|
Post by Beth on Feb 19, 2015 17:36:51 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 I agree Dave. I love a book that expands my vocabulary. Fred writes like he expects his reader to be informed and educated. I appreciate that. Beth
|
|
|
Post by dave on Feb 19, 2015 18:11:59 GMT -6
Well back to the real world. The Daytona Twin Duels are on and the LBH will have to wait till tomorrow. One must have standards you know. Regards Dave
|
|
|
Post by fred on Feb 19, 2015 18:33:24 GMT -6
One thing that has baffled me is some criticism of the book is based not on facts but the choice of words. This is what I refer to when I call a review or a criticism, "subjective." This kind of opinion-piece-- and that is what it is, really; not a serious review-- is not an objective review based on the book's contents and objectives. "Pieces" like this-- which is the "robb/vben" nonsense-- are simply knee-jerk reactions based on injured pride. How dare anyone, especially a publicly-produced "author" call someone's opinions silly or misleading, i. e., fatuous or specious. Well, in my opinion, as stated in the book, they are. I love a book that expands my vocabulary. Fred writes like he expects his reader to be informed and educated. I appreciate that. You have caught the essence of some of my objectives... both of you, Dave and Beth. Mark, as well. I want readers of this book to think about this event. I want them to see all sides, all possibilities, then to understand we should not be citing "blame," but simple human error. This battle should not be viewed as a Custer vs. Benteen/Reno imbroglio, but as a military operation gone awry because of circumstances, poor intelligence, overt risk, lack of understanding, and so on. It is not about my opinion vs. the-other-guy's. That has been the problem since the first book was published: too much speculation. I have used as many first-hand accounts as I could (without boring the hell out of the reader) and I have presented various viewpoints, hoping-- with the aid of the timelines-- the reader would pick the one he is most comfortable with so he can walk away from the book with an understanding of this battle, an understanding that does not include the fiction that one or two personalities were responsible for the debacle, i. e., the death of George Custer and 209 men. This guy "robb/vben" missed the entire point of the book. Like Dave said: donate the damn thing. He will never understand it because he is too wrapped up with his own damaged ego. Best wishes, Fred.
|
|
|
Post by fred on Feb 20, 2015 18:44:15 GMT -6
Has anyone seen the latest exchange between "dropin" and "robb" on the other boards?
Is it possible that anyone who has supposedly been studying this battle for 40 years can be as stupid or as ignorant as this guy "robb"? Their conversation-- such as it is-- has transcended the book: it is no longer about the book.
"Dropin" asked a legitimate question; "robb" responded with a comment that shows an utterly incomprehensible ignorance. I don't want to denigrate the opinions of those who have not served in the military or who have not been in combat. Some of our greatest thinkers-- military and otherwise-- have never served, so to me, that isn't an issue. What is an issue is the utterly bald-faced stupidity of "robb's" reply. It is akin to me offering engineering advice to NASA. This guy has no clue how the military works... not even the basics. Wow!
And people wonder why I dropped off those boards.... I am just at a loss....
Best wishes, Fred.
|
|
|
Post by chris on Feb 21, 2015 10:41:47 GMT -6
Here's my attempt at locating the "gap" in relation to the battlefield road. Image is from Fred's book, "Strategy of Defeat..." published by McFarland and overlayed on a Bing map. Obviously, the Keogh parking area text was added......
|
|
|
Post by dave on Feb 21, 2015 18:40:56 GMT -6
I am rereading chapter 12 for the third time. I am slowly learning and before long will be able to ask an intelligent question. Great read. Regards Dave
|
|
|
Post by Yan Taylor on Feb 22, 2015 5:53:46 GMT -6
Good work Chris, the way you have overlapped the maps really shows how prominent Calhoun hill was as it looks more like an island with sloping ground all around, if I may be so bold in suggesting that the three main incursion points used by the hostiles were Deep Ravine, Calhoun Coulee and Deep Coulee, so between that gap and Calhoun hill should all be regarded as the Keogh sector as that was the ground held by his battalion.
Ian.
|
|
|
Post by chris on Feb 22, 2015 12:24:01 GMT -6
Thanks Ian, Be as bold as you wish. Sure wish I could pinpoint the Wolf Tooth band. So far, it seems they are to the east - but where? Fully agree about the 3 main incursion points - the wide path of Crazy Horse (as shown on some earlier diagrams), never sat well with me. Best, c.
|
|
|
Post by Beth on Feb 22, 2015 13:17:43 GMT -6
Hey Chris, can you do the same thing with the map that shows all the crosses? Page 166?
Beth
|
|
|
Post by chris on Feb 22, 2015 13:29:19 GMT -6
Hey Chris, can you do the same thing with the map that shows all the crosses? Page 166? Beth Beth, I will try. Kindle doesn't show pages numbers but I know what you mean. Best, c.
|
|
|
Post by fred on Feb 22, 2015 13:35:30 GMT -6
Chris,
It seems Wolf Tooth and Big Foot were to the east and came down Medicine Tail Coulee from its eastern reaches.
Best wishes, Fred.
|
|
|
Post by chris on Feb 22, 2015 13:46:52 GMT -6
Chris, It seems Wolf Tooth and Big Foot were to the east and came down Medicine Tail Coulee from its eastern reaches. Best wishes, Fred. Thanks Fred. I was looking to make an image with the likely routes (as Ian mentioned) of Sioux/Cheyenne to initially confront Keogh and go from there. Placing WT and BF is difficult. Going back to your book - again. I try not to loose sight of the fact, all C E F I and L were wiped out close to a mile from the village. Best, c.
|
|
|
Post by dave on Feb 22, 2015 16:06:04 GMT -6
Fred I am on page 131 of your book and just had an epiphany. Gibson's letter to Yates proves beyond a doubt Benteen's sentiments about Custer and his command. He was concerned. That letter has been available for many years yet others try to portray Benteen as a heartless SOB. That many would ignore the letter shows their agendas take precedent over truth. How sad. You time line proves that Benteen did not dawdle as accused. I am really learning and enjoying the ride. Thank you for writing this fine tome. Regards Dave
|
|
|
Post by dave on Feb 23, 2015 15:12:02 GMT -6
Fred I have finished the first reading of your book. I have so many new ideas, information, facts, circumstances, incidents in fact am just plain overwhelmed. I will spend more time organizing all the new data and have a chance to ruminate about the LBH and all that I have learned and read. I must admit that reading the last few chapters and looking at the various time lines, I had such an eerie feeling. I felt like I was with a condemned man on a death watch for last 2 or 3 hours. It was a very powerful and emotional experience for me. That you can put that suspense into a known battle is a credit to your writing ability.
If I can make a suggestion to those who have not purchased Fred's book do not get an e version. You have to have the paper copy to go back and froth from page to notes to timeline and you just can not do that with an e version.
Fred it was a wonderful ride to ride your book and I plan to ship to you for your signature if you don't mind signing a book all marked up with hi liter. Regards Dave
|
|
|
Post by dave on Feb 27, 2015 12:57:18 GMT -6
Fred If I understand correctly "the gap" in Keogh's sector was about 100 yards and he was holding the sector with 61 troops (page 157). Crazy Horse had some 200 warriors (page 151) when he hit the "the gap". Considering the above was "the gap" that large of strategic error? Could Crazy Horse have run over Keogh any where along his sector? Just learning? Regards Dave
|
|