Post by Yan Taylor on Apr 24, 2013 10:59:50 GMT -5
Chuck, they reminded me of large spring onions (or as you call them scallions) and probably steamed, as for the cream sauce, it looks like a standard white sauce with added cream, although I bet Joan’s version is better than mine.
Because I am the first home, I am the main cook, just cooking the tea as we speak in fact.
Yes this is a new series of Endeavour, a four episode series with each show lasting around two hours long (with the adverts of course, without the ads around 90 minutes) and involving the same plot.
Last Edit: Apr 24, 2013 11:01:07 GMT -5 by Yan Taylor
Post by quincannon on Apr 24, 2013 11:11:50 GMT -5
Yes, it is a version of a standard white sauce and she uses Pearl Onions. You having tea, and I coffee, rotten coffee, I made myself. Can't make coffee for some reason that tastes any better than bilge water.
Last Edit: Apr 24, 2013 11:12:04 GMT -5 by quincannon
Fred Wo-o-ow!... I am really impressed! I guess I need to back off and re-think everything I have ever done on this thing! I did you the courtesy of debating your Ford D theory logically and without sacarism.I hightlighted major flaws in it. You actually changed the reason for Custer going North from searching for a Ford to assessing the number of noncoms exiting Northwards.You did this after I pointed out that with Boyer on board there was no need for a recce.Thus a new reason for going North was quickly cobbled together.
QC Fred: You don't need to understand tactics, or terrain, nor distance, or culture, or anything else pertinent to this battle to know what happenedDid you mention numbers?Of course not because all else being equal numbers are the deciding factor. Terrain?Let me tell you about terrain.Your 4 foot deep river and the largest land feature on the battle field did not stop Reno. As for tactics I'll take Benteen's word for that" a rout".
All these things trump all those stuffy old tomes we read on how to practice the trade Hope officer school changed your study material from that which Custer used. Regards
Post by quincannon on Apr 24, 2013 13:02:58 GMT -5
If numbers were always the deciding factor, no army deficient in numbers would ever attain victory over one with superior numbers. Another adventure into the obvious, there were more hostiles than soldiers. Enlightening.
No the river and the bluffs did not stop Reno, nor did the stop the Indians. Never said they did. It just forced them to move slower than both would have liked to do.
I don't know what Custer used. Think he might have wanted to read it a few more times though. I assume you can read too, but like Custer you fail to absorb what you read. Actually you and Custer are so much alike. Both of you exhibit an overabundance of bull s**t, and a complete absence of brains and maturity
Wild the only reason people make fun of you, and dismiss anything you have to say as irrelevant nonsense, is because 1) you don't know what your talking about, and 2) when you do say something it is irrelevant nonsense. You have made your own reputation here, not any of us. Blame yourself for your failures, not those that point out you are a failure.
Last Edit: Apr 24, 2013 13:12:13 GMT -5 by quincannon
Wild the only reason people make fun of you, and dismiss anything you have to say as irrelevant nonsense Well let's see now;there's you and Fred and you and did I mention Fred and maybe DC but he's problematic because he agrees with most of what I say. But look Chuckie like they say a million flies cannot be wrong. Regards ;D
Post by quincannon on Apr 24, 2013 14:23:21 GMT -5
Richard: You picture yourself as a great contrarian that keeps everyone honest. Most others picture you as what you are, a fool, a clown, a court jester. Whose fault is that? It is certainly not mine, nor Fred's, or Dark Cloud's. You had the art form perfected long before we came along. You are like many who blame everyone but yourself for what you are and what has happened to you in life. In the end though you only fool yourself, for it is you that are responsible for both failure and failings. No one else. Just you.
Last Edit: Apr 24, 2013 14:28:06 GMT -5 by quincannon
I did you the courtesy of debating your Ford D theory logically and without sacarism.I hightlighted major flaws in it.
I hardly consider debating you a courtesy. As for you highlighting "major flaws," that is impossible because there are none... except in your "tactical" mind. The only flaw is your total inability to understand what could have easily happened, something supported by every shred of available evidence, however tenuous it may be. You do not even have a modicum of that in your responses or in your "bag" of available proofs.
You logic-- such as it may be-- does not hold up and again, you have nothing to support your argument: no accounts, no after-action reports, no artifacts, no archaeological proofs... nothing... zip!
You actually changed the reason for Custer going North from searching for a Ford to assessing the number of noncoms exiting Northwards.You did this after I pointed out that with Boyer on board there was no need for a recce.Thus a new reason for going North was quickly cobbled together.
That is a bald-faced lie. In all the years I have been on these boards I can safely, honestly, and assuredly state I have never learned a single thing from you. Not one, not once, not ever. Your posts are utterly and completely worthless. They are arrogant, they are mocking, they are scoffing, they are uninformed, biased, and prejudiced... and loaded with uninformed preconceptions. Your knowledge is cursory-- at best-- and your opinions are sheer nonsense, bordering on the ludicrous. Your grasp of even the basics with anything to do with how a military operates is almost scandalous for someone purporting to know something about a historical, military event. Wannabes learning how to be re-enactors have a better grasp.
From the first day I started this I have believed that despite everything the overriding factor in Custer's defeat was the superiority in Indian numbers, especially considering the piecemeal deployment of Custer's command. If you don't understand this, then you are even more stupid than I had imagined.
As for the non-combatants, just go back over my posts over the years. I have always believed Custer never intended to "round them up." His intentions-- and my beliefs-- from the beginning were to attack and kill.
Hope officer school changed your study material from that which Custer used.
You are unqualified to even mention "officer school." You aren't good enough to have ever been one.
I would once again like to emphasize that almost nothing of the stuff on Indian population data I will try to summarize here is my own original research.
I will rely almost exclusively on the data presented in the two sources:
Kingsley M Bray, “Teton Sioux: Population History, 1655-1881,” Nebraska History 75 (1994): 165-188.
John S. Gray: "Centennial Campaign: The Sioux War of 1876".
Bray and Gray trawled a boatload of primary sources and filtered out about a dozen useful estimates for the Lakota population between 1800 and 1870.
In addition, they have analyzed the counts and "census" data taken on the Sioux reservations and from surrenders to the military between 1870 and 1890 and condensed those into usable numbers.
What I noted when working through those works, and the few primary sources I had access to, is the central importance of the ratio of people per Indian lodge for understanding the population data. In virtually all pre-reservation estimates lodge numbers were enumerated, not numbers of people. In many cases this continued long into the reservation period.
(Gray is extremely annoying by using "numbers of people" and "numbers of lodges" interchangeably, using his own preferred conversion ratio of 7 (8 for the Cheyenne) regardless of circumstances. Usually without noting what was actually given in the primary source.)
To derive the population number, you had to multiply the people per lodge ratio with the number of lodges. Both numbers were known only roughly, especially the ratio of people per lodge. Multiply two numbers which are estimates yields results with considerable uncertainty.
The one reliable method to overcome this uncertainty is to assemble as many independent estimates as possible, that are founded on actual data, and are about as likely to be too low as to be too high. (An Excel file with a compilation of those data, as well as comments regarding my adjustments and calculations is attached to the post) ------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the Lakota, there are a total of 10 different primary accounts referenced in Bray and Gray, giving estimates for number of lodges and/or the total population through the years 1833 to 1869. For all of those, numbers for the seven separate tribal divisions are estimated, and than added up to a total number. After minimal adjustments to fill in a few missing numbers, the averages of those 10 accounts are (rounded numbers):
Brulé.............3500 Oglala............2750 Hunkpapa.......2250 Miniconjou......2250 Sihasapa........1600 Sans Arc........1400 Two Kettle......1000 --------------------- Sum..............14750 ( standard deviation +/-2400)
While the numbers for the tribal divisions are fluctuating considerably between estimates, the total are relatively consistent. This follows naturally from two facts: - those tribal division are rather loosely defined, and the "allegiance" of specific bands to specific divisions was not static. - the bottom-up accounting tend to average out even relatively large individual mistakes made in those estimates, as long as there isn't an underlying bias.
(Notably "out of whack" is the Culbertson estimate from 1850, which has by far the most outlying numbers.)
Bray tried to condense those estimates (and a few more even older ones) into a consistent image of Lakota population changes. He made some significant adjustments to the original numbers, but all of those are properly noted in the paper. From his reconstruction, a number of 15200 would follow for 1876.
I tried to do something similar to the Bray method, but making a slightly different set of adjustments for obvious inconsistencies in the raw data, as well as using slightly lower estimates for pre-1860 people per lodge ratios. My most plausible extrapolation for the 1876 number would be 15400 with a considerably reduce spread of the single data points compared to the raw data. Still, I might have introduced unknown errors with my judgment calls, and slight changes for the people per lodge ratio will change the result considerably.
To summarize the analysis of the estimates from historic accounts, they point to a most likely value for the Lakota population in 1876 of about 15000, and a near-certainty of being between 10 and 20000.
---------------- military counts ----------------
A fairly straightforward method of getting a handle on the number of Lakota number in 1876/77 is to add up the results from military counts on the reservations in 1876/77 and of the surrendering Indians after the LBH battle. Those counts were much more stringent than the usual "census" procedure employed by the civilian Indian agents, and we should expect fairly accurate results from those. Number of Lakota counted on the reservations in 1876 (from Gray):
Brulé.............4387 Oglala............2336 Hunkpapa........333 Miniconjou........346 Sihasapa..........645 Sans Arc..........170 Two Kettle........840 ------------------------- Sum...............9057
Connell gives a number of 11660 in SotMS, but includes the Yanktonnai Dakota, which according to Gray account for 2755. So we can take this number as an accurate representation of the Reservation counts. The total number of Lakota surrendered up to 1881 is 7395 according to Gray. To this the number remaining in Canada (about 400 according to Bray) has to be added, and the number fled from the Agencies in 1877 of about 1400 (Gray) has to be subtracted for a total of about 15450 according to the military counts.
This result is in close agreement with the historic estimates. It is likely though, that these numbers add up so conveniently a little bit by accident. The demographics from Red Cloud Agency are slightly suspect (too many children), but could be explained by a plausible number of unaccounted for young men and young couples that sneaked out and in again without getting counted. For Spotted Tail the number of children appears impossibly high though (>60%), and no realistic amount of young men and couples appear to be possible to make up the difference. So there is likely still some overcounting there.
Still, the error range for those military counts should be fairly tight, in the 14-17000 range, with a likely value of 15500.
------------------- 1890s census data -------------------
Finally, the probably most reliable source of data for the Lakota population in 1876, the census results from the late 1880s and early 1890s. By that time census procedures were established that yielded consistent results; plausible demographics and stable numbers for the respective agencies.
Demographics and population numbers have a high inertia for a pre-modern society, so only small intrinsic changes would be expected between 1876 and 1890. And as far as I'm aware, no major extrinsic changes were affecting the Lakota on the reservations, pretty much no one left the reservations permanently, and no catastrophic disease losses were reported. As a reference, the numbers for the "tame" reservations pretty much stayed constant in that period, so it is very likely that the number of Lakota in 1890 is indeed a very good approximation for the number in 1876.
The 1890 census data, as per Gray:
Brulé.............5260 Oglala............4500 Hunkpapa.......1740 Miniconjou......1330 Sihasapa.........760 Sans Arc.........770 Two Kettle.......970 ----------------------- Sum .............15330 (+300-400 In Canada)
Bray gives an average for the 1887-1895 period of 16000
If there was a change from 1876, it would likely have been a slight decline due to increased desease load and decreased quality of food, and not to forget the several hundred that stayed in Canada. Accordingly, i would derive a value for the 1876 Lakota population of about 16000, with a likely range of 15500-17000 from the 1890 census data.
-------------------------------------- Lakota population in 1876, conclusion --------------------------------------
According to the three different methodologies for estimating the Lakota population in 1876, we arrive at a most plausible range of 15000-17000, with a near-certainty range of 14000-20000. A value close to 16000 would be my "best guess" from the data shown in this post.
Cheyenne ---------------------------------- In short (Gray, Sweet Medicine): Cheyenne surrendered in 1877 ............1478 Northern Cheyenne census 1889-90.....1400
Likely excess death numbers from the 1876/77 fighting, Oklahoma exile diseases and flight back to to North: about 150
30 Cheyenne lodges turned up in Oklahoma in 1876/77, 24 of those could have been at the LBH, considering their arrival date in Oklahoma, corresponding to about 150-200 people. It's not entirely clear if those are already included in the ~1500 surrendered as per Gray.
Edit: missed the about 25 lodges that stayed at Red Cloud Agency throughout.
Likely range for total number of Cheyenne in the North: 1500-17001650-1900
Dakota ----------- Santee + Yanktonnai: most likely less than 500 were out in the North country in 1876, though of course the total Dakota number would have been in the ballpark of 10000.
Very well done. I have felt for a long time that you have a strong grasp of the indigenous demographics.
I am still wrestling with the term warrior. I am positive there were fit 18-25 year old males who never entered combat. This is human nature, and an understanding of so called warrior societies. And some where some crippled old dude got up his gumption and whacked a white guy.
In other words, we can say that on average, a warrior generally falls in certain criteria. At the one each level, there will be variations.
I have certain assumptions that influence my personal observations.
Armament is a significant influencer on who fights. I believe 99% of the folks armed with repeaters fought, if not all. A man with a club is more likely to hang back, or stay in camp. especially those guys with that weird stick with three blades sticking out. I feel better armed with a Leatherman.
This means I believe that the larger the number of warriors we use for LBH, the more the ratio of weapons from repeaters to muskets to bows to clubs shifts to the right.
I also believe the number of combatants is a function of distance to the village. The closer to the village, the more the fence sitters decide to enter the fight.
This creates another implication. By staying on Battle ridge, LTC Custer faced less enemy combatants than if he had actually crossed the river. What he faced were the more willing, more motivated, better armed fighters. In modern terms, he faced the first and second responders.
I miss Germany. I think I have a bottle of German beer in the fridge. I will drink it tonight while I think about your post.
".. all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed...." T.Jefferson, Declaration of Independence
That's ok Fred you have a vested interest in the Ford D theory and your use of personal invective is what is to be expected from a career officer. There is a corelation between the amount of personal abuse and the seriousness of the perceived threat to your theory. Unfortunately for you it's use as a debating stratagem portrays you as being unable to countenance any other opinion but your own.
You logic-- such as it may be-- does not hold up and again, you have nothing to support your argument: no accounts, no after-action reports, no artifacts, no archaeological proofs... nothing... zip! I have like you the known dimensions of the battle.Terrain,location of the companys,location of Custer,Benteen's rout observation,numbers,weapons,training,leadership,weather,condition of mounts,condition of particpants to which I add personal experience of musketry, field craft and organisation/participation in extreme sports. The difference between us is that you elevate artifacts to the level of proof positive when they support nothing more than what is known.The finding of an artifact proves nothing more than it was lost or discarded at a particular location.It does not support your personal scenario. Even your use of "after action report" illustrates how you inflate heresay to something it is not.
That is a bald-faced lie You posted that Custer moved further North to observe the exodus of the refugees.You have also posted that Custer's went North to recce a ford. As one is not exclusive of the other the error is mine and I have no hesitation in withdrawing my observation and apologising. None the less you use Boyer to support Custer's failure to use Weir Point but he seems to have been discarded for the Ford D recce?
The stated purpose of the Ford D expedition is in preparation for an attack on the noncombats?The tactical advantage of this is zero.the price too high and the chances of success at odds that make those of the proverbial snowball attractive. That willdo for now. Best Wishes
I have no "vested interest" in any of this, wild, and as far as invective is concerned, you have brought it upon yourself by the tone and tenor of your "knowing all" posts. You "know," yet you cannot support by any means, factual or logical. All you do is belch rhetoric, albeit considerably more lucid than the other idiot... and I am not calling you an idiot.
I have shown on these boards and others I am perfectly willing to change if the "offerer" can show me where I am wrong and present enough evidence-- again, pragmatic and otherwise-- to prove his point. If you have paid attention to something other than your mirror you will see just such a change in my opinions with Herr "Fuchs." And DC has me teetering (no kewpie doll, yet, however) with his logic regarding the Boston Custer/Martini business.
You, however-- and the idiot-- have done no such thing. You present no cogent argument; you are mired simply in your own wallow, with nothing to show for it and no way to prove it. Your references to "Boyer," and "fords," and "recces" are all distorted and are all out of context, a word you seem to know nothing about. Suddenly-- after I have been howling about simplicity for years-- you are the Lord High Priest of "simple," "simplicity," and your new favorite, "simplex." When, then, will you embrace "logic" and "flow" as your own?
So please, wild, spare me, will you? I am not asking, begging, or demanding anyone accept anything I say. All I ask is to be treated the same way you wish to be treated. Go through your posts and check out the digs, the snot-nosed references, the failed attempts at sarcasm.... Then tell me why I shouldn't retaliate. DC and I do not agree on a lot of things, yet we go about our opinions as gentlemen and when I get tired of debating him-- or he, me-- we simply move on, coming back another day. Try being a little less dogmatic, will you; a little less self-assured when you have nothing to support it. Quit the pretensions of "rich" when your bank account has nothing in it.
Richard: You picture yourself as a great contrarian that keeps everyone honest. Most others picture you as what you are, a fool, a clown, a court jester. Whose fault is that? It is certainly not mine, nor Fred's, or Dark Cloud's.
Or mine either.
I see he's back on his 'let's rag on military officers' posting style. You have to wonder about people who feel this way. Keogh takes this tack at times as well. What do you suppose it is? Little Dick Syndrome? Some form of inadequacy, who knows?