|
Post by Dark Cloud on Aug 26, 2008 10:24:55 GMT -6
Nonsense. Connell makes not a few errors. He has Kit Carson alive longer than he was, leading some scouts. But he isn't a historian, does not claim to be, merely a compiler of tales about the battle and those involved. That the tales are incorrect does him no harm, it's the fact they exist that is of interest to him. He doesn't make up the tales about Keogh wielding a silver tipped stick on his men - or make up any tales - and doesn't have notes because of his format. It's just a story.
Donovan has pretentions of being an academic. Connell, none, although he would be far more justified in having them than Donovan. And Connell, with his errors, provides a far more honest tale than Donovan does, better written, more compelling, an essential book for an overall grasp.
|
|
|
Post by elisabeth on Aug 26, 2008 10:48:33 GMT -6
The publisher's blurb for SOTMS describes it as a "meticulously-researched book, part biography of Custer, part history of the Plains Indian Wars". Sounds like a claim to be something rather more than a compilation of amusing tales, I think.
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on Aug 26, 2008 11:06:32 GMT -6
That's a fair description, but it wasn't the one offered by North Point Press in its first edition. Connell disallowed illustrations for years, and didn't want an index, although North Point made him include one. He clearly did as minimal a job as possible, given it's fairly useless. That's not a posturing historian, so your contention is incorrect.
In any case, the gabillionth printing of SOTMS and it's huge sales for nearly a quarter century do not allow it to be compared to such pedestrian works as Donovan's. It's been subject to analysis by the best, and found okay.
Your fetish for Keogh notwithstanding, the guy was a mercenary. Only through the gaze of the adoringly gullible can that be made either romantic or honorable, since he'd go where the money was and had, several times. If he'd been offered command of an army for Canada to retake the US, who knows where his 'honor' would allow him presence.
|
|
|
Post by elisabeth on Aug 26, 2008 12:15:20 GMT -6
My contention may be incorrect, but it's the expectation the publishers raise in the reader -- i.e. that he or she is getting stuff that's anchored in researched fact rather than unverified and deeply suspect anecdote. (As for sales figures as a proof of worth, well, Agatha Christie sells in large numbers too. Doesn't mean anything except that people enjoy reading her, as of course they enjoy Connell.)
I use Keogh as a prime example of how misinformation gets enshrined as fact, and you've handily demonstrated that again for me here. Almost every known Custer book trots out the old "soldier of fortune" phrase. It's technically true when people are speaking of his earliest years in the 7th (though funnily enough, no-one ever uses that for, say, Cooke, or Nowlan, or DeRudio, or Henry Jackson). But he'd become an American citizen in 1869. By the time of LBH, he was no more "a mercenary" than Custer, Reno, Benteen, or any other American-born officer. And just in the interests of those tiresome, picky things called facts, there was no money -- none -- in the Papal War. The Irish contingent were paid just 5 bajocchis a day for their services, the equivalent of fourpence in the British currency of the time. A crossing-sweeper or a ploughman would earn more.
Alleged fetish notwithstanding, the point is that in Connell, as in so many other places, we see the Xerox School of History at work. One writer says something; everyone else copies it; no-one investigates the truth of it. We get all this "rude", "abusive", "violent" nonsense merrily passed from hand to hand -- when everyone who actually knew Keogh described him as "gentlemanlike" (McClellan), "as gentle as a woman" (Alexander), "of gentle disposition at all times" (Libbie Custer), and so on into infinity. History is not well served by having even its comparatively minor characters handled so cavalierly. In the case of the Custer story, it gives an entirely false picture of the people he had around him, which in turn gives a false picture of how the battle might have played out. You can disdain Keogh as you will, but we're groping in the dark if we don't try to grasp the natures of the key players at LBH. We need the reality, not decades-old accretions of fiction. That's all I'm saying.
OK, I think we've bored ourselves, each other, and everyone else quite enough by now. We're never going to have a meeting of minds here; let's leave it.
|
|
|
Post by conz on Aug 26, 2008 12:34:49 GMT -6
I agree with Elisabeth that we cannot classify Keogh as a "mercenary" by military standards. Of course, pointy-headed liberals call any professional Soldier a "mercenary"...including any U.S. Soldiers not drafted. <g>
Enlisting to serve the armed forces of your church is not mercenary...it is service. As is joining the armed forces of your adopted nation. I never got the sense that Keogh was fighting for pay...he always had an air of duty and mission for a "cause" about him.
Clair
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on Aug 26, 2008 16:11:15 GMT -6
Oh, for heaven's sake.
He was fighting for the Vatican, not Christianity, against other Christians. The issue was land and money of the Pope. Mammon. He was paid for his 'service', much like we pay our soldiers for their military service.
You also thought Indians and Army taught horses arrow avoidance, so virtually anything you assail can shrug it off.
Again, E, you can't just announce the argument over when it's not going your way and expect compliance. If people don't want to read, they're adults, and don't need announced guidance. Connell was not attempting more than a well told tale about Custer and the LBH, including variations and alternate stories. Donovan does not do that, and presents supposition as fact. If the tales Connell tells aren't true, so be it, but he did not make them up.
Still, it takes a believing mind beguiled to think a mercenary, who'll kill for money, is such a sweetheart as you, and cherrypick anectdotes about Keogh.
|
|
|
Post by doyle1876 on Aug 26, 2008 18:33:20 GMT -6
Have to get involved here when I read somebody, purporting to everybody's intellectual superior, talking rubbish in support of a warped viewpoint he has. DC, are you really trying to be the 'enfant terrible' of these boards? Is that what you get your kick out of?
This thread was about Donovan's book. Not sure where bashing Keogh's personal lifetime intentions came into it.
Please support your 'fact' that Keogh got paid mercenary money for his service in the papal army of 1860? I'd love to see that source......but then persons who have studied Keogh would be aware of the facts unlike your good self, which must be annoying, as you portray yourself as an expert of all things discussed on this board.
Keogh did not fight specifically for "Christianity" in 1860, as you put it, but in response to a plea from leaders of the Roman Catholic church in Ireland to defend the head of their church. He went to Roman Catholic boarding school and was taught by members of the Roman Catholic clergy. Its easy to sit in front of your PC in Colorado in 2008 and say 1200 Irishmen, Keogh among them, went to Italy to fight for the "land and money of the Pope". Modern revisionist claptrap.
As regards your comments on Keogh as a mercenary while fighting for the Union and in the US army post-civil war, well, I think that such comments were just made to have a personal jibe at Elisabeth's interest in Myles Keogh as they cannot be supported by 'facts'.
Remember 'facts'? The word you love quoting to persons who post on this board in a manner that you don't agree with.
Go off now and read some 'facts' about Keogh before you comment any further.
By the way, I get it - you don't like Donovan's book; let it go, we understand...
|
|
|
Post by conz on Aug 26, 2008 18:54:12 GMT -6
He was fighting for the Vatican, not Christianity, against other Christians. The issue was land and money of the Pope. Mammon. He was paid for his 'service', much like we pay our soldiers for their military service. Hoisted upon your own pitard, my friend. First, the Vatican IS the church...Christianity is the religion. Second, you called Keogh a mercenary for being paid much like we pay our Soldiers. I rest my case. That is not true...I suppose you simply can't, or won't, understand after all this time. For those new here, I made a very good statement that NCOs use all kinds of methods to train their men that you won't read about in histories, and I postulated a list of examples of things an NCO might do, such as train his horses to withstand arrow fire. Nobody has ever refuted this, and I gave several examples of such training in armies around the world and throughout military history. So I still challenge anyone who thinks that they understand cavalry tactics and mounted combat better than I do: Prove that no NCO in the history of the U.S. Cavalry ever tried to train his squad's horses to withstand arrow fire! I have all kinds of ways I could train a horse to withstand the stresses, sounds, feel, and chaos of arrow fire, so that he had a less chance of panicking when he encountered such on the battlefield. A sharp, enterprising, or otherwise bored NCO might think of the same things. <g> Or ANY U.S. Soldier who accepts pay for his service, right? Clair
|
|
|
Post by Melani on Aug 26, 2008 23:37:44 GMT -6
I agree about both footnotes and endnotes being a major headache. On the other hand, quoting sources and page numbers within the text would also be kind of annoying. To make endnotes tolerable, I have taken to using two bookmarks.
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on Aug 28, 2008 9:19:27 GMT -6
Claptrap. I have never presented myself as you wish I had, Doyle, nor claimed superiority nor expert status, and have in fact claimed I only finished third grade, make lots of mistakes, and admit them. Anyone claiming different is a blatant liar. You can find not a single example to support that charge. Not one. Keogh was a mercenary because he received compensation for his martial skills. Anybody who fights for a cause not his by birth or citizenship is a mercenary if they receive compensation for that service, either in pillage, wage, or gift. Although, as usual, the Irish volunteers in 1860 were considered a joke, and the thug Cardinal Antonelli - who was in charge of the defense - a great thief of Vatican and any funding he got his hands on, there was an attempt to assemble an army with pay. The Vatican was fighting to protect lands and the income derived from the lands, and this from other notional Catholics. Nobody was fighting for their religion. It was money. Much like the Church today protects pedophiles and predators in its own ranks rather than offer them up to criminal charges around the world. Even so, they've had to cough up billions here alone. books.google.com/books?id=dWpO1--eMrYC&pg=PA667&lpg=PA667&dq=Papal+Army+of+1860&source=web&ots=8R1XGkXU1W&sig=2dUBFu_b4oKfw68VTctamwXKOQ0&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=8&ct=resultbooks.google.com/books?id=D2wFC9BzemMC&pg=PA185&sig=YzEHhBzOSMQfrYKv-bzqGj9hdxw&dq=papal+army+of+%22April+1860%22+%2268+In+April+1860+the+Pope+appointed+General+Lamoriciere,+a+famous+veteran+of+French+campaigns+in+North+Africa,+who+had+trained+in+Algeria+a+force+of+Arab+auxiliaries+known+as+Zouaves,+as+supreme+commander+of+the+independent+papal+army.+%22 You can put lipstick on the mercenary pigs if it thrills you, and God knows it is not a Catholic phenomonon alone, but these are not Freedom Fighters, but thugs hoping to restore feudal tithe and undeserved hardships for the income and sumptuary delight of the Vatican and its favorites, which included France at that moment. They got hammered and humiliated and good for Garibaldi. That Keogh would fight for repression and a power structure from the Middle Ages and then fight for the U.S., doesn't suggest a thread of moral consistency for which he was willing to kill, since the Vatican represented everything then the U.S. was against and had been conceived against. Not the religion, the government. conz started out stating arrow training as fact; what his new pretend position is - having given up as presenting the 7th as elite - is of no moment, because it changes at need with no admission of the deep ignorance that laces his posts. And no, being less ignorant than conz is not a status to brag about. Regarding Donovan, I've listed problems caught on first reading and nobody addresses them. Specifics, with page numbers and everything. And even fred caught him using a source from someone who wasn't there at all. No alternatives, like Connell followed by a shrug and 'who knows?' (and who does?), but supposition, often unevidenced at all, stated as fact. It is not an honest attempt to find 'truth' but a pander to current variant of Custer Buffs.
|
|
|
Post by doyle1876 on Aug 29, 2008 3:03:16 GMT -6
Claptrap. I have never presented myself as you wish I had, Doyle, nor claimed superiority nor expert status, and have in fact claimed I only finished third grade, make lots of mistakes, and admit them. Anyone claiming different is a blatant liar. You can find not a single example to support that charge. Not one. Keogh was a mercenary because he received compensation for his martial skills. Anybody who fights for a cause not his by birth or citizenship is a mercenary if they receive compensation for that service, either in pillage, wage, or gift. Although, as usual, the Irish volunteers in 1860 were considered a joke, and the thug Cardinal Antonelli - who was in charge of the defense - a great thief of Vatican and any funding he got his hands on, there was an attempt to assemble an army with pay. The Vatican was fighting to protect lands and the income derived from the lands, and this from other notional Catholics. Nobody was fighting for their religion. It was money. Much like the Church today protects pedophiles and predators in its own ranks rather than offer them up to criminal charges around the world. Even so, they've had to cough up billions here alone. books.google.com/books?id=dWpO1--eMrYC&pg=PA667&lpg=PA667&dq=Papal+Army+of+1860&source=web&ots=8R1XGkXU1W&sig=2dUBFu_b4oKfw68VTctamwXKOQ0&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=8&ct=resultbooks.google.com/books?id=D2wFC9BzemMC&pg=PA185&sig=YzEHhBzOSMQfrYKv-bzqGj9hdxw&dq=papal+army+of+%22April+1860%22+%2268+In+April+1860+the+Pope+appointed+General+Lamoriciere,+a+famous+veteran+of+French+campaigns+in+North+Africa,+who+had+trained+in+Algeria+a+force+of+Arab+auxiliaries+known+as+Zouaves,+as+supreme+commander+of+the+independent+papal+army.+%22 You can put lipstick on the mercenary pigs if it thrills you, and God knows it is not a Catholic phenomonon alone, but these are not Freedom Fighters, but thugs hoping to restore feudal tithe and undeserved hardships for the income and sumptuary delight of the Vatican and its favorites, which included France at that moment. They got hammered and humiliated and good for Garibaldi. That Keogh would fight for repression and a power structure from the Middle Ages and then fight for the U.S., doesn't suggest a thread of moral consistency for which he was willing to kill, since the Vatican represented everything then the U.S. was against and had been conceived against. Not the religion, the government. conz started out stating arrow training as fact; what his new pretend position is - having given up as presenting the 7th as elite - is of no moment, because it changes at need with no admission of the deep ignorance that laces his posts. And no, being less ignorant than conz is not a status to brag about. Regarding Donovan, I've listed problems caught on first reading and nobody addresses them. Specifics, with page numbers and everything. And even fred caught him using a source from someone who wasn't there at all. No alternatives, like Connell followed by a shrug and 'who knows?' (and who does?), but supposition, often unevidenced at all, stated as fact. It is not an honest attempt to find 'truth' but a pander to current variant of Custer Buffs. Oh dear - Irish soldiers a joke; greedy & child molesting Catholic clergy; lipstick on mercenary's; an immoral Keogh... do you seriously think I am going to rise to that bait? Your post has no relevance to this message board, let alone this thread. Some of your comments hint at a wider personal agenda. Your views are truly modern revisionist claptrap best suited to an opinion column and have little, if any, historical value. "They got hammered and humiliated and good for Garibaldi."Garibaldi was not involved in that period of the Papal War; he was in the south and prevented from progressing north by his allies and under orders from Cavour. Facts, DC, facts
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on Sept 3, 2008 15:36:15 GMT -6
That the Irish mercenaries were, yet again, jokes, is not solely my opinion. That's why I referenced it with urls and all. Irish 'soldiers' fight for Ireland, certainly not the case here.
Garibaldi isn't mentioned as leader of the forces, but he defeated the Papal States and humiliated the Papacy and is considered the one who gave Italy secular nationhood for the first time ever. Good for him.
Keogh fought for repression and feudal tyranny and, later, for the United States. He was a mercenary for profit unlike, say, Lafayette or those in the Lincoln Brigade or (iffy)the Flying Tigers. Or DeRudio, for that matter. Keogh was highly competent and charming along with his ethical deficiencies, often called "honor" to alert us to nobility.
You, however, have offered nothing to support your charges, nor has anyone answered my complaints about Donovan, specifically tied to page and incident.
|
|
|
Post by markland on Sept 3, 2008 16:50:28 GMT -6
That the Irish mercenaries were, yet again, jokes, is not solely my opinion. That's why I referenced it with urls and all. Irish 'soldiers' fight for Ireland, certainly not the case here. Garibaldi isn't mentioned as leader of the forces, but he defeated the Papal States and humiliated the Papacy and is considered the one who gave Italy secular nationhood for the first time ever. Good for him. Keogh fought for repression and feudal tyranny and, later, for the United States. He was a mercenary for profit unlike, say, Lafayette or those in the Lincoln Brigade or (iffy)the Flying Tigers. Or DeRudio, for that matter. Keogh was highly competent and charming along with his ethical deficiencies, often called "honor" to alert us to nobility. You, however, have offered nothing to support your charges, nor has anyone answered my complaints about Donovan, specifically tied to page and incident. You could at least attempt to be consistent while boring us to death. "Keogh was a mercenary because he received compensation for his martial skills. Anybody who fights for a cause not his by birth or citizenship is a mercenary if they receive compensation for that service, either in pillage, wage, or gift." The above quote came from your nimble fingers and equally applies to the Tigers, the Lafayette Escadrille or for that matter, the Eagle Squadron during WWII. DC, my advice, worth whatever you may feel it is worth, is to drop the f**k**g subject. If you are getting on my nerves, imagine how you are impacting those with less patience. Billy
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on Sept 3, 2008 17:53:08 GMT -6
The thread subject, Markland, is Donovan's book, which you haven't read. Until that glorious moment, you aren't really qualified to discuss the subject, are you? At all.
"The above quote came from your nimble fingers and equally applies to the Tigers, the Lafayette Escadrille or for that matter, the Eagle Squadron during WWII." Which implies a point without actually stating it. How does that illustrate a contradiction of mine, in any case?
The point is Keogh's vaunted ethics, not the mere issue of money. The Tigers were inundated with Henry Luce garbage that Chaing was a Christian fighting Japanese and communists. They had reason to think they were fighting the good fight for an America too isolationist to make a move against a poor nation. They certainly were mercenaries, led by Chennault. The Escadrille was fighting Kaiserism and, like the Tigers, more or less for progressive western values. The Eagle Squadron mention shook me, because I confused it with the Nazis' air units (Condor) in Spain, but I looked it up and they fought the good fight as well. They took money for it, but not enough to have made a huge difference in their lives. I don't think any Tigers, or men of the other units you mention would fight for fascists or dictators (Chaing's reality vs. the image exculpates the Tigers, sorta) just for cash.
That cannot be known about Keogh. Fighting for the Vatican and then the US constitution covers a lot of mutually exclusive political ground, and cannot be held together by coherent world outlook.
Cash covers it, though.
If I get on people's nerves, I get on their nerves. They don't have to read me. I don't know when you came to view yourself as such a mellow skip in the park, Kansan, but let's just say it's not a universal image.
In any case, you haven't read the damned book and neither, I repeat, have most of those who praise it.
|
|
|
Post by markland on Sept 3, 2008 21:16:44 GMT -6
The thread subject, Markland, is Donovan's book, which you haven't read. Until that glorious moment, you aren't really qualified to discuss the subject, are you? At all. "The above quote came from your nimble fingers and equally applies to the Tigers, the Lafayette Escadrille or for that matter, the Eagle Squadron during WWII." Which implies a point without actually stating it. How does that illustrate a contradiction of mine, in any case? The point is Keogh's vaunted ethics, not the mere issue of money. The Tigers were inundated with Henry Luce garbage that Chaing was a Christian fighting Japanese and communists. They had reason to think they were fighting the good fight for an America too isolationist to make a move against a poor nation. They certainly were mercenaries, led by Chennault. The Escadrille was fighting Kaiserism and, like the Tigers, more or less for progressive western values. The Eagle Squadron mention shook me, because I confused it with the Nazis' air units (Condor) in Spain, but I looked it up and they fought the good fight as well. They took money for it, but not enough to have made a huge difference in their lives. I don't think any Tigers, or men of the other units you mention would fight for fascists or dictators (Chaing's reality vs. the image exculpates the Tigers, sorta) just for cash. That cannot be known about Keogh. Fighting for the Vatican and then the US constitution covers a lot of mutually exclusive political ground, and cannot be held together by coherent world outlook. Cash covers it, though. If I get on people's nerves, I get on their nerves. They don't have to read me. I don't know when you came to view yourself as such a mellow skip in the park, Kansan, but let's just say it's not a universal image. In any case, you haven't read the damned book and neither, I repeat, have most of those who praise it. Redefine your definition of mercenary then as I am only going by that, i.e., your post of 08/28 at 09:18 a.m. in which you define a mercenary as, "Anybody who fights for a cause not his by birth or citizenship is a mercenary if they receive compensation for that service, either in pillage, wage, or gift." Hmmm, the Lafayette Escadrille fought the good fight but they were paid wages and I don't think any were French citizens; same for the Eagle Squadron, the Tigers received large bonuses for kills of Japanese plains and there were not any Chinese-Americans in that squadron. Thus, all the above were mercenaries by your definition in that they received wages. While consistency has been decried as the hobgoblin of little minds, it does help prevent falls from whatever soapbox you are expounding from. Regarding Jim's book, I'll make time one day to read it and let you know. However, since you persist in dragging the book & your opinion all over the bleeding board, I feel that I at least will interject my opinion. Personally, I am wondering what has gotten into you. Normally you are somewhat reasonable if sarcastic but this bit about Keogh and Jim's book reminds me too much of a vendetta or even worse, a crusade. Bluntly speaking, it is too over the top to entertain, unless bullying is considered entertainment in Colorado. Later, Billy
|
|