DC
The thesis is decent work. As stated (page 75), 'the amalgamation of these three assumptions falls dreadfully short of a coherent theory of the Battle Of Little Big Horn'. A broad critique of three significant theoreticals and the authors hypothesis, qualify war-gaming or simulation as valid, worthwhile and innovative means to 'release lessons from the past to be incorporated into battles of the future'.
This applies specifically to the Synchronization Matrix. Such practice existed, battles having long been studied. The thesis recognises but neccesarily accepts and develops, flawed studies of the battle. Military influence in the fact of the battle and its study is immense, and during conquest of the plains was the principal influence. The practial importance of dominating and controlling the plains passed with time, but not interest or influence in the Battle, exampled by Burn's thesis. There is a measured bias from miltary opinion and views of the battle. The paper is an interesting read - I look forward to leaning why men rebel. Something to do with taxation, possibly :0> .
There is value in Burn's thesis but it is hardly revolutionary stuff. People learn from mistakes. Those who make mistakes, do not admit them.
Battle maps invariably show the units deploying their front and maneuvering, as with Reno in LBH valley. That does not occur with Custer's fight, or rarely so. That flies in the face of logic and the record.
An aspect of the post today, mentioned below.
Reno and Benteen had a problem - Whittaker's assessment of events. The stakes for both officers were high and threatened ruin. The matter was resolved before a Court, and that is a very peculiar and special environment, where, given the means relative to the matter at hand, a good defence or prosecution can develop and prove that the sea is orange and the sky has peppermint stripes. Reno's inquiry set out to discredit Whittaker's arguments and that was done with the time of day. That was and remains perfectly legitimate, the Court did not reject it, and Reno avoided Court Martial at that time.
Quote - 'The amalgamation of these three assumptions falls dreadfully short of a coherent theory of the Battle Of Little Big Horn. They are, however, useful as a yardstick by which to measure the plausibility of existing theories. In doing so, it is necessary to communicate the three assumptions in a concise, cogent manner.
Pure military, militaryness........................
Charge!
Some people make love. Some make war. Those who do both are usually happier and wiser, or early to the grave. Early in his adventure on Greasy Grass (1977), and long before an obvious decision to ignore the historical record and laws of physics, John S. Gray assessed 7th Cavalry's horses. His conclusions were startling. The animals were large with four legs, huge swishy tails and did not significantly affect the outcome of the battle. Marcus A. Reno and Frederick W. Benteen did (affect the outcome), but didn't have large swishy tails, unfortunately.
Everything seems to revolve around the bottom, where little evidence exists of serious fighting other than of course the considerably considerable and extensive tribal record. Still, what did the Indians know about anything military or political. Apparently, Sitting Bull would have more confidence in the Grand father at Washington, if there were not so many bald headed thieves working for him. Among Miniconjou chiefs was Ki yu kan pi, 'The One That Makes Room', usually translated Makes-Room but better translated as 'Make Room For Him' or Welcome This man. He was the husband of Good Feather, Sitting Bull's sister and the father of White Bull and One Bull. Ki yu kan pi left his wife and moved away to camp with his own tribe and Good Feather brought her sons to live with Sitting Bull.
In 1870, an Uncle of Sitting Bull's named Looks for Him in Tent, was killed during the battle where thirty Crows were killed (Vestal 1957:116). He was the head of an akicita and was an uncle of Sitting Bull's. In mourning, Sitting Bull cut his hair, put on mud, and took of his shoes and leggings. He and a large party were absent from a village located north of the mouth of Powder river when a thirty-one Crows ran off ponies. Sitting Bull's hunting party came onto the trail and drove the Crows to shelter in a naturally-fortified rocky basin where the pursuers were held off two nights and a day, at the end of which Sitting Bull urged the necessity of charging the enemy's position and driving them out, or being killed in the attempt.
Sitting Bull knew that to attack meant death to some of his party, and told his followers it would look childish if the Crows escaped after being penned in the rocks. He did not want any to join the attack unless they felt the same about it as he did; but he did not believe his men were squaws. He did not ask them to take risks he was not willing to assume and would lead. They would drive the Crows out of the rocks, kill them where they were or be killed themselves in the attempt. Reaching the rocks under heavy fire, he scaled the wall and killed several before his party arrived. Numbers were were about even, and hand to hand. At the end of twenty minutes, all thirty-one Crows had been killed and scalped, two Sioux were lost. - Frank Grouard (Excerpted)
Theorisation of the battle, is an important facet of its history and the way people consider it today. It's study turns out generals and admirals in the making, assuming they learn to avoid C4 where the sun doesn't shine. Theory is proven by destroying it, Balaklava can be offered as example perhaps - I'm sure it destroyed many theories and proved others -
. Destroying theory is fun. Destroying dreams just wicked but war is hell apparently and on June 25th 1876, its gods were at play. The guns didn't work properly and they were Reno's day job! He and Terry thought they could save the army a few dollars with copper rounds...... ouch! "I'm just popping around the back of the tent for a moment, ladies. Make yourselves comfortable in the meantime." Apparently, that little demonstration got Benteen the sack. He pissed people off! You cannot make it up.
Check my latest (QPCOF314) - it's the mutt's nuts. Charles King was a very bright penny with a taxing problem and was definately no George the Third. Here's to Brig. Gen. King. Hip, hip, hooray!!! or is it yipee yi yey?
There is a film, 'The List of Adrian Messenger' - probably not your cup of tea, but in its way was an innovative salute to a generation past of Hollywood stars. If you watch the very end, credits and stuff, it gives a pleasant surprise. The current Hollywood generation could do worse than pull similar disguise with a decent modern script for this battle. I think Speilberg is just about ready for the challenge and the whole thing really does need a modern makeover. Pi in the sky - who would go to see something like that? Imagine the spin-offs and marketing fun. Music, Garryowen in the top ten, John BonJovi and the Lacota's................ Bonnie Rait and the Cheyenne Way.
Have you any idea what a mint condition 1876 Silver Eagle is worth? I don't need mine any more.
Be well, bringer of precipitation.
I was looking for something more battle related such as how to diasect a brain with 7 rounds from a .45.