandalism and pilfering of relics, since that is where most visitors visited. Many visitors never went any further, especially in the early days, before the road. Sadly, it's still that way today. Most people probably don't drive down to Reno-Benteen. I'd be willing to bet that the average visitor spends less than an hour.
|
|
|
Post by elisabeth on Jan 30, 2007 11:25:49 GMT -6
It's similarly the basis for his no-resistance-in-the-Keogh-area theory, overlooking the fact that the Weir Point excursionists saw masses of Indian spectators around what appears to have been the Calhoun/Keogh area, and that many relics were later recovered from them. (Calhoun's watch, Porter's jacket -- OK, from the village, but still taken -- plus Keogh's watch, guidon, gauntlets, locket, photographs, you name it.) Indians must have gone over that area with a fine-tooth comb. They had the opportunity to take three companies'-worth of Springfields and Colts from there, and did; they'd have been nuts not to police up empty shells for same. Very shaky evidence. IMHO.
|
|
|
Post by shatonska on Jan 31, 2007 13:11:15 GMT -6
here is a point , not cases , cases are misleading , but Bullets , many indian bullets show a soldiers standing position we must analize bullets ,but they are too few
|
|
|
Post by harpskiddie on Jan 31, 2007 15:21:08 GMT -6
shatonska:
He does analyze bullets as well, but again uses the artifacts however he wants to in order to further his hypotheses. It is also difficult [make that impossible] to differentiate between a .45 cal. bullet fired from a Springfield carbine fired by a trooper, and a similsar bullet fired from a Springfield carbine by a warrior, even [or maybe particularly] if the bullets are a ballistic match. And where a bullet was found doesn't necessarily mean that that's where it was aimed, or tell whether or not it hit anything, although a great number of bullets inj the same general area would tend to indicate that there were targets there, and if they were from Indian weapons, it would tend to indicate a troop position. Vice versa maybe.
Gordie
|
|
flanker
New Member
Garryowen in glory!
Posts: 34
|
Post by flanker on Jan 31, 2007 18:22:32 GMT -6
My conclusion from the many, many years I've spent reading and researching LBH (my favorite subject, bar none) is that in the closing minutes of the fight there was a break-out attempt to the northwest from LSH to try escape and, hopefully, eventually hook up with the Terry column, but that that break-out attempt didn't get very far (perhaps a couple may have got as far as the river before being killed). Deep Ravine and the scattered bodies downriver from it suggests that is where the break-out group basically met its "last stand."
|
|