|
Post by Diane Merkel on Jan 20, 2008 12:42:21 GMT -6
The excerpt below is from the first review I've seen of Jim's forthcoming book: Donovan's research points out to the discerning that Custer's share of the blame, besides the well-known historical charges of rashness and impulsiveness, included not knowing the sorry readiness state of his command. He was on poor terms with most of his officers, and wasn't aware of their personal capabilities and deficiencies. In addition, most of the regiment's regular officers -- who should have known the condition and readiness of the Seventh -- were on detached duty elsewhere, so company command devolved in their absence onto the lower and less experienced officers. So many officers were unavailable for command that, in one case, an officer was borrowed from an infantry unit for temporary cavalry duty.
From Donovan's research, Custer didn't seem to understand that his regiment was asking for the fate it got by going into the field so ill-trained, and he did nothing to improve its prospects. He and many other officers in the Army at that time were more interested in reclaiming their brevet (temporary) Civil War ranks rather than attending to their assigned duties, and the top command of the Army displayed serious incompetence in allowing such self-serving activities to occur at the expense of the Army's readiness. Such blindness, honed with superiority and arrogance, was a major factor in the defeat.
These observations of Custer can also apply to the other commands ordered to conquer the Lakota and their allies that summer. For instance, Gen. George Crook's command expended about 25,000 rounds (roughly ten per soldier present) at the Battle of the Rosebud -- only causing between 31 and 84 Lakota and Cheyenne casualties -- a sorry result which indicates the command neglect of not improving the Army's marksmanship. Donovan reports that this expenditure of almost all of the rounds carried by Crook's command was one major reason why Crook was not in position to support Custer's later assault.
Overall command was limply exercised by Gen. Alfred Terry, who allowed his three subordinates -- Custer, Crook, and Col. John Gibbon — far too much leeway for independent action in what needed to be a tightly coordinated plan. His successor, Nelson Miles, appears to have learned from Terry's mistakes, as he became the most-successful commander in the effort to pacify the Native Americans after Terry was reassigned to department command.
Donovan relates all of this, and also the willingness of intense rivals to band together against outside investigation of the sorry state of the Army in the 1870s. In reporting about the hearings concerning charges of Major Reno's drunken cowardice at the Little Bighorn, Donovan reports -- often from obscure newspaper articles -- how the officers were quite open with trusted reporters concerning their strategy of protecting the Army and all of the involved officers — with the notable exception of the late Col. Custer -- from any potential loss of control to civilians of Army operations or loss of "honor" over their mis- and malfeasance as field commanders. It was all an attempt to buy time until someone — Gen. Miles, as it turned out — could become victorious enough to divert attention away from the Custer disaster. Review: blogcritics.org/archives/2008/01/19/225705.php
|
|
|
Post by elisabeth on Jan 20, 2008 13:23:11 GMT -6
It's had a very nice review from Publishers' Weekly, too -- quoted on Amazon.
Fabulous research; and I think we'll find the best coverage yet of the RCOI. Good stuff. Out on March 24th, Amazon says.
|
|
|
Post by douglas on Jan 22, 2008 12:14:23 GMT -6
Crook was subordinate to Terry? I hope that is not an example of the "terrific research."
|
|
|
Post by harpskiddie on Jan 22, 2008 12:51:11 GMT -6
And an expenditure of 10 rounds per man left the command almost destitute of ammunition? I don't believe it!!
Gordie MC
|
|
|
Post by fred on Jan 22, 2008 14:51:22 GMT -6
Crook was subordinate to Terry? I hope that is not an example of the "terrific research." Douglas, you kill me!And an expenditure of 10 rounds per man left the command almost destitute of ammunition? I don't believe it!! Somebody in this business should stop kissing the posteriors of "writers" who are trying to hoist opinions on people based on glossy pictures and hyperbolic text. As far as I know, Douglas is 100% correct. And Harpskiddie hit the nail right square on its head. Plus, 10 rounds divided into 25,000 equals 2,500 men. Says who? Donovan? Hello! Anybody home? Maybe he should expend a little of his excess time on real research. Somebody ask Donovan if he wants a copy of my Crook roster. I suspect Gordon Harper knows more about the morass location than Donovan knows about the whole shootin' match. That baloney about Custer not knowing his officers and being on bad terms with "most" of them is pure bunk. Was he on better terms with Michael Sheridan (L Company), who he hadn't seen in 5 years, than he was with Jim Calhoun? How about Tourtellotte (G Company)? That guy had been away for six years. You think maybe he knew more about fighting Indians than the part-Indian, LT McIntosh? Eight of the 12 companies were commanded by their regular CO's. The exceptions were L (Calhoun), K (Godfrey), E (Smith), and G (McIntosh). And I haven't read many complaints about how they performed! What makes anyone think Michael Sheridan, Charles Isley, or John Tourtellotte would have succeeded where Calhoun, Smith, and McIntosh failed? They all got killed. Or was that their fault? You think Holy Owen could have conducted a better retrograde action off of Weir Peaks than Edward Godfrey? Some-- who were there-- even go or went so far as to say Calhoun's company was the only one that fought the way they should have. Was that because of Michael Sheridan's influence? Quick: here's a few names. Tell me, in your opinion Jim, which ones-- alone or in concert-- would have made the difference: Craycroft, Bell, Isley, Michael Sheridan, Garlington, Merrill, Tilford, Larned, Jackson, Braden, et al.Donovan's only royal card in the whole bunch might be Merrill and Custer tried getting him back for the campaign. No luck; whose fault was that? And what would Merrill or Tilford have done that Reno didn't do? Charge into the village? Or not take a nip? And you know something else? I am so sick and tired of hearing about how crappy the Seventh Cavalry was. I'm sure it wasn't the Light Brigade, but you know what? A lot of these guys helped win the Civil War. Some of the NCO's were top-flight. The recruit business has been proven to be a fiction and the bottom-line can be found in Webster's, the Random House Dictionary, the American Heritage Dictionary, etc. They're all in English; not Sioux. And here we go again with the conspiracies... hold on a sec, will you, while I lower the volume. As for the "trusted" newspaper reports... uh-huh! Sounds to me like yellow-journalism in book form. Best wishes, Fred.
|
|
|
Post by markland on Jan 22, 2008 16:28:22 GMT -6
Err, speaking of lowering the volume El Frederico, ahem, you will note that the "errors" you are yodeling about come from a review, not Jim. I consider Jim, like you, a friend and respect his scholarship enough to give him the benefit of a doubt, especially when I haven't read his work as of yet, only that of a third party.
So in all fairness, let's tone down the rhetoric until we have the real thing in front of us.
Be good (and welcome back from wherever you went or are)
Billy
|
|
|
Post by fred on Jan 22, 2008 16:51:01 GMT -6
Oh, and Billy, we know this for sure, do we? So the reviewer made up the Crook/Terry, 25,000/10 rounds business? And the conclusions? Those are the reviewer's as well? All those missing officers? All that dislike? All the unknowing? That's all from the reviewer, as well?
Maybe Donovan's been done a disservice. But if you think my post is loud, what do you think I would be like if I were Donovan and a reviewer did all that to me? Please, Billy. I've had enough opinion; I've wasted precious time reading the opinions of idiots. My fault, no doubt about it. I take full responsibility. I would just like some facts for a change. You know what those are, right? Maybe we could have Harpskiddie, darkcloud, rch, erkki, and blaque read the book and see what they think. I may not agree with them all the time, but I am sure their "book" and their "review" would be a far cry from "25,000 rounds/10 rounds/2,500 men."
Best wishes, Fred.
|
|
|
Post by doyle1876 on Jan 22, 2008 17:12:59 GMT -6
Not sure about the book but the review is a hoot. Agree with Fred especially on the condition of the 7th's troopers.
From Donovan's research, Custer didn't seem to understand that his regiment was asking for the fate it got by going into the field so ill-trained, and he did nothing to improve its prospects. He and many other officers in the Army at that time were more interested in reclaiming their brevet (temporary) Civil War ranks rather than attending to their assigned duties, and the top command of the Army displayed serious incompetence in allowing such self-serving activities to occur at the expense of the Army's readiness. Such blindness, honed with superiority and arrogance, was a major factor in the defeat.
Such rubbish and "research" that I have never read before. Look forward to reading the acknowledgments at the back of that book - " A Terrible Glossary"!
|
|
|
Post by markland on Jan 22, 2008 17:20:21 GMT -6
Oh, and Billy, we know this for sure, do we? So the reviewer made up the Crook/Terry, 25,000/10 rounds business? And the conclusions? Those are the reviewer's as well? All those missing officers? All that dislike? All the unknowing? That's all from the reviewer, as well? Maybe Donovan's been done a disservice. But if you think my post is loud, what do you think I would be like if I were Donovan and a reviewer did all that to me? Please, Billy. I've had enough opinion; I've wasted precious time reading the opinions of idiots. My fault, no doubt about it. I take full responsibility. I would just like some facts for a change. You know what those are, right? Maybe we could have Harpskiddie, darkcloud, rch, erkki, and blaque read the book and see what they think. I may not agree with them all the time, but I am sure their "book" and their "review" would be a far cry from "25,000 rounds/10 rounds/2,500 men." Best wishes, Fred. Fred, I love you too buddy, but please, not in public! Seriously, all I am saying is that the reviewer's comments are not necessarily correct. Having done enough copying and digging into various resources at Ft. Leavenworth for Jim's research, I think that the 10 rounds is a garble by the reviewer on the number of practice rounds per month which were approved. That is an assumption which I will make, just as you are making an assumption without anything other than circumstantial evidence. But, whatever grinds your grits, go for it. Be good buddy, Billy
|
|
|
Post by fred on Jan 22, 2008 18:17:52 GMT -6
From Donovan's research, Custer didn't seem to understand that his regiment was asking for the fate it got by going into the field so ill-trained, and he did nothing to improve its prospects. He and many other officers in the Army at that time were more interested in reclaiming their brevet (temporary) Civil War ranks rather than attending to their assigned duties, and the top command of the Army displayed serious incompetence in allowing such self-serving activities to occur at the expense of the Army's readiness. Such blindness, honed with superiority and arrogance, was a major factor in the defeat.Such rubbish and "research" that I have never read before. Billy-- Read the review again. Then read "doyle1876"'s quote, above. For the small stuff-- the 25,000/10 business; maybe even the Crook/Terry gaffe-- you can blame one of 3 people: (1) the writer/researcher; (2) the editor; (3) the reviewer. Someone in that mix didn't do their job. A big deal? Who knows? Sloppy? Damned right, one way or the other. Responsibility? To me, it's always the author who has to do something about it. Maybe the reviewer screwed things up and Donovan doesn't know... but then... ... there's the other stuff-- like Doyle's quote above. And that borders on the irresponsible and shows either a very biased opinion or a complete lack of research. Who says Custer did nothing to improve the state of his command? Prove it! Who says those men were so ill-trained? Prove it! The records of many belie those contentions, so how can that be the case? I will certainly grant you people overstate the quality of the command at the time-- maybe even the entire army-- but the blather above makes the whole thing border on the criminal; along with the attendant cover-ups. That's the stuff that bugs me. The business about re-claiming brevets is utterly asinine. Keogh and Benteen...? How about those who didn't have brevets? Cooke... was he trying to re-claim his brevet? And all of this is a major factor in the defeat...? C'mon! You know what it sounds like to me? It sounds like the writings of someone (Donovan? the reviewer?) who is looking for a new angle on a hoary subject. Maybe even someone who is too lazy ( God forbid!) to do the real difficult research it takes to lock down the "timing" problems or the real difficult work it takes to put together a cogent, intelligent theory based on the first-hand testimony we have. That's what you do, Billy. Why don't you hold others up to the same standards? Don't cave because they're your friends. That first sentence in Doyle's quote above is so mind-numbingly inane to me I am shocked some editor even allowed it to be included. That makes some of Jack Pennington's theories look intelligent. Today, you would get sued for slander. To me, it's just more chaff. Best wishes, Fred.
|
|
|
Post by Scout on Jan 22, 2008 22:20:40 GMT -6
Boy, I'm glad I read all this, I was thinking about ordering the book but now have my doubts. Fred, you brought up some serious questions about the book. 10 rounds huh? That dog won't hunt.
By the way, has anybody read the Dr. Porter book from McFarland publishers? Looks really interesting...might have to take a chance on it.
|
|
|
Post by elisabeth on Jan 23, 2008 1:44:53 GMT -6
Like Billy, I consider Jim a friend, so am somewhat taken aback by this chorus of vituperation over a book no-one's even seen yet. The review quoted isn't even from a 'proper' reviewer, let's remember, but from some anonymous blogger of whose background and comprehension skills we know nothing. How about waiting for the real reviews? (Or, better still, the book?)
|
|
|
Post by doyle1876 on Jan 23, 2008 2:21:03 GMT -6
Like Billy, I consider Jim a friend, so am somewhat taken aback by this chorus of vituperation over a book no-one's even seen yet. The review quoted isn't even from a 'proper' reviewer, let's remember, but from some anonymous blogger of whose background and comprehension skills we know nothing. How about waiting for the real reviews? (Or, better still, the book?)
Wise words. However that review is doing Mr. Donovan's work no favours and should be addressed by the author if the review is not an accurate appraisal of what is between the covers.
|
|
|
Post by fred on Jan 23, 2008 5:09:14 GMT -6
What happens if the review proves accurate? What then? Do we shunt the First aside and keep our mouths shut? I have seen people disassembled on these boards for far less than what I see presented in the reviewer's commentary. Shall I name names?
And Scout, please, don't listen to me if you are thinking about buying it. I happen to like Donovan's book, Custer and the Little Big Horn, so regardless, I will buy this one, as well. I am just disappointed in the take of things. I would much prefer to see indisputable facts than I would an interpretive diatribe supported by whimsey. That's what Pennington does. There is some good stuff in Pennington's book, so it too is a worthwhile purchase-- almost any of these things are-- but his 6-7 (or however many) messengers going back and forth, his Benteen's order into the LBH valley, are sheer speculation presented as fact. This smacks of the same ilk.
I haven't read this new Donovan book, so I'm reacting to the review. And if the review is accurate, so be it. It is difficult to believe the reviewer being that far off in his presentation... but I guess it is possible. Certainly as possible as the author's stance on the Seventh Cavalry, its experience, its capabilities, its officers, the press... as interpreted, of course.
Best wishes, Fred.
|
|
|
Post by fred on Jan 23, 2008 5:47:45 GMT -6
I forgot...
Also remember, that review is not critical (in the objective sense). As a matter of fact, it is almost completely neutral, showing no bias either way. That makes it all the more annoying.
And again, Scout, unless something is complete trash, I would never not recommending buying someone's book. Regardless of how the whole thing turns out, I am sure-- from seeing past work-- Donovan put a lot of work into this thing. It would be completely unfair of me, someone who has never had anything published, to berate anyone from buying another's work. That's hypocritical. And I will tell you, regardless, I have too much respect for the man-- having that other book of his-- to not purchase this one as well. I may hate it; the reviewer above could be right on the money; but I owe too much to too many writers/researchers/students/historians of this whole thing to boycott this particular book just because I might not agree with its conclusions and findings.
So please, everyone, before you all go off the deep, breast-beating precipice, old Freddy-boy here will be investing more of his hard-earned pelf into yet another gem.
Best wishes, Fred.
|
|