|
Post by crzhrs on Apr 12, 2007 11:02:03 GMT -6
I don't think the problem was so much what livestock was had at forts . . . but the terrible rations in the field. Maybe if the army took a wagon filled with chicken & pigs along they would have eaten better.
Of course hens clucking, roosters crowing, and pigs oinking would have been worse than mules braying. They would never have found any Indians!
|
|
|
Post by elisabeth on Apr 12, 2007 11:13:35 GMT -6
Not a bad idea. They took cattle, after all ...
Hard to believe that mules, assorted dogs, and clanking tin cups were considered less noisy than sabres!
Actually, come to think of it, there's no excuse for the dreadful field rations. The army had been using desiccated vegetables for years; they're light-weight and compact, so wouldn't have been a problem to carry. They had desiccated potatoes too ("instant mash"). Even when fires were restricted, the same small fire that boiled water for coffee could surely boil it for veg. It would have varied the rations, cheered the lads up, and removed the threat of dying from scurvy long before the Indians got you. Bizarre.
|
|
|
Post by crzhrs on Apr 12, 2007 11:18:29 GMT -6
Obviously speed was of the essence on campaigns. It was difficult enough finding Indians, but with assorted livestock along it would have been just as bad as dragging gatlings.
Of course Custer had his dogs, but they were able to keep up and probably ahead of the command.
Anyone with a dog knows when walking the dog it is always ahead of you. And try calling it back when you want it!
Didn't the post-CW army have left over CW rations? I think some of it survives to this day!
|
|
|
Post by harpskiddie on Apr 12, 2007 14:50:11 GMT -6
Some biscuits just walked by, apparently looking for the bacon.
Gordie, corporal, there are maggots in my food. Shut up or everyone will want some!!.........................
|
|