|
Post by Walt Cross on Apr 19, 2005 20:29:47 GMT -6
Why can we not get past veneral disease? Who cares?
Walt
|
|
|
Post by Rabble on Apr 19, 2005 22:11:25 GMT -6
No disrespect Walt, but as an ex military man, as am I, you cannot hide your head in the sand when dealing with unpleasant subjects. (I should have said I am "VERY old ex military!)
|
|
|
Post by Tricia on Apr 19, 2005 23:00:35 GMT -6
rice. I cannot state with a certainty that he didn't use someone elses ideas on time elements. However I can find no reference to Wallace in his book. Gray's work is quite well done, and he uses a surround of the battlefield to let you know what is happening all around the battle not just in one place. That helps alot! It's a good read overall, and I think a good one that helps one to understand the events leading up to the final battle on and around Custer Hill. I'll have to admit a dirth of knowledge when it comes to LBH--but from what I have understood, it is Lt. Wallace who kept the "official" time of the battle. I read an article by Bruce Trinque over the past year that supposedly refutes Wallace's schedule. However, I'll probably read Gray before anniversary-time this year (hey, it's in the pile)--but wasn't he also responsible for the theory that Custer got whacked at MTC and the resultant effect of an almost dead, if not already dead LTC, was that near-chaotic run to the north (accepting that L and I took their places before egregious injury to GAC)? Just curious. Leyton McLean
|
|
|
Post by Walt Cross on Apr 20, 2005 14:31:30 GMT -6
What has that got to do with veneral disease...sheesh, let's move on!
Walt
|
|
|
Post by crzhrs on Apr 21, 2005 17:17:50 GMT -6
Apparently there was some question as to the time zone Wallace was using for his records. Any body here about this?
|
|
|
Post by Tricia on Apr 21, 2005 19:24:12 GMT -6
Crazy Horse--
I have always worked with the understanding that Wallace's timepiece was set to "railroad" time, i.e., the time Chicago kept--which also happened to be the location of Department HQ (i.e., Sheridan's office). The time seems to say that the fighting ended at sundown--I think Wallace notes it at 8.30 when locally, on June 25th, not accounting for leap years or minutes, darkness doesn't truly come over the battlefield until 9.30-10.00 pm (MST). And it was Wallace whose timing influenced Gray's writing.
And if we can agree that for every fifteen degrees of longitude means an hour's time difference ... all right, I'm confused.
Regards, Leyton McLean
|
|
|
Post by twomoons on Apr 22, 2005 23:25:33 GMT -6
Run that by ~ one more time? I prefer the Indian time myself, less hassle, don't you know? I think a for a good study of cavalry under stress, one definitly has to see "Advance to the Rear" starring Glenn Ford. Anyone ever see that one? Lots of good clues there. And Walt, there's no VD in it either! ;D www.imdb.com/title/tt0057820/#comment
|
|
|
Post by weir on Apr 24, 2005 5:40:48 GMT -6
I read an article by Bruce Trinque over the past year that supposedly refutes Wallace's schedule. However, I'll probably read Gray before anniversary-time this year (hey, it's in the pile)--but wasn't he also responsible for the theory that Custer got whacked at MTC and the resultant effect of an almost dead, if not already dead LTC, was that near-chaotic run to the north (accepting that L and I took their places before egregious injury to GAC)? Just curious. Leyton McLean The story from GAC hit at MTF came from the woman of scout Goes Ahead, and was never corroborated, not even by Goes Ahead himsef... The schedule of LBH is a main concern for every student of the battle. It is highly debatable, especially on the 7th cavalry side, because it could prove many things about some officers. The speed of their march. Their reactions while the battle was going on with Custer. Their reactions at the Weir Peaks. The time they fought. The clouds about the schedule are volunteer. Check the Reno's Court of Inquiry if you doubt about the propaganda the Army used to confused the american people. The schedule is a very important point, Those who accept Gray's study without looking further miss a large part of the study of the battle. One of the key point is Weir Point. Read about the Weir Point enigma, the testimonies between officers who said they saw nothing (except Lt Hare) and the privates who described what they witnessed. If those terstimonies convinced you that, according to Sergeant Windolph "a big fight was going on", so you have a new and dark perspective of what was really LBH. Recommanded readings : Francis B. Taunton, 'The Enigma of Weir Point' published in 'No Pride in the Little Big Horn' (English Westerners' Society Special Publication No.7, 1987). It's up to you.
|
|
|
Post by twomoons on Apr 24, 2005 14:19:00 GMT -6
The speed, Timing and event reactions - true enough play into the battle sequencing. To orient that properly has been debated from the beginning. Gray's analysis is perhaps the best that we have, because it orders the timing of events, and the speeds are calculated with practical analyisis of speed within the framework of terrain, surround that time with other evernts,etc... What is hard to defy is that he uses primarily soldier times, using them in such a way, that in most cases pinpoints an exact if not very close time frame for the events. Then he surrounds the battlefield with other evidences of times and comes up with the best plausable times for those events to date. If one denies the soldier times then one also has to deny their telling the truth.
Gray's timing of events surrounding Wier point are for the most part valid. It was stated by most if not all present that they left at about the time the pack train arrived. Gray's analysis proved the validity of that time. As to what was seen there, is and will probably be forever debated by professional and gumshoes alike. It wasn't so much what they seen, or could possibly have seen as much as their "reaction" to it. That they very well indeed could have witnessed in some way the ending of the battle on and near Custer Hill, is most certainly without question. Their reaction indicates two things. 1) That what they witnessed, told them all they needed to know, thus turning back. or 2) That they chose to ignore what they saw and turned back anyway.
The last one incriminates Benteen and Reno. For if indeed they saw and knew, and later didn't report that as a fact, then they deserved much worse than court martials! That a coverup by the government was perpetrated is without a doubt the cause of so much confusion and debate that has continued to this day.
Can we hold Reno and Benteen blameless, probably not, but one has to look higher up the chain of command for the answers. And it went higher than most suspect.
|
|
|
Post by twomoons on May 1, 2005 8:07:01 GMT -6
Hey Walt here's something you might be interested in. www.va-umd.org/pages/custer.htmUniversity of Maryland Clinicopathologic Conference A 36-year-old Renowned Military Officer Davidge Hall Lombard and Greene Streets PRESENTATION OF CASE The patient is a 36 year old, renowned, military officer, who in the face of convincing evidence of an overwhelmingly superior enemy force, orchestrates a defeat so severe that it culminates in the annihilation of his personal command of over 200 men, his own death, and the deaths of 2 of his 3 brothers, a favorite nephew, and a brother-in-law (1) Early in his career, the patient was court-martialed for deserting his command and in the process, endangering the lives of several members thereof and destroying valuable government property. His reason for doing so was to be with his wife, for whom he was experiencing separation anxiety after only a month's separation (1). The patient exhibits no evidence of remorse over the deaths of several members of his command who he had been forced to abandon during a fierce engagement (1,2). Nor does he evince remorse after having been court-martialed for issuing a tacit "shoot-to-kill" order directed at deserters under his command. After one engagement, he is also reported to have denied wounded members of his command access to ambulances, which he used instead to transport his hunting dogs (1,2). While a college student, the patient had a single episode of a sexually transmitted disease -- most probably gonorrhea (1). During this same period, he had numerous upper respiratory infections, 3 episodes of (infectious ?) diarrhea, an attack of shingles, and repeated headaches. Since then, he has had almost no physical complaints, except for first-degree burns of his hands, a gunshot wound to his lower leg, and a mild concussion, all incurred during his early twenties. He has no allergies and takes no medications. The patient is the first surviving child of the second marriage of both his mother and his father (3). He has 5 siblings and 5 half-siblings and was raised in what, by all accounts, appears to have been a loving and devoted family environment. His father was both physically strong and a consummate practical joker. He has always been solicitous toward the patient. The patient's mother, although slight of build, is a strict disciplinarian who has dictated a stringent moral code within the family. As a child, the patient was active (perhaps hyperactive), athletic, daring, and mischievous (1). By several accounts, he was his parents' favorite child (3). As an adolescent the patient spent several years living with an older half-sister, who he came to idolize (3). It was this half-sister's son who the patient led to his death in his final battle. At the urging of this half-sister, the patient eschewed alcohol and tobacco as an adult. As a teenager, the patient described himself as "above medium height and of remarkable construction and vigorous frame." He was decidedly impulsive, with a penchant for practical jokes, kind and generous to his friends, implacable toward his enemies, and completely open in his feelings. He "accepted Jesus" as an adolescent but has never been preoccupied with religion. During this period, he was chauvinistic regarding his country's contributions to mankind. In many people's opinions, the patient now possesses most of the essential personal characteristics of the ideal military leader (1). He is gallant, immune to fatigue, impervious to fear, and maintains a clear head in danger. He is clearly excited by war. He is direct, honest, decent, and proud. He is also frequently pompous, impatient, and flamboyant. When leading men into battle, he characteristically has his regimental band play a favorite marching tune. He has a strong sense of personal destiny and believes himself bound for glory. He is an absolute authoritarian, which contrasts sharply with his attitude as a child, when he exhibited little respect for authority. At the same time, the patient has never lost his penchant for immature, and occasionally dangerous, practical jokes. He is optimistic by constitution. However, on rare occasions, he becomes moody, sometimes remaining silent for hours. He is simultaneously deeply sentimental, crying whenever he parts from his mother or watches a moving play, and thrilled by the killing of both men and animals. He has surrounded himself with family members and a few close friends, with whom he works closely and does the preponderance of his socializing. The patient is married and has a highly stylized relationship with his wife, which is simultaneously deeply uxorious, manipulative, and immature (1). He signs his letters to her "Your Boy." He has had at least one extramarital affair, and perhaps more. He has no children. He is a career military officer, whose professional philosophy is "to do that which the enemy neither expects nor desires." He is an avid hunter and a compulsive gambler (the later avocation, in fact, has been a source of repeated financial difficulties). The patient is a college graduate, a serious student of history and an author of some talent (4). The patient is well-developed, muscular, and handsome. He appears his stated age. His motions are rapid, as is his manner of speech. In fact, his conversation is so quick and energetic, that he frequently hesitates mid sentence, particularly when excited or angered, as if words cannot be formed fast enough to keep up with the thoughts which precede them. The patient appears to be in perpetual motion (e.g., eats rapidly, constantly pacing, etc.). He is fastidious in his personal hygiene. His physical examination is normal except for a well-healed bullet wound of the left lower leg. And then it actually give a PSYCHOLOGICAL TESTS result!!! You have to read this!
|
|
|
Post by Tricia on May 1, 2005 14:48:29 GMT -6
Twomoons--
I took some time and read the entire article and its conclusions at the website you noted. I have a real problem with those assessing an individual who lived in the 19th century and never underwent a psychological testing that conforms to modern parameters, as those listed in the DSL (4 or 5). I just don't think its a safe practice.
I've never been one to deny that GAC had personality issues, some more than others. But it wasn't nutsiness that lead him to his death LBH--however, his issues with 1875 "down time" DID almost get him left behind!
Yeah, he had narcissistic tendencies, was impatient, hated it (to some extent) when he was not the center of attention, etc., ... but heck, don't we all to some degree?
And yes, the CBHMA seminar and field trip are usually worth the money. This year the field trip is following the Rosebud Valley from the Yellowstone to the location of the 7th's bivouac on June 23, I think. Tom Heski and Jim May are leading it. They'll also visit the place where Sitting Bull had his falling soldiers' dream. The seminar features both talented and less than talented speakers--but I haven't come away yet without learning something. And it is a great opportunity to meet some of those authors whose work you admire--and Steve Alexander usually comes out of reenactment land for the hamburger party.
Now to be completely unbiased, I'm sure the LBHA thing will be great as well--but can't afford both this year. Drat!
Regards, Leyton McLean
|
|
|
Post by twomoons on May 1, 2005 15:14:29 GMT -6
Can't say that I entirely agree with all of it either, but it did fit into this discussion area. So I thought that I'd offer it to see what others thought, that's all.
Thanks for the info.
|
|
|
Post by Tricia on May 1, 2005 16:21:29 GMT -6
I have no issue with you posting the website or transcribing the information here. It was really quite interesting and enjoyable to read! Just don't know if I'd hang my hat on their conclusions.
Regards, Leyton McLean
|
|
|
Post by Walt Cross on May 1, 2005 18:53:50 GMT -6
Thanks for thinking of me Two Moons, I shall read it.
Walt
|
|
|
Post by Walt Cross on May 1, 2005 19:04:51 GMT -6
Well, it was interesting. And they followed some very well known veins of personal attributes and behaviors Custer exhibited. I take issue with the tests for sure. Two Custer "experts" took the tests for him, consulting one another as they did. It has limited value in my estimate except for entertainment, which I often find fiction to be entertaining. Thanks, it was something new.
Walt
|
|