|
Post by quincannon on Jan 19, 2014 21:01:56 GMT -6
Tom: I think you must first differentiate between something that is planned, and a deliberate decision.
|
|
|
Post by fred on Jan 19, 2014 21:28:46 GMT -6
I am looking for a reason to believe CH got to Custer earlier than most say. See Kingsley Bray's work. Also, Black Elk, Two Moons, Flying Hawk, Pretty White Buffalo, Lone Bear, He Dog, and White Bull. I do not agree. Everything I have been able to put together indicates he moved north of his own sweet volition. Best wishes, Fred.
|
|
|
Post by Yan Taylor on Jan 20, 2014 10:59:20 GMT -6
I wouldn’t mind knowing if Crazy Horse could actually see the Custer Column from the Reno site, you have trees and a line of bluffs between both forces and Custer whole command may have been travelling down a coulee, so I wonder if the things you read about Crazy Horse spotting Custer’s Troops and referring to the next battle being fought over in that direction, you wonder how he knew.
Ian.
|
|
|
Post by fred on Jan 20, 2014 12:04:31 GMT -6
I wouldn’t mind knowing if Crazy Horse could actually see the Custer Column from the Reno site... so I wonder if the things you read about Crazy Horse spotting Custer’s Troops.... I doubt very much if Crazy Horse actually saw Custer's troops, and that being the impetus for him leaving the Reno fight. By the time Crazy Horse left I think it was reasonably well-known there was more trouble brewing downstream. If we believe the Michno interpretations of events-- and I tend to do so, even if in a somewhat modified fashion-- then word was spreading of additional danger. I think the first actual sighting of Custer's troops was as Crazy Horse passed Ford B. Plus, I think the volley firing was clear enough to indicate trouble. From the Reno area, however? I don't think so. Best wishes, Fred.
|
|
|
Post by Yan Taylor on Jan 20, 2014 13:47:27 GMT -6
Thanks Fred, the stories you find online that Crazy Horse saw Custer and gave a speech about going over and fighting the soldiers has always bugged me, just looking at a map can show how the terrain would make any sighting impossible.
Now another point, Crazy Horse rides out of camp and gets to the Reno battlefield, he then rides back through the camp and crosses the river around the area of Squaw Creek, once across the river he attacks from the north, now do I have this correct?
Because if that was true then it was one hell of a ride and I would imagine that it would take a considerable amount of time to do this task, enough time for things to transpire on Custer Ridge and for GAC to make a recce northwards perhaps?
Ian.
|
|
|
Post by fred on Jan 20, 2014 14:04:46 GMT -6
... that Crazy Horse saw Custer and gave a speech about going over and fighting the soldiers.... I would seriously question that. He may have had some 200 warriors trailing him, so I doubt he gave many speeches. Also, I find no accounts claiming such. One of the worst things people do with this stuff is the addition of the dramatic. Some how that kind of things always has a way of wheedling its way into the books as "fact." No. Squaw/Chasing Creek is Ford D. Crazy Horse did not go that far. He crossed at Deep Ravine Ford, sometimes called Ford C or Cheyenne Ford. He crossed, then went up Deep Ravine. That business about the wide-arc swing to the north is just more drama, in my opinion. Best wishes, Fred.
|
|
|
Post by Yan Taylor on Jan 20, 2014 14:12:30 GMT -6
Thanks Fred, that I’ll do for me.
I am sure I have seen a name on one of the various maps knocking around, that contains a feature called Crazy Horse Ravine, I think it is around the Custer Ridge extensions, now I must have mistaken this for the place that CH made his attack.
Ian.
|
|
|
Post by fred on Jan 20, 2014 14:52:55 GMT -6
I am sure I have seen a name on one of the various maps knocking around, that contains a feature called Crazy Horse Ravine, I think it is around the Custer Ridge extensions.... No, no mistake, Ian. I have seen the same thing. I believe it refers to the ravine separating the east side of Battle Ridge from the next ridge over: I refer to that eastern ridge as Crazy Horse Ridge, but that is strictly a "fred name." I may-- not sure about this-- have seen Deep Ravine also referred to as Crazy Horse Ravine. It may have been Pretty White Buffalo... not sure. She claimed Crazy Horse led a number of Cheyenne warriors up a ravine. I buy the "ravine"; not so sure about the "Cheyenne." Best wishes, Fred.
|
|
|
Post by Yan Taylor on Jan 20, 2014 14:54:52 GMT -6
Thanks Fred.
Ian.
|
|
|
Post by scottbono on Jan 25, 2014 16:23:23 GMT -6
Thanks Fred, the stories you find online that Crazy Horse saw Custer and gave a speech about going over and fighting the soldiers has always bugged me, just looking at a map can show how the terrain would make any sighting impossible. Now another point, Crazy Horse rides out of camp and gets to the Reno battlefield, he then rides back through the camp and crosses the river around the area of Squaw Creek, once across the river he attacks from the north, now do I have this correct? Because if that was true then it was one hell of a ride and I would imagine that it would take a considerable amount of time to do this task, enough time for things to transpire on Custer Ridge and for GAC to make a recce northwards perhaps? Ian. Ian, I always had that movement in my head as well. The idea, as I recall, was described by both Utley and Ambrose - the big Crazy Horse loop. It sounded so dramatic on paper until one actually sees the place. I changed my mind. I believe he crossed at Deep Ravine Ford.
|
|
|
Post by fred on Jan 25, 2014 19:24:29 GMT -6
I believe he crossed at Deep Ravine Ford. I agree. D'accord. Best wishes, Fred.
|
|
|
Post by scottbono on Jan 25, 2014 20:58:27 GMT -6
Fred,
I am still wrestling with the matter of eyewitness accounts versus 'modern research' claims. Not just in this thread but across the spectrum of the whole affair. We agreed on another thread on the matter also. I'm involved in a writing 'project' also and at times there seems a chasm between what men standing there SEEING things report and what well-intentioned folks state 150 years later.
Regards, Scott
|
|
|
Post by fred on Jan 25, 2014 21:45:41 GMT -6
I am still wrestling with the matter of eyewitness accounts versus 'modern research' claims. Not just in this thread but across the spectrum of the whole affair.... I'm involved in a writing 'project' also and at times there seems a chasm between what men standing there SEEING things report and what well-intentioned folks state 150 years later. The problem as I see it, Scott, is very difficult to solve. You have to understand the amount of work I have put into this thing and while I can crow about that, it does not mean I know everything or even that I am right. I started in earnest around 1998 and it has consumed me ever since. It took me 4 1/2 years to complete the timing study and that's-- to me-- the primary reason no one else has done such a thing, other than John Gray. What I have found is that the historical record is extremely accurate, vis-à-vis, the scientific record. As DC is so quick to point out-- correctly, I might add-- that doesn't insure accuracy. What it does insure, however, is a reasonable facsimile of accuracy depending on how you interpret both of those ingredients. When you look at the historical record, there are any number of elements you must discard, even from the most reliable of sources. Some time ago, I developed a rating system-- a simple 1 to 10 scale-- on the believability of certain "actors." Theodore Goldin, for example, gets a very low grade; Peter Thompson's is even lower. I keep Reno in the 5 area, and no one gets a 10. The highest is probably Luke Hare and Ferdinand Culbertson, and even Hare made errors. Varnum is close, as is John Ryan. They are not perfect because Varnum's times-- admittedly-- are off, and Ryan finesses too much material, leaving us high and dry. Davern ranks high, as does Win Edgerly. Ephriam Morris is in the Reno area; Kanipe, Martini, and Curley are way, way low, only a tad bit above Goldin and Thompson. Ironically, many of the Indians-- scouts and Sioux/Cheyenne-- I found quite reliable, especially when I compare what they said to the scientific, i. e., archaeological work. As a whole, I take events and I rank them in percentages, i. e., a 75% chance of being correct. The percentages are driven by the input, historical and scientific. And so on and so on. I also put considerably more reliance on accounts occurring closer to the event than I do 50 years hence. DC emphasized that and so I changed my approach after reading a number of his arguments. That doesn't mean someone who comes public 35 years after the battle is wrong, but it does mean if Martini claimed something at the RCOI in 1879, then had a different story in 1909 or 1922, guess what.... To me, the whole key is to approach the thing with a blank slate. If you go back on these boards or take a look at some of my railings on the other board, you will see a mass of prejudice, of preconceptions, of biases. They generally slur Reno and Benteen and absolve Custer of almost all blame and they are all too often driven by the opinions of others: authors... so-called battle students... historians... charlatans. There is one idiot over there who had the temerity to call Benteen and Reno, "crap." It is the sheep syndrome, the fear of thinking for yourself because you may be wrong or in the minority... God forbid. Time clearly erodes things. I don't know how old you are, but I am 73, hale, hearty, and on the go. My mind is as clear as a bell... yet I do forget things, mostly because I am so focused on something else. What I have seen is a diminution of precise memory of a long time ago. I often talk to my former driver in Vietnam-- he lives outside of Houston-- and he tells me things that are a bit different in my memory. If you equate that to the LBH, it sort of makes you wary of the latter-year accounts. I am currently reading a book by Doug Scott, one of the 1984-1985 archaeologists and a former MWAC chief of archaeology I think... whatever his credentials are... and he has mentioned, several times, how well the archaeology fits with many of the historical accounts. And I think if you approach things in that manner, your percentages will rise higher. Hope this has answered your thoughts and I haven't bored you to tears. Best wishes, Fred.
|
|
|
Post by scottbono on Jan 25, 2014 22:16:12 GMT -6
Fred,
First off, we're not that far apart in age <g> - I'm old/young enough to have gotten my induction notice in 1970 so fiddling with the math will bring you in the ballpark. One of the reasons I tend to read-read-read and study/contemplate posts like yours, QC, DC, Montrose & co. is, essentially, what you've described of your own efforts - people who have put in the hours and experience giving them a literate and sensible approach to what happened at LBH. I sit here and make notes, do my own reading and ask myself questions just scratching the surface. One of the things I learned at Hopkins was taking histories from people with an ear toward what may be 'clinically significant'. I think the analogy is an acceptable one. People *think* they're giving detailed information when, instead, it is blather. In a 60 minute history perhaps 5% is actually significant to their case. In reading so many postings here it becomes imperative to identify the 'clinically significant' material, screen out the chaff and what's left in between can be prioritized in importance. I've always questioned modern 'researchers' who dismiss eyewitness accounts to events millenia, even centuries old. As you pointed out, it would seem the closer to the event, the more acceptable the account (given the usual biases, etc.). When Benteen states 'regiments' of Indians milled about looking for positions, I tend to take him at his word, considering he has a good idea what 'regiments' look like.
So you know, you, most assuredly have not bored me to tears; in fact I am able to appreciate the background for your positions (again, not swearing they are correct but you've 'done the math' so to speak). Thank you.
Scott
|
|
|
Post by fred on Jan 26, 2014 9:08:45 GMT -6
One of the reasons I tend to read-read-read and study/contemplate posts like yours, QC, DC, Montrose & co. is, essentially, what you've described of your own efforts - people who have put in the hours and experience giving them a literate and sensible approach to what happened at LBH. I sit here and make notes, do my own reading and ask myself questions just scratching the surface. One of the things I learned at Hopkins was taking histories from people with an ear toward what may be 'clinically significant'. I think the analogy is an acceptable one. People *think* they're giving detailed information when, instead, it is blather. In a 60 minute history perhaps 5% is actually significant to their case. In reading so many postings here it becomes imperative to identify the 'clinically significant' material, screen out the chaff and what's left in between can be prioritized in importance. I've always questioned modern 'researchers' who dismiss eyewitness accounts to events millenia, even centuries old. As you pointed out, it would seem the closer to the event, the more acceptable the account (given the usual biases, etc.). When Benteen states 'regiments' of Indians milled about looking for positions, I tend to take him at his word, considering he has a good idea what 'regiments' look like. A very significant series of observations. Apply your thought process-- very similar to mine, I might add-- to the following situation... and this would make a very interesting new thread if you care to pursue it: Did Custer make a second trip to the Crow's Nest?I have tackled this little gem in this forthcoming book and have reached a workable-- and in my opinion, an absolutely correct-- solution. Best wishes, Fred.
|
|