Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Gasp!
Aug 15, 2014 12:28:00 GMT -6
Post by Deleted on Aug 15, 2014 12:28:00 GMT -6
Try not to crucify yourself on the cross of correctness Hevat. If you have a question for Ian, or wish to delve deeper into something he said, do so. I am not into self crucifixion myself and I assure you I will, regardless of who is on first. Quincannon, Correctness is one aspect. The other aspect is that I prefer a direct discussion with you to an indirect one at the cost of the other participants in the discussion. If I am correct you are one of the founders of this list. I've no emotional strings attached. Whenever you delve into a discussion, I'll make room for you - without any hard feelings. If it turns out to lead to unworkable situations (when other members of this board become victim of our incompatabilité) I'll 'resign' and become a silent visitor. No crosses, no correctness just common sense: the list comes first. BTW, I do appreciate your post!
Best regards, Henk
|
|
|
Gasp!
Aug 15, 2014 12:54:34 GMT -6
Post by quincannon on Aug 15, 2014 12:54:34 GMT -6
I don't believe there was any indirectness about what I posted. Ian and I are good friends on and off this board. He alone would appreciate my first paragraph in my first post of the day, and it is something we banter back and forth about publicly here, and privately by other means.
His comments though are fair game for anyone, including myself, and I specifically addressed those comments. You do not have to make room for me or extend to me any other consideration not extended to other board members. Disabuse your mind of the idea I do not like or appreciate your commentary. Nothing could be further from the truth. I told you what my heartburn was with you. It was only that, nothing more. That is one area no one goes with me. I am sure you have similar things that to you are untouchable. If I should step across that line, you should, in fact I want you to tell me about it so it will not be repeated.
Resignation is for cowards. If you believe in something stand up and fight for it.
This board is more important than either of us. I recently deleted a lot of my posts, not because I had changed my mind, or suddenly detested the person any less. It was for the sake of the board alone. It is more important than I am. It was also out of respect for Diane.
PS: If you have a desire to know about those places I referred to in my post to Ian, PM me and I will fill you in.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Gasp!
Aug 15, 2014 15:43:35 GMT -6
Post by Deleted on Aug 15, 2014 15:43:35 GMT -6
Quincannon,
The first paragraph of your first post was a pleasure to read, as many passages in your posts. I don't see, however, how my discussion with Ian could not involve the second half of the post, and your second post - not directly but indirectly.
I know that I don't have to treat you differently from any other member of the board, but in our short history together that didn't turn out to work.
My mind has no such idea, nor the idea that you do appreciate whatever I contribute. A post is a bad post when I cannot learn from the responses it gets.
Well, there were a few other things like weasily words, demeaning sounds … The main point is that we agree in principle but not in detail.
Easy answers! They may be stupid, long winded, totally beside the point, name it - as long as the answer is the expression of a thinking human being.
I agree with you. Early 2015 I'll have enough information about the LBH to know if it can serve my purpose as an example. I've half a year to put it to use. The whole project is just a sideline - to keep my mind sharp and get me out of the comfort zone of my regular research. Participation on this list is very rewarding and I've come to appreciate a few members very much but it is not something I believe in. To conclude: it's time to simplicity. As your post proves, the situation becomes more and more complicated.
Again, I do appreciate you last posts!
Best regards, Henk
|
|
|
Gasp!
Aug 15, 2014 16:01:26 GMT -6
Post by quincannon on Aug 15, 2014 16:01:26 GMT -6
You make an assumption that I read whatever you posted. I read that you took something down. I was on the board a long time this morning, but not reading, except for Ian stuff, which I give priority to. Rather I was working on a joint project that Ian and I are doing in concert. We communicate through the PMs.
|
|
|
Gasp!
Aug 16, 2014 6:39:50 GMT -6
Post by Yan Taylor on Aug 16, 2014 6:39:50 GMT -6
What’s all this delete and agreement mumbo-jumbo, if you want to say something, well say it man, we are all ok on this, there is no pecking order here as Chuck would be the first to acknowledge that fact.
Got your stuff via PM Chuck, excellent work and Thanks.
One more thing for Hevat;
Now we cannot assume what Custer was thinking that day, but he wanted locate his target and hit it, and this target was a village, so what do we have to go on, well he hit a smaller village some years before, and as you know it was on Washita, but seeing that these two battles are poles apart, we cannot make comparisons, please see below;
Washita; Objective – village (rather small) Weather – freezing Attack time – dawn Unit & commander – 7th US Cavalry/Custer
BLBH; Objective – village (BLOODY BIG) Weather – hot Attack time – mid-day Unit & commander – 7th US Cavalry/Custer
Now another way of finding out how confident Custer was, is to use what the survivors said, and the phrases around the time he first saw the village (that’s if they were true of course);
We’ve caught them napping. Boys hold your horse, there are plenty of them down there for all of us. We’ll finish them and go home to our station.
To me he sounds like a man who is pretty sure that he and his 209 men were not going to lose.
Ian.
|
|
|
Gasp!
Aug 16, 2014 7:35:18 GMT -6
Post by quincannon on Aug 16, 2014 7:35:18 GMT -6
Ian: It does seem that he is writing a book or engaged in some similar type project. I wish I knew what he was talking about. Looking at the flow and the content of you post before last you must have read what he wrote. Perhaps it is just as well I did not. If leaving, but still observing fulfills his requirements I suppose that can only be determined by one person.
Add (PRAIRIE) to 33rd if you will
|
|
|
Gasp!
Aug 16, 2014 8:31:20 GMT -6
Post by Yan Taylor on Aug 16, 2014 8:31:20 GMT -6
Done Chuck, looking good.
I agree with you. Early 2015 I'll have enough information about the LBH to know if it can serve my purpose as an example. I've half a year to put it to use. The whole project is just a sideline - to keep my mind sharp and get me out of the comfort zone of my regular research.
Hey Henk old chap, are you writing a book on Custer? or on the BLBH? its just that it seems like you have given yourself a time frame, and I have never come across this before in all the board members that have come and gone, I know its none of my business but could it also be a web site? I ask because I am going to start one (not on Custer) myself shortly.
Ian.
|
|
|
Gasp!
Aug 16, 2014 15:42:36 GMT -6
Post by mac on Aug 16, 2014 15:42:36 GMT -6
Henk
"A very demanding situation is in my opinion one in which we cannot take the (traffic) rules for granted. To go one step further: it's a situation in which we would have to explain ourselves even if we are following the rules. In case of the BLBH, and just as an example and not as a statement of what actually happened, envelopment may have been the rule in the Indian Wars but this fact cannot - I'm inclined to write this in capitals - explain why Custer under the circumstances decided that he would do the same."
Traffic is a good example. A situation where one must make decisions about the flow happening around themselves. First we rely on our training, how well have you been taught to drive, how much experience have you had in these conditions, what are the recognised successful methods of manoeuvring. Next you rely on situational awareness and judgement and you make assumptions about the way others will behave. (internals?) Both of these are important in having a successful outcome to any trip.
I do not assume Custer was attempting an envelopment. What he was attempting is a subject for discussion (forever). Why he did it is an even more baffling question.
Ian The Washita comparison is interesting. My thought is that given Washita was a close run thing for Custer because the Indians in fact did not run; why in heck would he expect a huge village to run? Most people learn from their past experiences! Cheers
|
|
|
Gasp!
Aug 16, 2014 17:20:05 GMT -6
Post by Dark Cloud on Aug 16, 2014 17:20:05 GMT -6
mac,
I think if we come up against the fact that Custer did stuff that makes no sense, a more reasonable conclusion is that he didn't do it. His group was driven to it.
Also, the Glossary of Terminology interface here: a "Village" is pretty meaningless as a word if it can be used for 15 lodges or 1500. The Washita Cheyenne did indeed run - and left their beloved children and women to fend for themselves - and they headed for other camps along the river at some distance for protection and to rally help that didn't actually coagulate till later and nothing came of it. It was not one unified village by any definition, and the others didn't run because the Army didn't attack them plus the cold plus I'm not given to assume that camps of different tribes would rally to each other in all circumstances. Crazy Horse did NOT support Dull Knife's refugees years later, for example, and that was in winter as well.
Staring at all the movements and trying to apply military terms to them all is harmful, both because it often isn't true and because it limits conclusions to fall within that allowed by such restricted vocabulary.
For example, people love to chat about 'bunching' with furrowed brow concerning last moments at the LBH, but the evidence for that might just be sequential shelter behind a dead horse, not collapse of group functionality. The officers dead in a clump on the perimeter of a supposed pro active defensive position does not support that theory.
|
|
|
Gasp!
Aug 16, 2014 19:29:50 GMT -6
Post by tubman13 on Aug 16, 2014 19:29:50 GMT -6
DC, regarding last sentence above, people seek reason and look for hero's where they can find them. Probably at the end there was very little reason, also many heroic, and cowardly/desperate acts.
Regards, Tom
|
|
|
Gasp!
Aug 16, 2014 19:49:56 GMT -6
Post by quincannon on Aug 16, 2014 19:49:56 GMT -6
DC: I read what you said twice, to make sure I understood full content. It has substance.
My comments are both comments and questions.
People, and including in that are people that wear uniforms do things that make no sense. Indeed they do, every day of the year, and for reasons we do not, and perhaps cannot understand in retrospect. It very well could be that some of these things are things they are driven to, by reasons ranging from the known, through suspected and speculated upon, to completely unknown and unknowable. It equally makes no sense to say "driven to being reasonable" to the exclusion of all the other stops along that particular bus line. When you don't know, you don't know.
Staring at the movements and trying to apply military terms: Pardon me, but I thought we were talking about a battle, involving the military. Please state for purposes of clarity what terms should be used and kindly give an example of one or two so that we may either expand our restricted vocabulary, or decide for ourselves if one of the lug nuts on your wheel is a little loose. I would be happy to use any term you feel comfortable with if it is all inclusive to the situation or description necessary.
Bunching is a military term. It is also a general term meaning gathering together in close proximity.
Bunching as a military term means individuals being to close together on the march, in a chow line during field feeding, and similar occasions. Guarding against it, is meant as passive protection against direct and indirect fire. The term was nearly unknown and little used in the 19th century, where concentrated high volume fire required close proximity.
Bunching as it is used here though is more the general use of the word, referring to men seeking close proximity to friends, in times of mutual danger. It is no more military than families out on the prairie clustered together in a basement shielding each other from the effects of a tornado. The military usage is the counter to lack of attention to detail, or distraction, while the general use is most often a self preserving act or an attempt at self preservation, a very human and not necessarily a military manifestation. It is to bad that the same word is used, but the military term does differ in meaning, and that difference is manifested in how you used the word above.
I really do think a slight investment in a dictionary of military terms would be useful to you. I even think you can find them on line, although I have never had the need.
|
|
|
Gasp!
Aug 17, 2014 1:50:18 GMT -6
Post by mac on Aug 17, 2014 1:50:18 GMT -6
mac, I think if we come up against the fact that Custer did stuff that makes no sense, a more reasonable conclusion is that he didn't do it. His group was driven to it. My thought was more why he did not simply follow Reno down the valley.Also, the Glossary of Terminology interface here: a "Village" is pretty meaningless as a word if it can be used for 15 lodges or 1500. The Washita Cheyenne did indeed run - and left their beloved children and women to fend for themselves - and they headed for other camps along the river at some distance for protection and to rally help that didn't actually coagulate till later and nothing came of it. It was not one unified village by any definition, and the others didn't run because the Army didn't attack them plus the cold plus I'm not given to assume that camps of different tribes would rally to each other in all circumstances. Crazy Horse did NOT support Dull Knife's refugees years later, for example, and that was in winter as well. Happy to go with Custer and Big Village for LBH. Certainly Indians were just people like the rest of us and sometimes they help out other times they don't. However at Washita Elliot and his men were lost to some non running warriors and the fact that Custer had collected some women and children is generally credited as a bit of "Custer's luck" in helping him escape.Staring at all the movements and trying to apply military terms to them all is harmful, both because it often isn't true and because it limits conclusions to fall within that allowed by such restricted vocabulary. I think military terms are fine, even essential, but they must be correctly used and have some supporting logic that makes them probable.For example, people love to chat about 'bunching' with furrowed brow concerning last moments at the LBH, but the evidence for that might just be sequential shelter behind a dead horse, not collapse of group functionality. The officers dead in a clump on the perimeter of a supposed pro active defensive position does not support that theory. I am happy with what QC has to say on bunching. Cheers
|
|
|
Gasp!
Aug 17, 2014 4:06:32 GMT -6
Post by Yan Taylor on Aug 17, 2014 4:06:32 GMT -6
Good morning everyone, if anyone mentions bunching in relation to this battle, then to me it would indicate troops caught in the open with their flank or flanks threatened, similar to animals getting corralled men would bunch up if they were under 360° pressure.
The officers found in a clump on the perimeter, well after a discussion we had a few months ago I don’t think these officer knew what was over that ridge line, until it was too late that is, and they could have been backing away from the threat coming from cemetery and deep ravine, the thought of Indians in force being over to the east may have been an unpleasant surprise to them, and the spine of Custer ridge would turn this area into dead ground with no L.O.S. from the west.
Ian.
|
|
|
Gasp!
Aug 17, 2014 9:53:56 GMT -6
Post by AZ Ranger on Aug 17, 2014 9:53:56 GMT -6
I think looking for bunching as an indicator of disintegration only works if we establish there was a formation to begin with. A sudden stop by an advancing force resulting in a pile up with all being killed would appear the same as disintegration bunching from a collapse of a skirmish line.
|
|
|
Gasp!
Aug 17, 2014 12:13:21 GMT -6
Post by Yan Taylor on Aug 17, 2014 12:13:21 GMT -6
I suppose so Steve, but the only way the men found on Calhoun hill could have ran into a pile up would have been if they were moving from Custer ridge back to MTC or LNC complex, I know that the markers cannot give us anything concrete, but it looks like air escaping from a balloon to me, with a long trail of markers leading up to Keogh’s marker.
Ian.
|
|