|
Post by mcaryf on Apr 10, 2008 8:11:13 GMT -6
Hi DC
Varnum's 8 miles is in the letter he wrote to his parents in July 1876 and Wallace's 8 miles is in his itinerary report.
I do think Wallace and Varnum shared information as Varnum uses Wallace's clock times. However, given that one was head of scouts and the other responsible for writing reports on distances etc, it is not something we can just dismiss but 8 miles would be incompatible with a march that Wallace reports took only 1 hour 20 minutes.
There is another strange fact which is that the journey of Varnum and the Crows supposedly took 5 hours or more to get to the Crows Nest whilst the column did it in a 2.5 hour night march plus a 1 hour 20 minute day march. When they were camped at Busby the CN was described as being 20 miles away. In fact up Davis Creek it is 12 miles.
Regards
Mike
|
|
|
Post by BrokenSword on Apr 10, 2008 9:53:48 GMT -6
crzhrs- "...Didn't some soldier say he loved to be wallowing in blood & gore? ..."
Yeah. That was me. But... I don't like to talk about it.
M
|
|
|
Post by "Hunk" Papa on Apr 10, 2008 11:18:02 GMT -6
On the other hand—The George Herendeen/Tullock’s Creek business is beautifully handled. Best wishes, Fred.
Very sneaky Mr. Weasel! Dare I venture a guess that Mr. Donovan articulates something along the lines of your own views on this matter? Ah well, Lee Noyes is now a believer, so I must convert Mr. Donovan next!! You, of course, will take a little longer, being a stubborn old coot. Love to Lisa.
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on Apr 10, 2008 12:42:48 GMT -6
And what conclusions about these figures are you drawing? That they're separate but mutually confirming or that people asked around? That people were exhausted and dingy? That these figures aren't ready for computation?
"Drunks can get away with it in the military, but a coward?" This is based upon what? Officers drunk when men's lives depend upon them are tolerated? Nonsense.
In any case, there is ample evidence Reno was certainly not a coward when drunk, if ever. Recall the quivering coward who didn't make the charge who got it between the eyes as his peers returned? I'd bet anything Benteen or someone shot him, and it was understood and that was that. Reno would have been a victim as well if this were really an issue.
|
|
|
Post by fred on Apr 11, 2008 9:23:31 GMT -6
Distances are finite and this book is about accuracy, not the incorrect ramblings of people who couldn't have cared less whether the distance was 8 miles or 4 1/2. The fact remains that no matter what time you give or how long it took to travel, enough in the way of camp accouterments have been found to pretty much figure out where both halts one and two were, and halt one was nowhere near 8 miles from the Crow's Nest. The distances are known and Donovan should have figured that out unless it was too late in the publishing process. I don't know, so it is more a comment than a criticism.
Varnum, et cie, took longer to get to the Crow's Nest than the combined Busby-Halt 1-Halt 2 travels because Varnum, et cie, took at least two smoke breaks along the way. Despite the darkness, more than one participant claimed the regiment trotted most of the way.
And no, Hunk, Donovan is ambivalent-- or certainly fair-- about the necessity of Tullock's Creek, explaining the entire situation very nicely. One needn't take sides to do a good job.
Darkcloud-- Donovan does make an extremely strong case for Reno being drunk, however, he does not use it as a criticism of Reno's actions in the valley. It is used more for pointing out Benteen's hilltop control than any perceived Reno incompetence. I am still more in your camp on this issue.
For those of you who are interested, I would strongly suggest reading Tom Heski's article in the summer 2007 Research Review. You are probably never going to find a more definitive description of the Davis Creek jaunt than that. If it is unavailable through the LBHA or Chuck Merkel and you would like to see a copy, I can Xerox it and ship it to you.
Best wishes, Fred.
|
|
|
Post by crzhrs on Apr 11, 2008 10:44:15 GMT -6
Over on the History Channel forum two prominent members have panned this book
Quote:
"You might want to hold off on this one. While this book has its moments it is the not as good as it appears. The author is given to speculating on events with little factual data to back these speculations up. I've caught him misrepresenting Indian accounts on the battle itself so many times that I've lost count on the number of times he did it. His rendition of the Custer end of the event is so speculative that it borders on being science fiction. Donovan has a flair for the dramatic in his writing but he takes a great deal of editorial license in his research which translates into his commiting numerous errors in the telling of his tale. I found this to be suprising in that the book has a large and comprehensive bibliography and extensive footnotes. However, his narrative leaves alot to be desired. I don't consider this book to be one of the better efforts on this battle."
The other opinion: "This isn't the first time that has happened. We have seen this before. The Unger book is a good example. It is just as ridiculous when it comes to the Custer battle, even though he has a huge bibliography with many good sources. In the end it is not what you want to write yourself, but the information in those sources that you use. Cherry picking, parsing, and ignoring facts that go against the authors theory is not what I would call an informative book or a professional way to get along in life." ______
I haven't read the book so I can't judge it, but those two guys are quite knowledgable.
|
|
Gumby
Full Member
Posts: 202
|
Post by Gumby on Apr 11, 2008 11:37:19 GMT -6
The problem with the two reviews quoted by Horse is that we don't know who wrote them. I have a hard time respecting the opinions of anonymous sources. Another problem is that they don't refer to specific sources. I know Jim and I know he used Native American sources that have not been seen by more than a few people. Like anyone else, I have my own opinions on the battle and they evolve as I receive more information or I look at some of the information from a different perspective. I have talked to many students of the battle that won't change their opinions no matter how much proof there may be to the contrary. I will keep an open mind on the book and judge it for myself afterwards. I recommend others do the same. I remember reading one of the books about Tom Custer that came out some time back. It was about the worst written pieces of trash that I have ever read. However, i finished it anyway in the hopes that I would find at least one piece of useful information in it. Alas, it had no redeeming qualities at all to recommend it but, I could only know it for certain by reading it myself.
As for the distance from the C.N. to the breakfast fires, I think Jim was using only first person sources, and that was the distance they stated. I believe we have found that very few of the participants were capable of giving accurate estimates of distances. Benteen and his bluffs (to the left) that he claimed was five miles away was echoed by Lt. Gibson in a letter to his wife a few weeks after the battle. Godfrey believed they were about three miles away. We know now that they were a little over a mile away. The mind plays tricks on us. Our faith in eyewitness statements is sadly overrated. They are the worst form of evidence in any situation unless supported by other evidence. Look at the different descriptions of GAC's body on the 27th of June. Some have him completely naked. Some have him wearing one sock. Windolph claimed to his death that Custer was fully clothed. Who do you believe? The correct answer is: Whoever you want. It can't be proven one way or the other. Honestly, does it really matter? I don't really care if he was wearing a bra and false eyelashes, unless it made a difference to the what happened during the battle.
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on Apr 11, 2008 11:51:35 GMT -6
Until there is new and actual evidence - not newly uncovered or purported opinion from someone who may or may not be accurate decades after the fact - I'm quite serious in saying there is little to be gained in knowledge by reading every new book, including archaeological reports which have their own issues.
There are cycles of opinion, it seems like, encouraged almost solely for the vanity of authors to get published and to inspire equally dismal response from the opposite side. Apparently it's time for Reno to be drunk again to inflame response. LBH went through revision, counter revision, and onward faster than any event with which I'm familiar, including the Civil War. I really feel everyone from Custer on down deserves better and more honest and far less hysterical coverage - a step back and admission that too often and early on it becomes about the Custer 'scholar' and not about the LBH.
It was a fiasco no different and less important than others. It isn't unique except a brevet American general's immediate command was wiped out with him.
|
|
|
Post by crzhrs on Apr 11, 2008 12:00:40 GMT -6
Gumby:
If one would like to read the messages go to the History Channel Members forum and look under Wars then Indian Wars. The topic is: Has anyone read this new book?
You are right. One should read any book before making comments about it and I stated I did not read the book.
I was using their opinions because I believe they are very knowledgable regarding the LBH and are fair and objective in their views.
|
|
|
Post by "Hunk" Papa on Apr 11, 2008 16:27:56 GMT -6
And no, Hunk, Donovan is ambivalent-- or certainly fair-- about the necessity of Tullock's Creek, explaining the entire situation very nicely. One needn't take sides to do a good job. Best wishes, Fred.
Muzzle smacked and suitably chastened, I have retired to the doghouse with no hope of walkies. There will now be a long paws while I wait for my copy of the book! Aaw, go on Fred, forgive me, I look so cute when I wag my tail. H
|
|
|
Post by cefil on Apr 11, 2008 19:40:07 GMT -6
Not that I want to be nit-picky...(oh, who am I kidding? I thrive on pickin' nits. I do it with relish!)...(and believe me, there's nothing more delicious than a big ol' helpin' of nits, freshly picked, covered with relish)...but, Sir Horse, I believe that only the first quote you cite is a review of the book. The second one reads more like a comment on that first review, not an actual review of the book itself. (Especially when viewed in context on the original History Channel board.)
On that board, BTW, there's one positive review ("All in all, a balanced book and good for anyone wanting a high-level overview of the issues, campaign, and aftermath.") and the one negative review you cite. Kind of a wash...Leaving Gumby's as the best advice: read the book, draw your own conclusions.
cefil
|
|
|
Post by markland on Apr 11, 2008 23:03:06 GMT -6
Over on the History Channel forum two prominent members have panned this book Quote: "You might want to hold off on this one. While this book has its moments it is the not as good as it appears. The author is given to speculating on events with little factual data to back these speculations up. I've caught him misrepresenting Indian accounts on the battle itself so many times that I've lost count on the number of times he did it. His rendition of the Custer end of the event is so speculative that it borders on being science fiction. Donovan has a flair for the dramatic in his writing but he takes a great deal of editorial license in his research which translates into his commiting numerous errors in the telling of his tale. I found this to be suprising in that the book has a large and comprehensive bibliography and extensive footnotes. However, his narrative leaves alot to be desired. I don't consider this book to be one of the better efforts on this battle." The other opinion: "This isn't the first time that has happened. We have seen this before. The Unger book is a good example. It is just as ridiculous when it comes to the Custer battle, even though he has a huge bibliography with many good sources. In the end it is not what you want to write yourself, but the information in those sources that you use. Cherry picking, parsing, and ignoring facts that go against the authors theory is not what I would call an informative book or a professional way to get along in life." ______ I haven't read the book so I can't judge it, but those two guys are quite knowledgable. Horse, until now, I hadn't looked at the other board but guessed that the persons you were speaking of have to be Jimbo and General76 . My thoughts are that Jimbo will never relinguish his self-imposed role of being the arbiter of all Indian testimony; whether right or wrong or indifferent. General however is a different story. But, from now reading the thread it seems as if General76 has not yet read the book but is following Jimbo's lead in reviewing the book. I am disappointed in that as I have considered him more "open-minded." Yet, his explanation of Deep Ravine and the search for the remains has yet to be surpassed. Basically, my recommendation would be to go for the book as a beginner or overview product, or, if a die-hard LBH researcher as Fred recommends, for the character vignettes. But then, I have too many books to read as it is without getting bogged down in LBH folk-lore. Billy
|
|
|
Post by Melani on Apr 12, 2008 0:21:10 GMT -6
Gumby, I find it really refreshing that you are willing to change your point of view based on changing information and perspective. Huzzah!
So far I have made it to the Washita in the book, and I am really liking it. And Amazon practically delivered it instantly on a silver platter, without my paying extra. Go through the Friends' link.
|
|
|
Post by mcaryf on Apr 12, 2008 5:30:30 GMT -6
Hi Fred
I think the issue up Davis Creek is not whether there was a halt at a point 4 miles or so away from the CN but whether there might have been three halts. A number of accounts can be read to suggest that the column marched again at an intermediate time between the coffee halt at 2am and Wallace's "8.45am" with the final halt being the arrival near the CN.
Hi Gumby
I am interested that you reckon we know that the bluffs were only 1 mile from where Benteen started out. Are you deriving this from Roger Darling's proposed route? Personally I find his analysis deeply unconvincing as he seems to have got it into his head that Benteen was supposed to head in a westerly direction when every single witness account effectively disagrees with that and Darling's subsequent route does not match the witnesses who stated that the march was gradually forced to the right as his route goes left then 180 degrees right.
Regards
Mike
|
|
Gumby
Full Member
Posts: 202
|
Post by Gumby on Apr 12, 2008 21:06:47 GMT -6
Hey Mike, Recently a friend and I have been doing some research for a future project and have been doing some serious study of the terrain around the point where Benteen was sent to the left. There can be little argument that Benteen was sent after they had crossed the divide. The first line of bluffs after that is about a mile or mile and a half from the most reasonable departure point. My friend and I plan to look into the theory that an optical illusion existed (and might still exist) that causes one line of bluffs, higher and farther off, to blend in with the nearest line. Right now we are only theorizing. Hopefully we will know more by the end of June.
I think Darling was influenced by accounts left by Godfrey that he could see the main column periodically as they reached the "valleys" between the "lines of bluffs". When I see the terrain from the divide area again, in person, I shall hopefully be able to judge whether there were any other "bluffs" that could have been the ones alluded to by Benteen's orders.
|
|