|
Post by Diane Merkel on Feb 20, 2011 10:57:20 GMT -6
Oh, great -- now you're trashing Ph.D.s -- ;D Just for the record, a Ph.D. doesn't mean you know everything about anything. It basically means you have an expert level of knowledge about your subject area but, especially in history, you don't stop learning when you get one. "N/A" is really elementary. Perhaps she just couldn't read your writing?
|
|
|
Post by "Hunk" Papa on Feb 20, 2011 11:18:22 GMT -6
Just for the record, a Ph.D. doesn't mean you know everything about anything. It basically means you have an expert level of knowledge about your subject area but, especially in history, you don't stop learning when you get one. I was going to say the wisdom of ages but you are far too young so 'wisdom' will suffice. (They don't have a hug sign!!) Hunk
|
|
|
Post by bc on Feb 20, 2011 11:42:52 GMT -6
I knew a gal one time who .... Fred. Now here's a comment that could launch a thousand ships/books/posts. bc
|
|
|
Post by fred on Feb 20, 2011 12:36:37 GMT -6
Oh, great -- now you're trashing Ph.D.s -- ;D ... "N/A" is really elementary. Perhaps she just couldn't read your writing? No, absolutely not! Some of my best friends have Ph. D.'s!!!! And Diane, do you really believe your last sentence? Not to be smug, but have you ever seen my handwriting? Remember... I went to Catholic schools. Very best wishes, Fred.
|
|
|
Post by montrose on Feb 20, 2011 12:44:55 GMT -6
Hmmmm,
Don't dump too much on PHDs. I am in a program right now.
I knew Hack. He got my home phone number from a mutual friend. He had me fact check several things.
What I respect him for was a highly sensitive issue. And I mean out of control outrageous stuff that would have had massive media attention.
I asked him if he understood what would happen to SF if he published? He sat on the story. But the force would be crippled as we were trying to reform our force.
It was a tough call. I respect him for it.
Hack got into UCMJ trouble in Nam. Smoked some weed, did a few crazy things. So he got tabled. Not sure he would have liked being a General anyway. He was a warrior first.
I never met him face to face. I had about twenty phone conversations with him.
RIP.
|
|
|
Post by benteen on Feb 20, 2011 13:42:54 GMT -6
Fred, Major Dick Winters from "The Band of Brothers" and Col. David Hackworth are my favorites. Both should have held higher rank. lew, I agree with you on your choices of Winters and Hackworth, if Col Moore was anything like he was portrayed in "We were soldiers once" I believe I would add him to the list of men you would be confidant to serve under Be Well Dan
|
|
|
Post by fred on Feb 20, 2011 14:31:19 GMT -6
No, no... a thousand times, no! All I am saying is that credentials are not necessarily the "be-all" and "end-all" of being impressed by someone. Remember, Ambrose Burnside was a general!!!
Quite frankly, I wish I had a Ph. D. or even a masters degree. And actually, with all the damn securities and commodities courses and exams I have taken and passed, I should be awarded something to pad the old CV!
I think my point here is that I would put my own knowledge about the Custer fight or Wall Street up against any Ph. D. in either of those disciplines. Yet... who is more likely to be believed by the New York Times? Something like that has never bothered me, however... so why am I talking about it? Right? So while I appreciate "credentials," I am pretty much unimpressed when they are flung in my face. It doesn't work with me.
Anyway... no offense intended. No one supports higher education more than I do.
Best wishes, Fred.
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on Feb 20, 2011 18:48:43 GMT -6
For what it is worth, my choice for best historian of the 20th century, Barbara Tuchman, had no advanced degree at all, just a BA from Radcliffe.
Despite that, she got two Pulitzers, "... became a trustee of Radcliffe College and a lecturer at Harvard University, University of California, and the U.S. Naval War College. A tower of Currier House, a Harvard College residential dormitory, was named in her honor." Thems what we's calls 'bones.' Also, she spoke at West Point and various other military groups. She was no amateur; what she studied she knew well.
Also sold a ton of books. Never a hint of plagiarism or incompetence, although lots bitched about her estimation of Stilwell, a controversial figure, whom she clearly admired. History profs here at CU complained about her 'lack of knowledge' about the 14th century when A Distant Mirror came out, but all wilted when specifics were required. She also felt there was good and bad about becoming an academic, and perhaps to her horror, she had an ally in Gore Vidal, whose novel on Lincoln drove the plantlife in the ivory towers absolutely ape, especially when it outsold their life works in aggregate. He, too, cleaned the floor with some of the fossils in American history departments through the years.
|
|
|
Post by herosrest on Jan 2, 2013 18:11:36 GMT -6
First, let's examine the term "well known Custer scholar." The way praise and elevation of status - sometimes absurdly elevated - is bandied about should deter easy acceptance of credentials and their work. Some of the most well known Custer 'scholars' are the most widely acknowledged idiots. Some of the best, say like Jerome Greene, are relatively unread because they're comparatively difficult and are actually works of scholarship and research. Yet the Philbrooks and Donovans are accorded 'scholar' status, mistakes and absurdities and all. People in the LBHA announce publications of minor monographs on recondite subjects as if it were the long lost last work of Thomas McCaulay. Log rolling reviews have become a self-parody, a meaningless art form in Custerland. Fetishists have been accorded the term 'scholar' in my experience here, when they are nothing of the sort and incapable of improving. Getting published is not proof either, given the number of self published works under imprints designed to conceal that fact and those put out because Universities apparently feel they have to. The result is there is probably more juvenile and incompetent trash written and published about Custer and this battle than any other event in history because there is a known audience for it, easily targeted and marketed. It's depressing, but I wouldn't be surprised if the likes of herosrest and/or strange get a book out to join the ranks of the Swiss Miss and Nightengale and other 'scholars.' I apologize, because I suspect it greatly embarrasses him, but AZ and zekesgirl did more for scholarship riding Benteen's route, bringing vast experience and knowledge to the actual land in question and timing and charting it out, than just about anyone here. Actual, first hand research that accomplished a great deal: it verified Benteen's, Godfrey's, and Edgerly's accounts of the scout and sucked the oxygen out of the room for 130 years of Benteen ankle biters. He did actual historic re-enactment. He did actual research. He did a great service to historical scholarship by scientifically documenting it. Does he get more than grudging acknowledgement? In the limited landscape of Custerland, he did more than most "well known Custer scholar"s nobody has heard of, much less read. For the great one above. Military tactics, ie battlefield maneuver, is no science but the practical accumulated repetition of what invariably works, since both Ghengis Khan and the Spartans as example. The Pharoh,s fighting men probably kicked it all off.Military think and fognt in straight lines, that is also how they march and that is how Custer's command fought and maneuvered during their brief disaster on Custer's field. When the fighting got started in the Finley locale, warrior record indicates that Yellow Nose was elsewhere with another bunch, doing exactly the same thing. Seven Cheyenne's died fighting 7th Cavalry. All accounts detailing their battlr were translated. How many of those Cheyeene killed were related to in the name of Black? Which Cheyenne warrior called Black ___ was referred to by Little Hawk, a Cheyenne and Two Moon, a Cheyenne. Where did that warrior fall, already wounded or not. Your starter for ten ~ www.friendslittlebighorn.com/images/warriormarkers/pohankalamewhiteman2.jpgWhere on the battleground did Edward S. Godfrey locate Smith's troop? T'was not, is not, and never will be, acceptable for scholars of the battle, historians as well, to ignore Godfrey's statement of where Smith's troop deployed and fought' and, someone ought to go and dig out the archaeology or properly context what exists. Godfrey's source cannot be negated in serious study, because Gall walked across the terrain with Godfrey, the same for D.F.Barry. Capt. Benteen, l believe, served with the 9th Cavalry, briefly. Godfrey was it's Colonel in Chief. R.S. Livermore served with that regiment. Benteen's LBH has nothing, at all or what so ever, todo with the Custer fight. Benteen's command were not present and did not participate ~ it having concluded before he could rescue Custer.(sig)
|
|
|
Post by herosrest on Jan 2, 2013 20:27:17 GMT -6
Company F details.
Attention to detail has led to convoluted precision of mathematics that is the scientific art form of time lines which relate battle events in the way lawyers present argument, rather than detectives. No is any wiser to the fate of Yate's advance of five men. Perhaps they fell near the old stone house. That though could have been the last half dozen fleeing Custer's Hill.
Because Bowen got the wrong end of the stick and Godfrey's dog didn't return it, relic finds in the area towards the mouth of Cedar Coulee indicate progress towards Blummer's Ridge. What is actually known is that there may have been a brief skirmish near the mouth of Cedar Coulee, before the command rode to the river where the column seperated. This is shown on data recorded within days of the battle.
Further information recorded immediately after the battle was published in front page coverage in the New York Tribune, July 14, 1876, including a map of the battlefield with numbers showing where bodies were found. Such detailed information came only from LBH and those who were present.
If we sojurn into the present tombe that is the battle now, and specifically to 'Archaeology, History, and Custer's Last Battle: The Little Big Horn Reexamined', at page 158, paragraph 2; we discover the source of the New York Tribune data, from a reliable military source.
That chapter of Richard Fox's assessment develops archaeolgy of a skirmish line on 'Calhoun Hill' which redeployed to face altering threats.
In contemplating the source and validity of the New York Tribune article's map showing Lt. Maguires description of bodies of 'the men arranged in a semi circle around the crest' a contradiction is presented by description of the battlefield reported by the 'Cherokee Advocate' in 1877, which places a ten man skirmish line divorced from the balance of dead upon Calhounh Hill, where a marker indicated Lt. Crittenden fell.
Cherokee Advocate was plagiarised in 'Fighting Indians in the 7th United States Cavalry, Custer's Favorite Regiment' by Ami Frank Mumford which ever since has discredited serious consideration of valid and accurate battleground conditions in July 1877, leading to many flawed conclusions by many people.
Another interesting and confusing document (ha, ha!) was introduced by James A. Nowlan as evidence to the Reno Inquiry showing a 'wagon' route straight over Calhoun Hill from........ Deep Coulee.
Hmm..........
It may not have been wagons that rolled over Calhoun Hill.
Mumford's closing chapter, went deep into American history and he may, perhaps have carried it a li'l too far. I'm not sure but perhaps those who finished his work, including official reports? of fighting during 1873, might offer opinion.
|
|
|
Post by AZ Ranger on Jan 3, 2013 6:16:13 GMT -6
HS do you use drugs or alcohol?
Regards
AZ Ranger
|
|
|
Post by Yan Taylor on Jan 3, 2013 10:51:13 GMT -6
I am glad you brought that up Steve; I have been thinking that for over a year, even that squirrel looks stoned.
Ian.
|
|
|
Post by herosrest on Jan 3, 2013 16:10:20 GMT -6
Hi guys, The squirrel is actually..... nuts. I do have the occaisional drink, that's it really. The Cherokee Advocate article is side lined but is an important historical document for description of bodies on the ground and the markers placed in 1877. It criticises senior military bitterly but is an important document once you reseach the Cherokee Advocate. I'm now researching the huge misunderstanding about events at the little ridge near the river. Little Ridge may have been a Kiowa visiting the camp and used as a shield during the early exchanges. Maguire's description of Calhoun Hill is shown on the Tribune map, that is simple association and correct. It is almost an L shaped skirmish line. ;D digital.library.okstate.edu/encyclopedia/entries/C/CH016.htmldocs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:vSPinoD4d9MJ:www.okgenweb.org/~okchero2/adjul74.doc+sept+1877+cherokee+advocate+custer&hl=en&gl=uk&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESgoHcPFfVF0DPcUeB0jxyi5_y_uLKsur3E_MzOwETPqodhfG0r9FTnllwlp9GnU_emqdi9-OYUNNYzAdflt7ZPCNcqUl_HecUDBXqKDgPz7h2_lRZaAQARZZDVrKkBMjYVIanAe&sig=AHIEtbT2pPHUzKlz7XuvGK5BhXnAWNUXwQInitially, the Advocate was published weekly until September 28, 1853, when it was suspended for the lack of funds. The editors for the first nine years included William Potter Ross (1844-46, 1847-48), Daniel H. Ross (1846-47, 1848), James Shepard Vann (1848-49), David Carter (1849-51), and William Penn Boudinot (1852-53). Their newspaper reported the actions and policies of the Cherokee government, laws, memorials, and protests to the U.S. Congress, proceedings of the national council and negotiations with Washington, messages of the principal chiefs, missionary activities and temperance campaigns, notices of estate dministration; and other local news. www.geni.com/people/Daniel-H-Ross/4376527144650029121Interesting history. LBH was a very busy place in summer 1877 ~ Companies E and H of the 5th. Companies E, F, and H, 22nd Infantry, with the 2nd Cavalry detachment, moved up the Rosebud, and on May 7 attacked the Indians near the mouth of Muddy Creek. The herd of 450 Indian ponies was taken in a surprise attack by a detachment of scouts under Lieutenant Casey. A dash by the cavalry convinced Lame Deer and Iron Star that they must surrender in order to save themselves, but they met with great difficulty in convincing their followers of this necessity. The resultant delay caused the death of both these chiefs and fourteen of their men. The 450 ponies provided mounts for the entire battalion of the 22nd, and the following morning, after completing the destruction of the Indian camp, the command started back to the Tongue River. The Indians made one effort to recapture their ponies, but were quickly driven off by the troops. Following this action Company E returned to camp, Companies F, G and H delaying their return until May 31 in order to scout in the direction of the Little Big Horn. May 26 Companies I and K left Glendive to complete the consolidation of the battalion under Colonel Hough. Almost immediately, however, Colonel Hough was detached and ordered to Fort Mackinac, and the battalion of the 22nd Infantry came under the command of Colonel Lazelle of the First Infantry. Under this officer a long scout was made into the Black Hills.
|
|
|
Post by herosrest on Jan 3, 2013 17:19:35 GMT -6
ps, guess my squirrel's name... A clue, 1944 There is an oddity to study of this battle stemming from anti~fatalists, who perpetuate Whittaker's errors with time. This is a dicoteledon obtrusion. Gall got on the fighting six and the horses wete run off.
|
|
|
Post by fred on Jan 3, 2013 20:52:25 GMT -6
ps, guess my squirrel's name... Costume Lad. Hate to tell you this, but there are several Indians who claim Gall never even got into the fight. Best wishes, Fred.
|
|