|
Post by KarlKoz on May 5, 2010 9:42:55 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on May 5, 2010 19:08:16 GMT -6
He doesn't seem to realize that the things he 'discovered' - there was dissension within the 7th! who knew? and that Custer's image changed through the years - could have been rectified by reading any one of the books published since Stewart in the mid 1950's. Even Donovan mentions this stuff, I believe. The story about negotiating rather than fighting, included in SOTMS a quarter century ago referencing even older variants, was new to him. And, more amusingly, believed without question.
The problem is, he accepts his baseline - near utter ignorance, which apparently continued into this interview stage - as everyone's.
|
|
|
Post by Melani on May 5, 2010 23:27:02 GMT -6
I would say from that interview that this book WAS written for the absolutely ignorant re: LBH--that is, the general public. Stop anybody on the street and ask them what they know about it, and you'll probably get "Custer was killed," and if you're lucky, maybe the names of Sitting Bull and Crazy Horse, and very little else. My favorite tourist question during my trail guide shift a couple of years ago was, "So, the main Indian leaders were Crazy Horse and Comanche?"
So for those folks, this book may be a great revelation, though we'll see how well he does with facts. Definitely for popular consumption--notice the interview was done for Barnes and Noble?
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on Aug 1, 2010 10:26:20 GMT -6
When I think it cannot get worse..... www.denverpost.com/rss/ci_15634312?source=rssPeople seem to be tallying up the number of notes and maps and not verifying them for either accuracy or point. From whom does that quoted coldly objective Rutten tale appear, in what year did it appear, and what are the chances of his horse circumnavigating Reno's charge...or retreat is it? Both? Apparently this photo also made sense to someone..... Bar open? I know it's Sunday, I asked IF THE BAR WAS O....okay. Just wheel the IV unit over here.....
|
|
|
Post by Melani on Sept 3, 2010 12:18:51 GMT -6
Looks like the Denver Post needs to get some better researchers, especially in the picture department.
Having read the book from cover to cover, I would like to say that it was not written for us--it was written for the general public who know nothing at all about LBH, and from that point of view, it is about 95-99% accurate, which is astonishing in a work of this nature. When I read the initial reviews, I didn't have much hope for it, and was pleasantly surprised. You may think that the Rutten story is BS, and maybe it is, but that falls into the category of opinion, not accuracy. That is the sort of thing that somebody who never read about the battle before might be intrigued by, leading to further research, and maybe that person will eventually conclude that "Rutten's Ride" didn't actually happen that way--or maybe they will agree, who knows?
The point is that nobody is ever going to get everything exactly perfect, and none of us are ever going to agree completely about everything. The idea is to keep the research flowing.
|
|
|
Post by benteen on Sept 3, 2010 12:52:51 GMT -6
Melani I hate to disagree with you but I could only get thru half this book before I used it as a Frisbee It was a memorial to Custer filled with mostly opinions backed by no facts or evidence.Philbrick had an agenda and he clearly showed it.
Be Well Dan
|
|
|
Post by Melani on Sept 3, 2010 15:52:44 GMT -6
I actually thought it was more balanced than that. And of course he had and agenda and a point of view; we all do. And a great deal of it was opinion. My point is that he didn't make any of the stupid errors that one usually expects with a casual book. He's entitled to his opinion, and we are all entitled to disagree with it. But there is a difference between an opinion and an outright error.
|
|
|
Post by AZ Ranger on Sept 7, 2010 20:08:17 GMT -6
But there is a difference between an opinion and an outright error.
An error is always wrong but my opinions are not until I change them?
|
|
|
Post by alfakilo on Dec 27, 2012 12:07:54 GMT -6
Whew!!
I just finished the book and found it an easy and interesting read. How factual was it? Heck, I don't know...probably about as factual as most of the stuff written about the LBH mystery.
One thing that I'll say...I wish those who are so dismissive of this book would provide something to turn to instead of highly polished invective. If not this book, then what?
|
|
|
Post by fred on Dec 27, 2012 19:39:18 GMT -6
Alfakilo,
A difficult assignment. There are several you need to read; then a couple more that are really good reads and I would recommend them highly.
Need to read:
(1) Richard Fox', Archaeology, History, and Custer's Last Battle. This is my all-time favorite.
(2) Jim Willert's, LBH Diary. In my opinion, from start to finish, the best book ever written about the entire campaign-- all four columns. If I had to pick one book to read about the whole shebang, this would be the one. It is impossible to read this book without taking notes; it is that compelling. And by the way, he wrote a prequel and a sequel. I have-- and have read-- the former, but not the latter. Best note-taking stuff ever!
(3) John Gray's, Custer's Last Campaign. This is the only work ever written that has a time-line, at least up to Custer's entry into MTC. I disagree entirely with Gray's timing, right from the beginning, but that does not lessen the importance of the book.
(4) W. A. Graham's, The Custer Myth. An early classic. Graham posts no agenda; just gives facts.
Good reads:
(1) Bruce Liddic's, Vanishing Victory. I know Liddic; good man. Has the biggest Walter Camp collection of data, maybe in the country. Liddic and I disagree with a lot of things, starting right at the divide, but that too does not lessen the readability of his work. Besides, his June 26th work is the best I have ever read.
(2) Jim Donovan's, A Terrible Glory. Chock-full of errors, but Donovan is a good guy, knowledgeable, and writes well. DC-- when he reads this-- will bring out his "fred" voo-doo doll and start poking it in the can and I won't hear the end of it for a month... maybe longer.
(3) Edgar I. Stewart's, Custer's Luck. An early classic, but still damn good.
Philbrick's book is junk. Inaccurate junk. It's the only book about the LBH I have ever started to read, then quit. Fortunately, it was the only one I ever took out of the library. Saved myself a bundle, I did!
Best wishes and Happy New Year, Fred.
|
|
|
Post by alfakilo on Dec 27, 2012 22:03:45 GMT -6
Alfakilo, A difficult assignment. There are several you need to read; then a couple more that are really good reads and I would recommend them highly. Need to read: (1) Richard Fox', Archaeology, History, and Custer's Last Battle. This is my all-time favorite. I'll start that tonight. I just began Donovan's book...I'll set it aside for later. I'm glad that you posted this because I really wanted your opinion. To my novice's eye, I didn't see much in the way of errors or contradictions in Philbrick's accounting of events. Lots of words about personal vendettas and such that may or may not hold much water...but his basic story line seemed to match up with what I've read so far. What were the inaccurate parts? What caused you to put it down? AK
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Dec 27, 2012 22:41:46 GMT -6
AK: I have read most of the books on Fred's list. Of them al, Il like Stewart's the best. I think it is the most readable.
Donovan does a better job with his Alamo book. Of course there is a little more known about the Alamo, and a lot of the participants writings have been preserved. Still a heck of a lot of unresolved issues remain.
Agree with Fred about the Philbrick book. To me it seems like an extra long, not well researched term paper done for the sole purpose of turning a buck and geared more toward those not sheep dipped in LBH. Parts of it are pure fiction, presented as fact.
Two more books that should be on your reading list that do not directly relate to Custer's battle but to the campaign in general are Yellowstone Command and On the Border with Crook. Both are well worth your time.
|
|
|
Post by alfakilo on Dec 28, 2012 6:51:54 GMT -6
Agree with Fred about the Philbrick book. To me it seems like an extra long, not well researched term paper done for the sole purpose of turning a buck and geared more toward those not sheep dipped in LBH. Parts of it are pure fiction, presented as fact. QC Thanks for the book tips! I have the same question for you that I posed to Fred. But one thing first!! I am not challenging what you two are saying...you guys have forgotten more about this subject than I will ever know. I just want to know what is incorrect in the book so I can square that away with my basic understanding of what went on. I'm not looking for a page by page review...just a little more info on those parts in Philbrick's version of the story that I should park off to the side as I continue to read other references. AK
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Dec 28, 2012 9:17:33 GMT -6
AK: Well for starters having Sitting Bull thinking that those soldiers might want to make peace. Does that make much sense to you in light of the fact that these same warriors whacked Crook pretty good a week before?
I found a lot in Philbrick's book that just did not ring true and seemed more agenda driven to moderate the views of a contemporay audience. Truth is that truth is hard to come by in the LBH story, that is why I would prefer you read the other books, the ones Fred listed for starters, then decide for yourself what is truth and what is agenda driven fiction. As you go through these other works certain things in the Philbrick narrative will be contradicted, and it is you that must decide which of the authors makes the most sense. You did not go to the Citadel and the AFA for nothing I presume, therefore you are not unfamiliar with the military mind set. You may not be an expert on ground combat, but you are certainly familiar with how a combattant thinks, and what would make the most tactical sense. Even though yours may be air driven experience, tactics are tactics. There are no infantry tactics or cavalry tactics, or air tactics. There are tactics, and those have not changed a whole lot since man picked up his fiirst rock. You mentioned the other day the OODA Loop. Apply it here. Tactics after all are the practical application of common sense.
You might also be interested in two series of novels by the late Terry C Johnston. The Son of the Plains series (three books) deals with Custer directly. The Plainsman Series (can't remember how many, but a bunch, ten or twelve) deal with the post ACW Indian campaigns in general with a heavy emphasis on the Sioux Wars, starting with Sioux Dawn (Fort Phil Kearny/Fetterman). The technique Johnston uses is a fictional facilitator, and most of the other characters are real. The facts presented are pretty much standard fare, some disputable, but nothing you are going to lose your breakfast over. The SotPs series presents a respectable fictional presentation of the LBH, and DC will like the fact that Johnston has Custer being wounded at MTC Ford. I feel the great value of these novels is in giving a flavor of the time period.
So in summation, do you want Fred's truth, or Quincannon's truth, or DC's truth, or do you wish to decide for yourself what is truth? If that is your objective, it will not be accomplished by any of us pointing out what we feel is inaccurate. That you alone must decide.
|
|
|
Post by alfakilo on Dec 28, 2012 11:05:08 GMT -6
So in summation, do you want Fred's truth, or Quincannon's truth, or DC's truth, or do you wish to decide for yourself what is truth? If that is your objective, it will not be accomplished by any of us pointing out what we feel is inaccurate. That you alone must decide. Thanks, QC...that's good advice! I'll set aside Philbrick while I continue to read, and hopefully one day I'll feel more competent to throw the BS flag when it comes to the LBH. Being somewhat of a half-assed writer myself, I'm always cautious about writer's jealousies, having suffered through that myself on a number of occasions. So it is here, particularly when the foundation for much of what we think went on is based on shifty sands. With that in mind, if and when I ever come to the truth, I'll have to thank you and Fred and others for showing me the way. AK
|
|