|
Post by dave on Feb 18, 2015 9:51:20 GMT -6
Fred Thank you for those ideas and suggestions. I read until 2 am and got through the preface twice and 1st and 2nd chapters also twice. I went through the time lines and read the notes for the 1st two chapters. There is so much information in your book that I find myself approaching it some what similar to Faulkner's "Absalom, Absalom!". I had to do a report on Faulkner's novel for a college literature class and I got a copy without the genealogy. Boy was that a trip! I wish I could go back to LBH just to see the terrain again for myself instead of photos but will put it on my bucket list. Regards Dave
|
|
|
Post by montrose on Feb 18, 2015 10:16:00 GMT -6
Dave,
Don't listen to Fred, what the heck does he know. Read the book first, ignore the appendixes and footnotes. Then think about the book , what are your theories on what happened.
The second reading is where you look at footnotes, appendixes and supporting theories. Get the big picture, then dive into the details.
I think I am on my 6th full read through, learn something new each time. Generally I see something that doesn't feel right, then have to dig through primary sources and common sense to have a better view. And the things I disagree with the author are just quibbles, not big picture stuff. (This board has threads that go 50 pages on quibbles. I remember the standard introduction to grad school, from here on you will train to be an academic expert, where you will know more and more about less and less).
Army has a process called strategy to task. Figure out your strategy, then supporting operations and tactics, then tasks. Macro to micro. I find that is the best way to comprehend Fred.
Respectfully,
William
|
|
|
Post by dave on Feb 18, 2015 12:01:23 GMT -6
Colt 45 you are right! I love the book because it is so full of facts and intelligent suppositions. Will Thank you for your comments and ideas. I have been rereading the pages a couple of times to get exactly what the author is sharing with his readers. Fred's style is understandable but so much detail is at times overwhelming. I am fortunate in that I have a bit of knowledge of the LBH but I have no preconceived views and am not trying to fit facts and circumstances into my theory just yet. I am baffled by the number of folks who have never been to the LBH or have little if any military training trying to argue with those who have spent a lot of time at LBH---AZ Ranger comes to mind along with his riding experience and expertise, who has ridden the LBH area---just to advocate their cause. Sometimes ignorance is bliss. Far easier to fill and empty gourd than a half baked one. Regards Dave
|
|
|
Post by fred on Feb 18, 2015 14:12:11 GMT -6
Dave, Don't listen to Fred, what the heck does he know. Read the book first, ignore the appendixes and footnotes. Then think about the book , what are your theories on what happened. The second reading is where you look at footnotes, appendixes and supporting theories. Get the big picture, then dive into the details. I think I am on my 6th full read through, learn something new each time. Generally I see something that doesn't feel right, then have to dig through primary sources and common sense to have a better view. And the things I disagree with the author are just quibbles, not big picture stuff. (This board has threads that go 50 pages on quibbles. I remember the standard introduction to grad school, from here on you will train to be an academic expert, where you will know more and more about less and less). Army has a process called strategy to task. Figure out your strategy, then supporting operations and tactics, then tasks. Macro to micro. I find that is the best way to comprehend Fred. Respectfully, William Ladies and Gentlemen, I yield to someone smarter than I am. Read it as William Bender says. Best wishes, Fred.
|
|
|
Post by dave on Feb 18, 2015 19:23:03 GMT -6
I have reread the 1st 5 chapters and have used my yellow hi liter all over the pages. I am still occasionally having to pull out my dictionary. Great brain exercise also trying to use my vocabulary. Great information and easy to digest once I can get a view of the terrain and the location of landmarks. Regards Dave
|
|
|
Post by dave on Feb 19, 2015 10:38:54 GMT -6
Fred I am half way through Chapter 8 and have reached a stopping point. My ignorance of the terrain and location of landmarks really come to the forefront in Chapter 7, "Benteen's Left Oblique. I really struggled till I remembered I had Michael Donahue's book "Drawing Battle Lines" and pulled it out. Between his maps and yours the sun has peeked out and I see things much clearer. Still cloudy vision but better. I am really enjoying this ride and have learned quite a lot. Regards Dave
PS I do know that AZ Ranger has the best insight into the difficulty of Benteen's scout and am looking for more info from him on the ride itself. Love the photo's that he has added to Fred's book.
|
|
|
Post by montrose on Feb 19, 2015 10:58:39 GMT -6
Dave,
It is my belief that Custer thought there was a small Indian village vicinity the lone tepee. In fact, Benteen's mission makes no sense whatsoever if this is not true.
I haven't convinced Fred, heck any active poster here, but I am pretty sure I am right.
So consider Custer's decisions if he thought he could find a small outlying Indian element. I believe this affected his decision making prior to 3411.
I see GAC's decision tree as a series of bad decision points. He made a bad assessment of enemy locations, dispositions, then a decision. Then future decision points were bound by previous bad decisions.
|
|
|
Post by fred on Feb 19, 2015 11:45:22 GMT -6
It is my belief that Custer thought there was a small Indian village vicinity the lone tepee. In fact, Benteen's mission makes no sense whatsoever if this is not true. I haven't convinced Fred, heck any active poster here, but I am pretty sure I am right. You haven't "convinced" me of this because I have never heard-- or read-- you mention it before. I would not doubt you are correct. That does not mean there was one located there, but I have no issue with an assumption Custer may have thought there was one. After all, at least two tepees were believed to be there, the lone tepee of note and a second, partially knocked down. That idea would add to the reasoning behind the Benteen scout... and would make sense. Of course, had I known of this before the book was published I could have mentioned you and it...!Friends! I have a host of friends! (No one has been able-- to date-- to tell me in what movie that line occurs.) Best wishes, Fred.
|
|
|
Post by chris on Feb 19, 2015 11:56:14 GMT -6
Friends! I have a host of friends! (No one has been able-- to date-- to tell me in what movie that line occurs.) Best wishes, Fred. Fred , if you mean, "caught them napping" - that was SOTMS with Gary Cole as Custer. I can be as dense as uranium, please be charitable. Best, c.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 19, 2015 11:59:43 GMT -6
James Caan in El Dorado.
|
|
|
Post by fred on Feb 19, 2015 12:42:29 GMT -6
Bingo!Finally. Thank you. Best wishes, Fred.
|
|
|
Post by chris on Feb 19, 2015 12:47:56 GMT -6
Carp, didn't understand the italics.
|
|
|
Post by dave on Feb 19, 2015 12:59:08 GMT -6
Montrose Thank you for that insight regarding an indian village. Not being a military man I am constantly confused by many of GAC's decisions. One thing I remember from football was amassing force. It is hard to gain any yards on the ground without a large number of folks at the line of scrimmage and at the hole. GAC seemed to winnow away his force at several junctures. If Benteen was to just scout the left and let Custer know if the indians were in the valley, why did he send a battalion? Just learning. I must say that Fred has not tried to force his agenda into the book. He allows me to make my own mistakes (not many just a few. Ha Ha) and decisions. I am impressed with that. Regards Dave
|
|
|
Post by tubman13 on Feb 19, 2015 16:20:54 GMT -6
Montrose Thank you for that insight regarding an indian village. Not being a military man I am constantly confused by many of GAC's decisions. One thing I remember from football was amassing force. It is hard to gain any yards on the ground without a large number of folks at the line of scrimmage and at the hole. GAC seemed to winnow away his force at several junctures. If Benteen was to just scout the left and let Custer know if the indians were in the valley, why did he send a battalion? Just learning. I must say that Fred has not tried to force his agenda into the book. He allows me to make my own mistakes (not many just a few. Ha Ha) and decisions. I am impressed with that. Regards Dave Dave, very astute, Fred does have some very strong opinions, and some of his comments regarding those opinions can be stinging. That is the beauty of the book, an easy read that does not try to lead the reader to conclusions. The book gives you info and material to draw your own conclusions. It is straight forward and if you go into it with preconceived ideas, it will do one of three things. Make you question your opinions, back up what you already thought, or feel that Fred has an agenda because it destroys your agenda. There is one last thing the book can do and that is give you a fair and balanced overview of what took place. There you go Fred, that is the forward for the 50th printing.
Regards, Tom
|
|
|
Post by dave on Feb 19, 2015 17:16:09 GMT -6
Tom I don't believe I have ever been called astute before. I like it. Fred's sharp opinions are fine with me. I grew up in military family have been around sharp opinions. One thing that has baffled me is some criticism of the book is based not on facts but the choice of words. What a waste of a good tome to just fuss about the words. Perhaps they ought to donate their copies to a local library. Regards Dave
|
|