|
Post by fred on Nov 30, 2007 16:24:05 GMT -6
Conz, you dog, you beat me to it... but that was an excellent start.
Here is how Diane and I would like to set this section set up. Conz' start is very good, so we will begin there. Anyone can start a thread. The "Fred Rules" apply. For those of you who do not know what they are, it's very simple: Civility. Capital "C." Anything less will be deleted. While I say anyone can start a thread, I would like to see each thread pertain to specific theory within the whole event. For example, "Custer went to Ford B because..."; "Custer didn't go to Ford B because..."; "the battle unfolded this way..."; "Custer separated from Reno because..."; and so on. I am also open to any other ideas and will let you run the gamut. I do think, however, these threads should be all hypothetical/theory, otherwise we begin to bump into areas already covered in "Custeriana" and "Battle Basics," and while I know there is going to be a lot of duplication I am hoping these threads will more properly "index" ideas. I would love to see Gordon Harper post his Custer battle theory-- again-- but on these threads. It is well thought-out and well elucidated. I know Conz also has a theory of how the final stages unfolded and I know "keogh" does as well. This doesn't mean we all have to agree with these ideas, but it would be fun to discuss them without all the usual attendant sidebars that seem to throw things off track.
Again, any and all suggestions are welcome. You can certainly post them on this thread.
Best wishes, Fred.
|
|
|
Post by harpskiddie on Nov 30, 2007 20:56:48 GMT -6
Gordon Harper, who is by the way, an entirely fictional character is having to rework the final stages of the Custer fight as outlined in his theory wherever and whenever it was posted, because of new information directly bearing on that phase of the Battle recently received. Well, fairly recently, anyway. He is still trying to make some sense of parts of it, and, unlike Armstrong Custer. would prefer not to enter into the fray piecemeal, until all of his ducks are in a row, which might take some time, as his faithful correspondent will attest.
As he told his then publisher in 1997 when pressed to present a finished chapter - "Give me two weeks, and I'll have something for you." You all must remember the hoopla surrounding the publishing of that book, and the attendant publicity and controversy.
Oh, yeah; that's right - he still hasn't finished that chapter. That's why that publisher is described as "then." As his cousin, Georgiana Aleksayana, might say, never mind.
Gordie, MC
|
|
|
Post by conz on Dec 3, 2007 13:30:19 GMT -6
Gordie,
In the Army we have a saying: "An adequate plan executed on time is better than a perfect plan executed too late!"
Have at it, my man.
ConZ
|
|
|
Post by harpskiddie on Dec 3, 2007 14:00:50 GMT -6
Conz:
So what was Autie Custer's plan? Adequate? Timely in execution? Obviously not perfect or if so way too late, one must opine.
Not being a military man myself, although I once knew one, I do not feel comfortable commenting on military planning. I will report same if it has been jotted down somewhere, but I think it more proper for someone like me to leave the plan-commenting-on or surmising-as-to to qualified military men. As I've said, I tend to go after what people did, rather than trying to guess as to why they did it.
Gordie MC
|
|
|
Post by conz on Dec 3, 2007 14:21:36 GMT -6
Well, part of understanding WHAT they did is WHY that did it, eh?
Of course, military men are mostly interested in passing judgments on our fellow officers...otherwise we have little interest in history. So the "what" happened is only relevant as it indicates the "why" of officer's decision-making.
Was Custer's planning "adequate?" That depends entirely upon your opinion whether or not he gave adequate instructions for subordinates to properly do what they were supposed to do, and if his decisions could be judged to adequately accomplish the mission.
And even military men disagree on that! <g>
Clair
|
|
|
Post by conz on Dec 3, 2007 14:22:06 GMT -6
Fred,
In pursuit of your "commander's intent," I added some of my elements as threads for pursuit...
Clair
|
|
|
Post by fred on Dec 3, 2007 14:29:12 GMT -6
Clair--
Have at it, my boy, have at it! I couldn't ask for more.
Best wishes, Fred.
|
|
|
Post by bc on Dec 5, 2007 23:33:37 GMT -6
D-Day & H-Hour. I know there was no great planning like what occured at the Normandy invasion and it was basically happenstance that they found the village when they did, but if we apply present day military terms like D-Day and H-Hour to the battle of the LBH what would they be?
Would D-Day be June 25th or does someone possibly think it was the 24th? Would H-Hour be at the Crow's nest or when Cooke gave the order to Reno to charge the village or when Reno formed his lines and charged? Just thinking of the Normandy invasion, they were leaving England on the night of June 5, 1944 and paratroops landed all night, but then H-Hour was the next morning on June 6, 1944 when the attack on the beaches started.
I don't know if anyone cares to respond to this post but it was just a question sitting at the back of my mind.
|
|
|
Post by fred on Dec 6, 2007 3:51:10 GMT -6
Hey, bc!
How about "bc" hour? "BeCause" it was there...
|
|
|
Post by conz on Dec 6, 2007 8:11:49 GMT -6
bc,
We still use "D-Day" and "H-Hour" in the military, but it is only for pre-planned operations.
I don't think you can assign such to hasty operations like Custer conducted. The best you could do in such "Movements to Contact" as this operation would be called is make H-Hour and D-Day the moment the "pass in review" started for the 7th Cavalry before Terry on the Yellowstone...what was that...the morning of the 22nd?
Clair
|
|
|
Post by crzhrs on Dec 7, 2007 10:24:53 GMT -6
Were any campaigns given names like the ones used today?
ie: Desert Storm . . . The Surge . . . Operation Iraqi Freedom . . .
|
|
|
Post by conz on Dec 7, 2007 12:49:34 GMT -6
Were any campaigns given names like the ones used today? ie: Desert Storm . . . The Surge . . . Operation Iraqi Freedom . . . I've never detected this during the 19th C. WWI seems to be the first place I recollect seeing names to operations. Clair
|
|
|
Post by bc on Dec 27, 2007 16:21:56 GMT -6
Hi Diane, I have a project for you if you are willing. Could you put together an Excel worksheet for a timeline? It wouldn't work on the message board but could be attached to the website. It could start at a time that everyone agrees upon such as the time at crow's nest or the divide. We would also have to agree on who's time we are dealing with as I believe one time keeper was operating in a different time zone. Then people could submit their timeline through a new thread entitled Battle Timelines, or email, or pm them to you. The spreadsheet would always be a work in progress as new times, events, battle participants, and theorists are added.
Everyone's timelines are cited in a lot of posts but there is no real good way to correlate them together and compare them with each other except through some type of spreadsheet.
The left column going down would be times of the day and the top row going across would be names of the battle participant and/or battle theorist. We could start with Varnum, Gray, Fox, Camp, and any others who have looked at their watches during the battle or published timelines. Each column going down under a name would have a brief description of what they claim happened such as "Benteen arrive Reno Hill" or "Pack train arrive Reno Hill" or "DeRudio sited Custer on the Bluffs", etc. We would have to use abbreviations to keep the size of the description down to something workable such as 24 spaces. There also may be some variable times for an occurrance such as 4:15 to 30 such as when someone stated that Reno spent 30 to 45 minutes looking for Hodgson, etc.
I could put together a spreadsheet for you and attached it to an email to you either as the initial spreadsheat or else also do the updates if need be.
In the meantime, people with knowledge of particular published timelines could start adding them under a Battle Timelines thread since I don't really know them.
|
|
|
Post by rjsamp on Jan 6, 2008 22:47:07 GMT -6
Were any campaigns given names like the ones used today? ie: Desert Storm . . . The Surge . . . Operation Iraqi Freedom . . . I've never detected this during the 19th C. WWI seems to be the first place I recollect seeing names to operations. Clair Small incursions were called RAIDS....usually named after the commander. Larger expeditions were called Campaigns, or Invasions. named after the River, State, or Territory that was being assaulted. Grierson's Raid, Powder River Campaign, Lee's 1st Invasion of Maryland, Missouri Raid of 1864, Early's Raid, the Penninsular Campaign.... Of course you have the Punitive Expedition.....makes sure that it isn't a war against Mexico proper.... RJ Samp
|
|
|
Post by conz on Jan 7, 2008 8:24:30 GMT -6
RJ,
Thanks...yeah, and those names were usually assigned "after the fact," sometimes by the Army, sometimes by the press.
When is the first time you detect naming an operation when it is still a plan, before it happens?
Clair
|
|