|
Post by quincannon on Dec 28, 2012 11:33:04 GMT -6
AK: The only other things I would say to you is never become personally involved with any of the characters, and remember that it is always a journey, and never a reaching of the destination.
First Point: There are abroad those who are so intertwined with Custer that they fail to see his faults and his mistakes, seeing only his strengths. To them the reason for failure at LBH must lie with others. They go to any lengths to support this view. Those are the long drawn out affairers. To them the more the time, the more blame is to be laid at the feet of others. They are the Princes of Romance, the make believe boys, who never let the facts, or what even might be the facts, stand in the way of hero worship. They see themselves in Custer, and like Custer are eventually found to be wanting. Same could be said of any of them. Delete Custer and insert whomever you please.
Second Point: When you come to the conclusion you have all the facts, the only one you are kidding is yourself.
|
|
|
Post by benteen on Dec 28, 2012 12:42:49 GMT -6
alfakilo,
Sir, what the Colonel said is good advice. Hope you dont mind me adding my 2 cents. First let me be up front, I am not a student of the battle, I just enjoy reading about it and sharing opinions with the other forum members. if you aspire to be a student or even a scholar on the subject as some here are, when it comes to books, be careful. Many of these authors use each other as sources. Let me explain with an example.
Author#3 says that Custer walked with a limp. Thats interesting . His source is author #2. Look at author #2 book and sure enough there it is, Custer walked with a limp. Whats author #2 source, why its author #1 book. Look at author #1 book, and sure enough there it is, Custer walked with a limp, whats his source.....He has none..nothing at all. Also as the Colonel states they have agendas. Some author may say Reno said this at the RCOI but look at Renos testimony and he said nothing of the sort. The author takes it way out of context to fit his own agend
My suggestion if you want to be a serious student, look for documents or known conversations to use as facts. Such as letters, reports, statements at the RCOI etc Information that can be verified
Sir this is a tough crowd. For the most part very polite, but tough non the less. Certainly we all admire your courage as a phantom pilot, but after a grace period when you state something, someone may very likely ask for your source. Make sure you have it. I know, there are a couple of holes in my chest ;D
Be Well Dan
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Dec 28, 2012 13:52:30 GMT -6
AK: I think that the only thing that one must know to have a basic understanding of this battle is that at some point, probably at the time or soon after Custer sent Reno forward, he decided to turn a frontal attack into a single envelopment. He then proceeded onto the bluff with the idea of fording the river and coming into the hostiles rear. I believe he saw that the village was quite large from the vacinity of Bench Mark 3411, but do not think he saw just how big it was from that vantage point. He proceeded to find a ford (MTC Ford) and it was at that time he saw that MTCF was only the middle not the rear. From that point on he was winging it. Now that is the sum total of my tactical understanding of this battle after more than fifty years of looking at it. I base this upon what I believe a reasonably competent commander would do under similar circumstances (up to MTCF), and further I believe that everything is supported by testimony and evidence presented or uncovered. After MTCF, the winging it part, I don't think it matters a hill of beans what happened and in what sequence. The results speak for themselves.
Everything else is fluff.
Now that I have pissed off nearly everyone, the long, the short, perhaps even the tall, I shall retire and await comments.
|
|
|
Post by fred on Dec 28, 2012 20:21:55 GMT -6
Actually, I got to the point where Sitting Bull sent out negotiators... Nguyen Cao Ky and Madame Nhu. Pham Van Dong wasn't available at the time. That's when I returned it to the library. Sorry Alfakilo, but I can no longer read stuff like that. To me, nowadays, it's sort of like reading the Communist Manifesto or an op-ed piece in the Tea Party Gazette. To me it was just sorta like, c'mon, Nate, no new ideas for sea stories? Raid Woodman's work or O'Brien.
Best wishes, Fred.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Dec 28, 2012 20:58:55 GMT -6
Fred: At least I plowed through it. Not exactly Tom Clancy either.
|
|
|
Post by fred on Dec 28, 2012 21:07:56 GMT -6
Alfakilo,
The problem you run into with this thing is that you are almost forced to read the books of tales. Some people refer to them as "secondary sources": Philbrick, Stewart, Donovan, Liddic, Gray, and about 5,000 others.
Then you have what is called "source material." These are books like The Arikara Narrative, a bunch of Richard Hardorff's stuff, the RCOI, the Benteen-Goldin Letters, etc.
Unless you are going into a full-blown, almost full-time study of this thing where you can set down accounts, events, narratives; compare them; place them in some sort of context, etc., you will wind up with an opinion-- probably formulated by someone else-- and you will find you are always being challenged by someone who may know more. If you stick to your guns-- as some on these boards do-- and are unable to support your views, you will never have a reasonably accurate understanding of what happened. This is what happened to me.
It stayed that way until Richard Fox grabbed a book out of my hand and replaced it with one of those "source books." When I returned home I immediately yanked out my paperback copy of the RCOI-- you know, that huge, boring-looking thing you know you will get to some day-- and I knew I was now on the right track.
Since that day my money has been spent almost exclusively in ferreting out these "source books," and every now and then I find myself-- maybe because of the specific subject-- enticed into buying another book of tales. I am invariably disappointed; the latest disappointment being Donald Moore's book, Where the Custer Fight Began. Re-hash.
What I have found rather incredible is that we have all this information and nowadays we have all this speedy technology, yet no one-- and John Gray, 20+ years ago was smart enough to recognize this-- has thought to really combine the two, put them together, and see what shakes out. You read some of these posts here-- and I have stopped reading most of them, especially those of the dogmatic idiots-- and all they are are re-hash; re-hash of the same old crap someone else wrote that does not jive with what participants said.
DC makes issue with Indian accounts because of the translators and other things. And there is a lot to what he says; but there is also a lot that can be used. You need-- with both red and white accounts-- corroboration. You need to set accounts that appear to be referring to the same event or issue side-by-side to see if there is a similarity. Computers are essential in that regard, simply because there is so much data. I have hundreds of pages of Excel documents and Word documents that have excerpted commentary from every source I can dig up... hundreds! Maybe 1,400, total. And that's just excerpted stuff. Eventually, I need to go over all the source material again to enlarge that data-bank, just to ensure I missed nothing of import.
Because of the similarities in so many accounts I am able to criticize or critique professionals like Gray. I can offer an alternative to what he wrote, and unlike Gray, I can provide specific source references for some 94% of a 530-event time-line. That's why I get a kick out of these morons who claim time-lines are blah or nonsense or meaningless... they don't know because they are too stupid or too lazy to do the work. Hell, it took me more than four years, almost every day, and a pedantic obsession. You need to be driven. Some how, some way, that happened to me.
We can argue tactics; we can argue reasons; we can argue personalities and the what-ifs; but you can't argue "facts"... such as they are. And with everything I do, I offer percentages. Likelihood percentages. DC taught me that. The only 100% event is that George Custer and the 209 men who rode with him all died. I go down as low as 51%... and I can't remember what that one was!
So you need to read the "tales." Then depending on your personal discipline for sacrifice you can pick the specific area interesting you the most and become an expert in it. You will find your conviction percentage dropping to zero, then starting up again until it breaks that 50% barrier. Once that happens, you're on to something.
I had a disagreement one time with a fairly knowledgeable fellow who totally believed Custer moved down Reno Creek at a walk... 3.9 MPH. He got it from Gray. I asked him to provide me with a single source to back it up... and he laughed when I said Custer moved down the creek at more than double that speed. Well... he became befuddled and he couldn't name a single source. He kept saying, Gray said it; Gray wrote it. But Gray wasn't there. He couldn't name a single source because there are none. I provided him with seven sources-- eye witnesses and participants-- that said the contrary. He couldn't respond and I haven't seen or heard from him since.
I had an e-mail conversation with a fellow many here might know of. He's a so-called expert and has given any number of speeches and talks about one specific event. He e-mailed me and asked for my opinion on one particular matter... I had provided this clown with maps I had developed so he could use them in his lectures. I gave him my opinion on the matter and he disagreed and provided me with a number of sources. When I pointed out to him that every one of those sources was out of context to the specific event, he fumbled around and said he would get back to me. That was about 9 or 10 months ago. I'm still waiting.
And that is what this is all about.
Very best wishes, Fred.
|
|
|
Post by alfakilo on Dec 28, 2012 22:00:01 GMT -6
AK: The only other things I would say to you is never become personally involved with any of the characters, and remember that it is always a journey, and never a reaching of the destination. I see your point...in fact, I'm fairly certain that I'll extend that thinking to cover the entire subject. I've got no dog in this hunt nor am I looking to find one. Inasmuch as we'll likely never know the answers to many of the big questions, I see no point in attaching myself to one point of view or another. Instead, I think I'll put all of your opinions into my clue bag, give it a good shake, and then see what results. My hope is that I get a mix of relatively plausible outlooks that are more supportive of each other than not. The result I hope will be a better educated view of the battle and one that continues to provide enjoyment rather than confusion and consternation as I venture further into LBH lore. AK
|
|
|
Post by Margaret on Dec 29, 2012 6:07:29 GMT -6
...I had a disagreement one time with a fairly knowledgeable fellow who totally believed Custer moved down Reno Creek at a walk... 3.9 MPH. He got it from Gray. I asked him to provide me with a single source to back it up... and he laughed when I said Custer moved down the creek at more than double that speed. Well... he became befuddled and he couldn't name a single source. He kept saying, Gray said it; Gray wrote it. But Gray wasn't there. He couldn't name a single source because there are none....
hi Fred,
I think you are being a little unfair to Gray here and I just wanted to say something to this effect. Whilst I no longer agree with Gray either, his source must be Lt Wallace, so I don't think it's quite right to claim that Gray had no source.
Just to clarify for any reader who may not have Gray's book, I am referring to pages 250/251 ''Custer's Last Campaign'' - John S. Gray.... I think these pages are very important for the reader as you will have to decide whether to run with this source - Lt Wallace, acting Engineer Officer and Itinerary keeper - as Gray did, or dispute it and use other testimonies which indicate a faster pace for this segment. Gray uses Wallace's 12 noon divide crossing watch time, 12.12 divide halt when Benteen sent on his detour, then Wallace's ''about 2pm'' watch time, which Gray places just 7 miles further down the creek. This is how he arrives at the 3.9 mph.... I also think that if you run with this as a given, you are going to end up claiming than Benteen dawdled on his off trail movement....
Gray does claim that Wallace had ''evident disorientation'' with his times, and I think personally that Gray misinterpreted - perhaps for his own agenda - Wallace's 2pm watch time, which is somewhat crucial if you only take this source.
Gray also quotes from Col. Graham's 'Abstract' of the Reno Court of Enquiry which I don't think gives the same feel to the proceedings, it's a bit out of context...
For anyone unfamiliar with Lt Wallace or Gray's use of his clock times, Wallace seemed at times a bit befuddled regarding this 2pm claim, he was asked about it more than once, and at exactly where he looked at his watch. Gray thinks he meant when Reno was called over to the other side of the creek to join Custer, as Wallace stated, just before Reno got the lead out order [not the charge order]. This places the ''about 2pm'' 7 miles down Reno Creek. Yet Wallace confuses the issue by using a greater mileage and merging it with Reno's charge order - thereby putting his 2pm much closer to Ford A....
Lt Hare testified also that Reno's call over to Custer's side of Reno Creek, occurred 5 miles from the Little Bighorn, again, 7 miles from the divide...
So anyone doing a timeline for this segment - divide crossing to Ford A, and using Wallace only as your source, has some pondering to do, either way you're going to have to fiddle with his times and possibly as a result, start pointing a finger at Benteen, or to claim he got it wrong somewhere and mixed things up.... I go with the latter... It cannot be that Custer moved just 7 miles down Reno Creek in 1 hr 48 minutes...!
Another point of contention for me on page 251, is where he has Benteen taking 1hr 12mins to walk just 4 miles down No Name Creek. Perhaps he was a bit browned off by then, but it looks a nice little passage on Google Maps, even I could keep up with that - surely not....?
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on Dec 29, 2012 7:57:59 GMT -6
Again, I think it important to treat accounts, variations, and narratives that appear after the RCOI as lesser sources, subject to melding with other stories and including totally fabricated additions to spark up the tale. And this atop normal memory loss.
We've learned from Ward Churchill, among others, that quantity of notations doesn't mean much if they all have one source, and that a dubious entity. That fifty people mention Boston meeting Martin, for example, doesn't elevate a tale that appears for the first time decades after the event. Once told, everyone includes it. It isn't possible such a glurge tale that advanced the agenda of those pushing the RCOI would remain absent from the record if they knew of it. Clearly, they did not. Martin 'forgot?' THEN remembered later? Wha?
It never happened, and so much is appended to it, directly and indirectly.
Also? The balancing tales of Sitting Bull and his vision of soldiers falling into camp and La Custer's inverted mirage as they left the fort are rather too poetically apropos than likely. And when did they first appear in the record?
If a story exists likely to bring tears to the eyes of Costume Lad or Bevo Boy, or make women sob outright, entertain the possibility it's an affected add on. People did rewrite things to conform to ancient poems and tales with no hesitation or criticism from those who knew it was done (and why) up to the Great War.
The medals of Keogh preventing desecration, or Custer's heroism to the last, or Calhoun's heroic fight based upon the account of his brother in law's observations. Remember, Maggie Custer - Mrs. Calhoun - lost husband, three brothers, a nephew, many friends. Give the kid something, for God's sake. It was Victoria's reign, don't forget. Greater Truths than mere fact existed then.
|
|
|
Post by alfakilo on Dec 29, 2012 7:59:45 GMT -6
Alfakilo, The problem you run into with this thing is that you are almost forced to read the books of tales. Some people refer to them as "secondary sources": Philbrick, Stewart, Donovan, Liddic, Gray, and about 5,000 others. Hi Fred I think the point here is that I'm reading with one objective in mind and you read with something entirely different. I'm the novice trying to learn the basics, while you are one of the acknowledged experts who sees things through a much more focused view. You are going to see things that I would never see. The Sitting Bull pow wow story is but a very brief event in Philbrick's book. Lakota Noon describes it pretty much the same way (maybe LN was Philbrick's source, I don't know)...but for my purposes, it was an interesting but very minor sidenote to a much larger story that I was trying to understand. The event, if it happened, affected nothing as the battle played out, and so whether its factual or not isn't a big deal with me unless it is part of an overall sloppy approach that permeates the entire book. But I think of you as the EF Hutton of the LBH, and so I'll set aside Philbrick as I get into Fox. Fox is a little dry...if he says 'spatial, social, and psychological distortion' one more time, I'm going to puke. F***** academics!! Cheers, AK
|
|
|
Post by fred on Dec 29, 2012 12:30:51 GMT -6
I think some of you misunderstand my point here.
First of all, with one exception, I would never suggest you not buy a book written by someone about the LBH. That exception is Jack Pennington's, The Battle of the Little Bighorn, published by Upton and Sons. Pennington is a conspiracy freak and spends 90% of the book-- literally-- doing nothing but criticizing and scoffing at the works of others. And if memory serves me correctly, the only one he praises is David Humphrey Miller, himself a bit of a fraud. Pennington introduces nonsensical theory and then goes on to treat that as fact, using it to prove other points. It's a waste of time.
Gray... Helford, you misread me. I believe John Gray was one of the most important writers and researchers in the history of this event and his Custer's Last Campaign one of the most important books ever written; it is still one of my favorites. His time-line-- while I reject it-- remains a sine qua non, and unless I or someone else can replace it with something better, it must remain as it is.... And I'm working on it, believe me.
When I say Gray doesn't quote his sources, this is what I mean: he uses Wallace's noon divide crossing... which I accept. I accept it because it can be supported by the memories and accounts of no less than five other participants... probably several more, but that's only what pops into my mind.
We go on. Gray then chooses to accept Wallace's 2 PM Custer-Reno separation with the same veracity, yet there is virtually no support for that time, and indeed, Wallace himself claimed the noon time was the last he checked his watch. Varnum was no help, for while he used 2 PM as well, he threw in the disclaimer he was only parroting the assertions of others... words to that effect.
If you study this enough and start to assemble other accounts, you will come to understand why 2 PM is unacceptable and cannot be corroborated. The inevitable result of such claims-- by Gray-- is he inadvertently paints his hero-- George Armstrong Custer-- an incompetent fool. I have pointed that out innumerable times; I will let you all ferret it out if you do not remember.
Another thing about Gray that bugs the hell out of me is his arrogant and presumptuous dismissal of anticipated criticism. For example, Gray incorrectly chose local sun time as his standard. To head off any disagreement, he swung his experience, knowledge, brains, and CV like a club: Gray anticipated criticism by pre-emptive scoffing at possible detractors claiming there was “no evidence of any discrepancy between official and local sun times” and that the “result is so obvious as to be embarrassing.” Who here would enjoy being embarrassed by an authority like Doctor John S. Gray?... Especially after the impressive time-line display that followed?
The Luke Hare business is easily explained, especially when set side-by-side with other of his comments and accounts leading from context to context.
I agree also-- essentially-- with DC's take on the whole thing, though I am considerably more forgiving. Over the years, DC has held me to an extremely high standard and because of that I make sure I have enough "proof"-- such as it may be-- before I make a statement or enter something in my own time-line of events. I am more forgiving because I will take Indian accounts, for example, and for the most part disregard them unless they fit into the context in which they are meant or can be corroborated by other accounts.
Without doing that, we have nothing but theory versus theory, yours versus mine; mine versus someone else's.... I didn't start into this thing for that kind of a conclusion.
In this book I have sent to the publishers, I set one theory against another when there is an issue of sharp controversy that I have found. The speed down Reno Creek is an example. TWC's ass-chewing by big brother is another; the lone tepee location is another; Weir Peaks, SSR, and 3,411 is yet another. I put together both sides... or three sides, as the case may be... and present pros and cons, then I make my choice. Anyone can set the percentages at that point. (The 3,411 versus "others" is a mind-boggled to me; it is so clear, I am stunned that no one, in 136 years, has picked up on it before now! It just goes to show how ingrained someone else's theory can become.)
Another case in point is the C Company charge versus the E Company "charge." And so it goes.
So when I look for corroboration or proof or sources I need something more than someone's mere say-so. If I didn't, what would make me reject Curley's red blanket or Peter Thompson's Indian maiden guff?
Here is an example of some of my work. I wanted to know more about Reno's pony-stealing scouts. I read all the accounts, then tried to figure an optimum time when these Indians would break away from Reno's command. I yanked out my map when I thought I had it pretty well figured, and I estimated a rapid speed... again, based on what participants had to say. I checked the map and I found one spot along the river that was a perfect fit to what was described in the narratives. In fact, it was the only spot that coincided with descriptions. And, based on the speeds I was using, it was right where I anticipated the scouts making a break for it.
In addition, it had two coulees that could have been used to drive ponies to the hills above... just like in the various accounts. Those coulees would have brought the Rees to a point before Reno Hill. They then claimed they hid the ponies in a ravine... and there was only one ravine in that entire area. At least according to the map!
Other stories corroborated this location: Kanipe, soldiers firing on Indians/Rees; stragglers; scouts returning to or going to Reno Hill, etc.
So while there is no definitive proof, per se, it is one helluva set of coincidences.
I hope this clears things up a bit.
Best wishes, Fred.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Dec 29, 2012 14:57:03 GMT -6
Fred: I think that your work presently awaiting publication will be the definative work on LBH for some time to come, and perhaps set a new standard for LBH subject matter scholarship.
All that said I think I should elaborate on my fluff comment above. What I stated up until the movement forward from BM3411 is a scenario that most of us agree on. There are exceptions, but the preponderence of evidence suggests that it is accurate. After that, everything is educated speculation. The fact that percentages of probability must be attached to each and every action proves this thesis. Fluff then is a general term used to illustrate that these things are unknowable to a 100 percent degree of certitude. Therefore debate will continue despite the degree of scholarship.
For me the curtain on the third act of this play rings down once the decision was made to go forward from 3411. The tactical Rubicon had been crossed, so routes, subsequent decisions, geography, elapsed time, and personalities are all trumped by that one action. From that point on, no matter what the decisions were, no matter how much time elapsed, no matter who made specific mistakes, no matter where a skirmish line was formed or if it was formed, no matter the intent (good, bad, or indifferent) they are all moot. None of these things can overcome the one basic decision to proceed further. So then with that in mind, and looking at this from a strictly tactical (winning a battle) perspective, does it really matter? We know the results, and those results did not occur by Custer being a military genius.
|
|
|
Post by montrose on Dec 29, 2012 17:12:32 GMT -6
In college I read history books to understand the basic text. In graduate school I was taught to read the footnotes, then check the citations to see if they support the text.
Does the author prove his theory and hypothesis?
Philbrick fails this test.
He tells an entertaining story, very readable book. But he makes numerous assumptions, on the road well travelled here. Reno was drunk, Benteen dawdle, Custer was a superhero, etc, etc. For every assumption, he states it as fact, and does not mention opposing evidence, and opposing theories.
For every choice he has to make, he picks the one with the highest drama quotient, to tell the most entertaining story possible.
So his work is an excellent example of historical fiction. Though not as entertaining as the Sharpe or Flashman series. In fact compare George Fraser's Flashman novels with his real history work, The Steel Bonnets. He clearly understood the difference between historical fiction and non fiction.
History is the search for truth. LBH requires many judgment calls, the various stories we have contradict one other to a great extent. Even a single participant leaves numerous contradictory accounts.
But if you pick point of view A, you can't just ignore views B and C. A true historian evaluates the facts and opposing theories. He then is required to make a call, and support it with evidence.
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on Dec 29, 2012 18:30:25 GMT -6
One of Connell's strengths. He has no agenda, compiles most of the stories then current and often says - sometimes literally - 'who knows?' It's the stories, true or not, that interest him and therefore the reader and why his book has been the most successful since 1984. I don't think it's out of print yet, but maybe. Still see it in new book form for sale. 29 years. Pretty good run.
As a result, the novelist compiling the stories is often more historically correct and following history's procedures more than the supposed historians. His mistakes are few and often are made by others he repeats in his tales with no demanding of the reader that it's true.
Also, he can write really well, and there are passages that you retain in memory easily. His stories are like the sort told around campfires; they read well and are easy to read aloud. It's all of a piece with the times and tale. Helps. No index to speak of, just a collection of tales about Custer and the battle.
|
|
jag
Full Member
Caption: IRAQI PHOTO'S -- (arrow to gun port) LOOK HERE -- SMILE -- WAIT FOR -- FLASH
Posts: 245
|
Post by jag on Dec 30, 2012 6:33:20 GMT -6
Alfakilo, The problem you run into with this thing is that you are almost forced to read the books of tales. Some people refer to them as "secondary sources": Philbrick, Stewart, Donovan, Liddic, Gray, and about 5,000 others. Hi Fred I think the point here is that I'm reading with one objective in mind and you read with something entirely different. I'm the novice trying to learn the basics, while you are one of the acknowledged experts who sees things through a much more focused view. You are going to see things that I would never see. The Sitting Bull pow wow story is but a very brief event in Philbrick's book. Lakota Noon describes it pretty much the same way (maybe LN was Philbrick's source, I don't know)...but for my purposes, it was an interesting but very minor sidenote to a much larger story that I was trying to understand. The event, if it happened, affected nothing as the battle played out, and so whether its factual or not isn't a big deal with me unless it is part of an overall sloppy approach that permeates the entire book. But I think of you as the EF Hutton of the LBH, and so I'll set aside Philbrick as I get into Fox. Fox is a little dry...if he says 'spatial, social, and psychological distortion' one more time, I'm going to puke. F***** academics!! Cheers, AK AK, hear ya on the academics. We all get there, at times, some more than others. That's why its important to pick up a good book with less academics, at times like those, and just enjoy the read instead of trying to wrap your head around a notion or theory. DC's suggestion, I think, is one of the best to engage in when all academics fail; Evan Connell's Son of The Morning Star just cant be beat at times like that. So take a break and read something enjoyable every once in a while. Who knows? It might inspire you to something never-ever thought of before. It has happened you know.
|
|