|
Post by quincannon on Aug 28, 2014 8:15:38 GMT -6
Non nobis, non nobis Domine.
|
|
|
Post by tubman13 on Aug 28, 2014 15:05:13 GMT -6
Generally my HS Latin is wasted, but served me well today. What the heck I was never going to be a priest anyway. Mr. DiVenuto would be proud of me.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Aug 28, 2014 15:42:17 GMT -6
Tom: It is from Verse 1, Psalm 115 of the King James Version - Non nobis Domine. It is the Infantryman's traditional prayer of thanksgiving for victory in battle. The complete verse half here, half on the other thread is:
"Not to us, not to us O' Lord, but to the glory of Your Name."
The direct reference is to Agincourt, but it may go back even further, to the Crusades or possibly before.
I made reference to Agincourt, because our new poster here must first learn how battles are won, before he can understand how they are lost. So far he is not doing such a good job.
Hank V and George faced similar problems. Both had to win, no choice in the matter, There would be no tomorrow for either if they lost. Hank accessed the situation, the terrain, the weather, the troops available, made the most of what he had to work with and won, then fell to his knees chanting Non nobis Domini. George did none of the above, lost and died, died like a donkey.
|
|
|
Post by fred on Aug 29, 2014 8:45:05 GMT -6
Henk,
I hope you stay!!! Please do.
Very best wishes, Fred.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 30, 2014 5:13:28 GMT -6
Henk,I hope you stay!!! Please do. Very best wishes, Fred. Fred, I registered earlier just to have a good look at one of the maps on this board, not to stay. All the best! Henk
|
|
|
Post by tubman13 on Aug 30, 2014 9:45:35 GMT -6
Henk, I as well hope you stay, I thought your thoughts and questions were thought provoking.
Regards, Tom
|
|
|
Post by tubman13 on Apr 25, 2016 6:18:17 GMT -6
|
|
dgfred
Junior Member
Posts: 69
|
Post by dgfred on Jan 8, 2017 19:57:34 GMT -6
Seems to me "You have your orders" ends discussion. At least it did in the Marine Corps. Communication is only one way from top down under those conditions. The failure to engage all 12 companies at the same time rests with the commander who was acting more like a battalion command rather than making sure all battalions were cooperating. This is interesting to me. Why wasn't the plan from the beginning to strike at the same time with all three 'wings'? That is... if you are going to split your force in the first place. Read here a long time... just joined. Thanks for all the information and input here!
|
|
|
Post by wild on Jan 9, 2017 3:28:58 GMT -6
Time size and distance forced his battalions apart.
Welcome dgfred
Richard
|
|
|
Post by fred on Jan 9, 2017 6:52:44 GMT -6
This is interesting to me. Why wasn't the plan from the beginning to strike at the same time with all three 'wings'? That is... if you are going to split your force in the first place. Are you referring to the three columns, Terry-Custer (Dakota), Gibbon (Montana), and Crook (Wyoming)? Best wishes, Fred.
|
|
dgfred
Junior Member
Posts: 69
|
Post by dgfred on Jan 9, 2017 14:15:40 GMT -6
Hey fred... what a wonderful name by the way No, Custer, Reno, Benteen. Why not a time to hit the NA camp simultaniously? All the best to you and yours.
|
|
|
Post by wild on Jan 9, 2017 18:00:29 GMT -6
Sometimes it is better to hit a target in echelon
|
|
dgfred
Junior Member
Posts: 69
|
Post by dgfred on Jan 9, 2017 18:29:18 GMT -6
How did that work out... Not too good.
How about in echelon from right to left- Reno, then Benteen, then Custer from the southern side of the camp? Around were the pony herd was located. Could that have worked?
I just don't understand why he didn't have Reno wait until he was in a 'better' position... if there was one.
|
|
|
Post by fred on Jan 9, 2017 18:32:23 GMT -6
No, Custer, Reno, Benteen. Why not a time to hit the NA camp simultaniously? All the best to you and yours. Please pardon my lack of manners: I should have welcomed you first. It is always nice to "see" a new face here. I hope you hang around. As you may be able to tell, I do not agree with most of what is said here. This battle is considerably more simple than "theorists" here make it out to be and I have already set out my own work elucidating pretty clearly-- I think-- what happened. Anyway, to answer your question, Custer only divided his regiment after crossing the Rosebud-Little Big Horn divide, and at that point I tend to doubt he had any plan at all. I think things sort of coalesced as the command approached the river and events began taking hold. Then it became an "action-re-action" type of thing and the 7th was not up to it, either in numbers or tactical skill. In my opinion, the best way to have handled things would have been with the entire regiment, quite possibly in multiple waves. The problem with that was the danger of scattering and I do not believe that was an issue Custer wanted to face. To him, it was bag the lot. Anyway, again: a gracious welcome and a Happy New Year. Best wishes, Fred.
|
|
dgfred
Junior Member
Posts: 69
|
Post by dgfred on Jan 9, 2017 18:41:55 GMT -6
Thanks for your reply... and I agree with you. Like to hash out other possibilities and ideas too tho.
Your work is clear, understandable and highly interesting. Many thanks for it all.
|
|