|
Post by Beth on Jan 13, 2015 12:38:10 GMT -6
When is the first time Kanipe's story was recorded? Beth and Chris, 1903. Kanipe wrote an article published in the magazine of the Historical Society of Montana. Walter Camp interviewed him for the first time on June 16 and 17, 1908. Best wishes, Fred. Well that helps explains why he wasn't at the Inquiry then. He can't be questioned about his key part when he never told someone he was key until decades later. To bad he waited until so many people were gone or had hazy memories so they couldn't fact check his claims. Beth
|
|
|
Post by Beth on Jan 13, 2015 13:06:00 GMT -6
I would have thought that two couriers delivering virtually the same message would be pointless, Kanipe and Martini almost had the same mission, Martini had his in writing which makes the difference, Reno also sent out two couriers and to the same destination, but that would probably be out of desperation, if we could determine if Kanipe was a malingerer then we could make better sense out of it all, as Custer would only have sent one man and not two, or he had a change of plan similar to sending NCOs back and too to Benteen. Ian. One of the reasons I come down more on the side of a malingerer is that I have never read anywhere he tried to return to Custer. When he left Custer he would have had no reason to think that he couldn't return. Martini did. If I am wrong with this train of thought, please let me know. Beth Editted to add: Note to self again. Read ahead someone probably covered it better.
|
|
|
Post by Yan Taylor on Jan 13, 2015 13:25:22 GMT -6
Hi Beth; yes if I was in the jury and heard the evidence Fred just posted, then I would be leaning towards the guilty verdict for old “Kanipe”, Fred has explained this more than once and I really should stand my ground and say “malingerer” because the evidence against him is compelling.
Justin, Grey has the F Company detail arriving on Calhoun hill before everyone else, but then he has them everywhere;
Custer sends Company F detail up to the bluffs Company F detail reaches the bluffs and views the village Company F detail on the bluffs Company F detail sent to Luce Ridge. Company F detail sent to Calhoun Hill.
Ian.
|
|
|
Post by welshofficer on Jan 13, 2015 13:50:30 GMT -6
Ian,
Any regiment that rode with its c/o at the head as first target, let alone a c/o who does not share his intentions, would be asking for trouble.
WO
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Jan 13, 2015 13:57:39 GMT -6
Yes Fred that refreshes me on WT/BF. It verifies my memory of what transpired. I do think you are onto something in saying he limited or contained his northern movement from Calhoun Hill, and just possibly, by their presence limited or took away an option or two from Custer.
I also agree that he most probable target for those rounds expended by Keogh was the WT/BF band. The range from Keogh's L-N-C position would preclude I think a waste of ammo on any Indians that might appear on the river bluffs.
Ian: Maneuver forces then and now move with local security out, by either a little or a lot, depending upon situation and terrain. That is the way it is done, and it does not matter who believes or likes it, that is still the way it is done, and that is the end of the story.
If Kanipe was a malinger he was betting prison time on Tom Custer's death. He probably was and the story of being a messenger is after battle bushwa. I am always wary of those that place themselves in the forefront of class reunions. The cheerleaders of 2015 were the wall flowers of 1960. I am also wary of the former football player of 2015 telling us he was far nearer the goal line in the big game of 1960 we lost, especially if his name was Thompson or Martini.
|
|
|
Post by chris on Jan 13, 2015 14:21:15 GMT -6
At the risk of being chided and chastised for being off topic...thanks to Tom and Fred about Kanipe and when his account was documented.
Please carry on - enjoyable thread, even for a sailor! c.
|
|
|
Post by montrose on Jan 13, 2015 18:06:38 GMT -6
This is an extremely valid point. I only wish everyone would accept it. Like DC, I have been harping on this point for years. The jargon is utterly meaningless and irrelevant. Best wishes, Fred. Fred,
I tend to agree on this one in relation to the hostiles, but strictly as opposed to the 7th cavalry and the hostile actions as viewed by the 7th cavalry.
There was a basic localised tribal C+C structure within that village, but I don't think the usage of C+C is helpful because it carries 21st century baggage and concepts in relation to regular armies and strict hierarchical organisation. The hostiles reacted to Reno's assault, and stopped it before turning his left flank. The hostiles also took advantage of GAC's vulnerability on the eastern bluffs post-Ford B. Neither was centrally co-ordinated, but also neither was a mob driven by momentum.
The complication is that certain terms are easily understandable to all, even to many without any military experience. A good example is the ridicule heaped on anybody who believes there was a "fix and flank". So convenience and clarity will always sometimes prevail over perhaps more appropriate language.
WO
There are times I do not even know where to start. 1. Empiricism is a theory which states that knowledge comes only or primarily from sensory experience.[1] One of several views of epistemology, the study of human knowledge, along with rationalism and skepticism, empiricism emphasizes the role of experience and evidence, especially sensory experience, in the formation of ideas, over the notion of innate ideas or traditions;[2] empiricists may argue however that traditions (or customs) arise due to relations of previous sense experiences.[3] Empiricism in the philosophy of science emphasizes evidence, especially as discovered in experiments. It is a fundamental part of the scientific method that all hypotheses and theories must be tested against observations of the natural world rather than resting solely on a priori reasoning, intuition, or revelation. Empiricism, often used by natural scientists, asserts that "knowledge is based on experience" and that "knowledge is tentative and probabilistic, subject to continued revision and falsification."[4] One of the epistemological tenets is that sensory experience creates knowledge. The scientific method, including experiments and validated measurement tools, guides empirical research. 2.The search for truth starts with how do we know, what we know. Using terminology and military concepts to frame a discussion of battle is the way to do business. I guess we could use dance terminology. Reno did a pas de deux in the valley, Sitting Bull a flamenco. What I do not understand is that Fred and DC have been proponents of definitions and common framework for study for years. 3. Here is a example of how military terminology and concepts assist in the study of battle. The Army uses the term OCOKA for terrain analysis. Observation and Fields of Fire Cover and Concealment Obstacles (man made and natural) Key or Decisive Terrain Avenues of Approach www.armystudyguide.com/content/army_board_study_guide_topics/survival/ocoka.shtml The link is to an Army study guide, for specialists trying to make sergeant. We teach OCOKA in basic training and we use it from private to general. If you want to discuss terrain in an engagement, please show me a better framework.
|
|
|
Post by montrose on Jan 13, 2015 18:25:10 GMT -6
Let's consider command and control as how it helps us understand LBH. (Be glad I am not using that vapid C4ISR). Indian C2 was decentralized mix of tribal councils, tribes, sub tribes and families. Warrior societies provided limited organizational and leader frameworks.
One of the theories that float around LBH is that two widely situated actions would freeze Indian C2, where they would not be able to react. This is arrant nonsense. There is no central C2 to freeze. What will happen is that the Indians at each action will respond to their local situation. Reinforcements will move chaotically to either action, or even not move at all.
The Indians reaction at LBH were not a surprise, they were the highest probability reaction of the Indians. The wide separation between the valley and battle ridge actions means all US synergy is zero.
American command at LBH was a disaster. What commands did GAC did to influence the valley fight? Harrington's Charge? The defence of Calhoun Hill? I Company's DIP? E Company's defense of Deep Ravine. The answer is zero, you had a leader who failed to lead. The 7th Cavalry were running around like chickens with their heads cut off. There was no central command, and no control of its operations.
|
|
|
Post by Beth on Jan 13, 2015 18:38:33 GMT -6
Fred,
I tend to agree on this one in relation to the hostiles, but strictly as opposed to the 7th cavalry and the hostile actions as viewed by the 7th cavalry.
There was a basic localised tribal C+C structure within that village, but I don't think the usage of C+C is helpful because it carries 21st century baggage and concepts in relation to regular armies and strict hierarchical organisation. The hostiles reacted to Reno's assault, and stopped it before turning his left flank. The hostiles also took advantage of GAC's vulnerability on the eastern bluffs post-Ford B. Neither was centrally co-ordinated, but also neither was a mob driven by momentum.
The complication is that certain terms are easily understandable to all, even to many without any military experience. A good example is the ridicule heaped on anybody who believes there was a "fix and flank". So convenience and clarity will always sometimes prevail over perhaps more appropriate language.
WO
There are times I do not even know where to start. 1. Empiricism is a theory which states that knowledge comes only or primarily from sensory experience.[1] One of several views of epistemology, the study of human knowledge, along with rationalism and skepticism, empiricism emphasizes the role of experience and evidence, especially sensory experience, in the formation of ideas, over the notion of innate ideas or traditions;[2] empiricists may argue however that traditions (or customs) arise due to relations of previous sense experiences.[3] Empiricism in the philosophy of science emphasizes evidence, especially as discovered in experiments. It is a fundamental part of the scientific method that all hypotheses and theories must be tested against observations of the natural world rather than resting solely on a priori reasoning, intuition, or revelation. Empiricism, often used by natural scientists, asserts that "knowledge is based on experience" and that "knowledge is tentative and probabilistic, subject to continued revision and falsification."[4] One of the epistemological tenets is that sensory experience creates knowledge. The scientific method, including experiments and validated measurement tools, guides empirical research. 2.The search for truth starts with how do we know, what we know. Using terminology and military concepts to frame a discussion of battle is the way to do business. I guess we could use dance terminology. Reno did a pas de deux in the valley, Sitting Bull a flamenco. What I do not understand is that Fred and DC have been proponents of definitions and common framework for study for years. 3. Here is a example of how military terminology and concepts assist in the study of battle. The Army uses the term OCOKA for terrain analysis. Observation and Fields of Fire Cover and Concealment Obstacles (man made and natural) Key or Decisive Terrain Avenues of Approach www.armystudyguide.com/content/army_board_study_guide_topics/survival/ocoka.shtml The link is to an Army study guide, for specialists trying to make sergeant. We teach OCOKA in basic training and we use it from private to general. If you want to discuss terrain in an engagement, please show me a better framework. As a person who isn' exactly up to speed with military terms I must say I don't mind seeing them used as long as you guys don't mind me slowing down the conversation to ask for explaination. One point that I don't agree with that is often said (But I don't recall on which board) is the view that you can only look at LBH as a military action. I feel that things like personalities do come into effect especially when you consider the sources of information being used. For example when you discuss Benteen and Kanipe, which account you consider more correct rides a great deal on who you think is more creditable. Beth
|
|
|
Post by fred on Jan 13, 2015 18:38:54 GMT -6
Well that helps explains why he wasn't at the Inquiry then. Beth, Kanipe played no major role, vis-à-vis, Reno and I think that is why he wasn't part of the inquiry. Remember its goal. The F Company "scouts" are of great interest to me, for they are mentioned only once or twice, but their employment would be typical Custer and would make good military sense... especially using them instead of Indian scouts. One of the reasons I feel they proceeded Custer was the incident at Ford B. One trooper was reported to have lost control of his horse and it plunged into the river, across to the west side, and the soldier was killed, his body later found and identified not far from the ford. This was William A. Brown of F Company. Indian accounts tell us gray horses were at the ford, so it appears to me that maybe, with F Company on the bluffs with Custer, some 350 yards back from the river, that Brown could very easily;y have been part of those advance scouts at the river's edge. Some intriguing stuff. Best wishes, Fred.
|
|
|
Post by Beth on Jan 13, 2015 18:50:29 GMT -6
Well that helps explains why he wasn't at the Inquiry then. Beth, Kanipe played no major role, vis-à-vis, Reno and I think that is why he wasn't part of the inquiry. Remember its goal. The F Company "scouts" are of great interest to me, for they are mentioned only once or twice, but their employment would be typical Custer and would make good military sense... especially using them instead of Indian scouts. One of the reasons I feel they proceeded Custer was the incident at Ford B. One trooper was reported to have lost control of his horse and it plunged into the river, across to the west side, and the soldier was killed, his body later found and identified not far from the ford. This was William A. Brown of F Company. Indian accounts tell us gray horses were at the ford, so it appears to me that maybe, with F Company on the bluffs with Custer, some 350 yards back from the river, that Brown could very easily;y have been part of those advance scouts at the river's edge. Some intriguing stuff. Best wishes, Fred. Very interesting indeed. Beth
|
|
|
Post by fred on Jan 13, 2015 18:56:14 GMT -6
What I do not understand is that Fred and DC have been proponents of definitions and common framework for study for years. Will, I think you misunderstand my point here. I will let DC speak for himself, but my issue is that the battle over jargon has superseded the common sense aspect of the event. I think it all originally began several years ago when conz brought up the business of Reno's move down the valley as an advanced guard. In fact, because of Custer's turn, the Reno action was not an advance guard action. At least by definition. Then it turned to Benteen and his scout. What then happened was that these various actions were twisted into the jargon rather than the simplicity of what they really were and the actions took on legitimacy or illegitimacy of the jargon. In other words, if Benteen's action did not fulfill the requirements of what some were calling it, then Benteen was negligent. You are correct: I am a proponent or correct usage, but don't condemn the individual for straying beyond a definition that might not have applied at the time. Best wishes, Fred.
|
|
|
Post by montrose on Jan 13, 2015 19:05:36 GMT -6
Fred,
Roger.
But let me go micro and just focus on the term advance guard. It was used at the time, and early in the accounts. Beyond focusing on what was said, let's look at what was done. Prior to the lone tepee The Custer and Reno elements were moving side by side down Ash Creek. After the lone tepee, and whatever orders were given to Reno; the Reno element moved forward of the Custer element. This lasted from lone tepee to Ford A, which is on the order of a mile and a half.
So it looks like a duck, and smells like a duck.
And then it became a dodo bird when LTC Custer moved right. I believe he changed his mind. Commander have that right. It was the way he executed his decisions that proved lethal.
William
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Jan 13, 2015 19:47:16 GMT -6
Fred: I don't think anyone said anything about F Company scouts. The reference was to an F Company detail, and from those entries Ian provided it is apparent that which was mentioned was the point detail from the lead company, Company F. Custer or any of his minions had no need for scouts, up on those bluffs. He only had the need for local security of his column.
Scouts have a far different mission than those detailed to local security. The scout is to find and that duty requires they range far ahead. The local security like points and flankers job is simply as the name implies secure and provide short term warning.
Scouts and points ain't the same and this is exactly why proper terminology is important.
|
|
|
Post by welshofficer on Jan 13, 2015 20:01:40 GMT -6
I guess I am somewhat in the middle when it comes to this debate. I expect the correct use of military terminology in relation to the US army, and I get irritated when I read errant nonsense like there was a "fix and flank", but I allow considerable leeway in relation to describing the hostiles actions in non-military terminology. But be under no illusions, there was a basic command and control within "decentralized tribal councils, tribes, sub tribes and families". Warriors deferring to a Gall or a Crazy Horse is C+C. Those two briefly conferring would be C+C. One doing something in reaction to the actions of the other is C+C. C+C does not equal the Prussian General staff or bust.
|
|