|
Post by quincannon on May 11, 2015 19:35:45 GMT -6
It is on this thread somewhere about a week ago. Probably just as easy to Google it, and you will find not only the version Montrose put up but several other versions as well including the one written by Rogers himself. They have been pared down and consolidated over the years. Roger's own is written in typical mid 18th century style, and takes a bit of translation, but you are familiar with the Regency period so you should not have any difficulty.
The giggling concubine losing her head is an admonition to all that anything worth doing in life should be approached in a serious manner. Sometimes it takes two concubines to reach the level of serious thought and attitude required.
|
|
|
Post by Beth on May 11, 2015 20:03:10 GMT -6
Thanks found it. When you said Rogers I thought it was a play on Rogers Rules of Order after all the message also had giggling concubines I believe. I admit that sometimes I find it easier to read and understand Georgian and Regency works but Zeus save me from those verbose Victorian.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on May 11, 2015 20:51:28 GMT -6
I believe Mister. Roberts would be a little put out to credit Robert Rogers with the Rules of Order.
Off with your head. You failed to take me seriously.
Just a quickie trivia I can't resist. Where are Roger's Rangers today. It's iffy but I think it's kind of nice to perpetuate the old folks. No peeking
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on May 11, 2015 22:12:49 GMT -6
When you think about it, I mean really think about it, isn't taking things seriously all we ever talk about here. It's all each one of us seeks as a goal, to find answers for why in this particular battle things were not taken seriously, and as Montrose said today, in this particular unit had never been taken seriously, from the time of its original constitution and activation in 1866, until the chickens came home to roost because of that neglect ten years hence from that date. And all can be laid on the front stoop of the quarters of one man. No other.
|
|
|
Post by Beth on May 11, 2015 23:28:44 GMT -6
I know that it's a cliche to say 'the more I know, the more I know I don't know' but I find it's true when you are talking about LBH. There always seems to be another way to look at it.
Beth
|
|
|
Post by Yan Taylor on May 12, 2015 3:10:08 GMT -6
I just want to pick up on how important training was in winning a battle, this short film shows how the English trained their troops to fight in a different style and this shows how disciplined they were because this new tactic involved the man next to you to kill the man adjacent to your front, which could be pretty scary as if he bottles it or makes a mistake you are dead, so this takes some doing along with courage and off course many hours of disciplined training. The film starts off with a couple of men dressed in funny clothes, you won’t be able to understand a word they are saying, but basically they are making excuses at how they lost, anyway once past them you will come to the interesting part; linkIan.
|
|
|
Post by mac on May 12, 2015 3:40:01 GMT -6
Military ways question. Why does Custer get all the blame for the state of the 7th when Sturgis was the Colonel and Custer's superior? Cheers
|
|
|
Post by Yan Taylor on May 12, 2015 4:11:17 GMT -6
Good question Mac, Custer was the executive and field commanding officer, but Col. Sturgis took over command in 1869 from Col. Jackson and commanded the regiment for around 17 years, but he spent a lot of time on detached service.
Once the seventh had completed its training at Fort Riley in 1866 it mainly served in Kansas, but it could be broken up and sent anywhere, I have read instances of missions as far as the Texas, Missouri and the Rockies. So if Sturgis was on extensive detached service and his regiment was broken up, then training would be down to who commanded each segment.
Maybe someone with a bit more knowledge will be able to help you further.
Ian.
|
|
|
Post by tubman13 on May 12, 2015 4:54:57 GMT -6
Military ways question. Why does Custer get all the blame for the state of the 7th when Sturgis was the Colonel and Custer's superior? Cheers There is plenty of blame to go around. I am sure this question has been asked before, but I have never heard it. The buck for anything involving the regiment should stop with Sturgis. In business he might be called the CEO and Custer COO. Often in business the CEO covers his butt by allowing the blame to fall upon the COO. Glad you asked that.
That question could be extended by asking why were all of the other officers on detached duty not returned to command their companies on a campaign deemed this important. Were these detached officers qualified or just fluff. Sometimes in the Air Force we were able to wrangle "Overage Slots" for qualified people, this almost seems to be the opposite in the 7th. The regiment was under strength in all areas.
You could have opened a can of worms from top to bottom. Was this a case of featherbedding in the officer corps at the expense of the remainder of the fighting force? I am sure that Montrose, Chuck, Carl, Fred, or Colt never saw examples of officers filling slots due to politics or the good old boy system. Chris and I never noticed, being EMS in Navy and AF.
Regards, Tom
|
|
|
Post by Yan Taylor on May 12, 2015 5:39:10 GMT -6
Good points Tom, I don't want to intercede to much with this because I don't know how the army works, but I would expect it was all down to who you knew and how much you wanted to be the perfect soldier.
Another way of looking at is that in life you could use your head and wing your way in to a cushy number, mainly by who you know. or you could be the type who would be dedicated enough to stand on your own two feet and do the hard yards.
Both ways may get you to the top, but the latter would make you a better person and gain you more respect.
Ian.
|
|
|
Post by montrose on May 12, 2015 6:02:49 GMT -6
The Army had two organizations in 1876 They had the normal unit structure of company to regiment to Army. Then they had a separate operational structure of company to post to department to division to Army.
They lacked the manpower and equipment for their operational organization. Remember these were not just administrative organizations. The post/department/division commanders planned and conducted combat operations in their assigned sectors.
So soldiers were taken from their assigned unit structure to feed the needs of the operational Army. Fred's books both show the impact on the 7th. Sturgis had maybe a year actually commanding before LBH. Billy Markland had a post showing the actual dates. The rest of the time he was in charge of the Army Remount Service.
Look at the animal demands for this campaign. He did his job well.
He was decent in the 1877 campaign, though with some grumbling from Benteen. But if we set the bar at not having 5 companies annihilated, it's not hard to do better than GAC.
Just a reminder, look at all the soldiers not in their assigned slots within the 7th. Heavy 'hey, you' details seriously degraded combat power, on the scale of 20%.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on May 12, 2015 7:04:59 GMT -6
This has been covered several times before.
In "reality" you were not commissioned in the Army as a whole, you were commissioned in a slot in one of the 40 regiments of the Army. Everyone at the rank of Colonel an below held a table of organization slot in a regiment. There were no authorized position for general's aides, Chiefs of remount service, commander of the recruiting office in Podunk, New Jersey, or the field inspector of men's rooms in the War Department building. Each of these non-authorized jobs were vital to the functioning of the Army and had to be filled so the business of the Army above the regimental level could be carried on from day to ay.
Lacking authorization there was only one place these functionaries could come from at that is from the regiments themselves. To put it in modern terms the way the Army operated in those days, what would you think of me being slotted as a company commander at Fort Bliss, Texas, but me actually being absent and functioning as a plans officer in the Pentagon, charged with the design and development of tape wrapped Prince Albert cans. You must also consider that perhaps four of the other five officers in "my" company are also detached on other such assignments, and the company at Fort Bliss is being actually commanded by a fairly new Second Lieutenant fresh out of West Point with only one eye.
What kind of combat readiness does this all produce? The kind Congress is willing to pay for. THAT KIND.
|
|
|
Post by AZ Ranger on May 12, 2015 7:08:29 GMT -6
I am confused why anyone would ridicule and/or despise MDMP. You have to have some sort of process with ANY undertaking if you want success. Heck even as kids when we played cowboys and Indians, we would had 'battle plans' Beth Beth It goes beyond what some can understand. Some think they as an individual are superior in thought and can figure things out yet they don't understand military basics. As an enlisted man I learned the Marine Corps method of training troops to become a functioning group. I was impressed (scared) on how well they did it. The goal was to get us to work together and do as ordered without asking questions. The decision making was left to the officers not every individual Marine. For an enlisted man the Sgt. is your go to person on what to do. The officer gives him direction and he carries it out. Sometimes I wondered did the Capt. really say that or was it a method of saying there is no discussion. The point is that after reading what Sgt Ryan and Sgt Culbertson had to say about the troopers and the timber area it seems odd that anyone would defend this particular group of troopers defending the timber area. Culbertson states he didn't think they could have lasted 3 minutes more on the skirmish line. Ryan tells his commander the Indians are in the rear. The commander states it is Custer. Wrong!! Ryan tells him they had to get out of there before Reno gave the order. If one can't understand military basics they are wasting their own time and appear stupid in their comments. You don't have to be in the military or have served to understand but if you don't understand after learning about it the comments are always off the mark. Regards AZ Ranger
|
|
|
Post by Beth on May 12, 2015 11:41:58 GMT -6
I just want to pick up on how important training was in winning a battle, this short film shows how the English trained their troops to fight in a different style and this shows how disciplined they were because this new tactic involved the man next to you to kill the man adjacent to your front, which could be pretty scary as if he bottles it or makes a mistake you are dead, so this takes some doing along with courage and off course many hours of disciplined training. The film starts off with a couple of men dressed in funny clothes, you won’t be able to understand a word they are saying, but basically they are making excuses at how they lost, any way once past them you will come to the interesting part; linkIan. I can't get it to play, I suspect because I'm in the US. I am vastly disappointed I didn't get to hear the Jacobeans. Beth
|
|
|
Post by Yan Taylor on May 12, 2015 12:31:48 GMT -6
Sorry about that Beth, I checked the link after I posted it up and it worked a treat, even when I click on the link in your quote it still plays. I have just been on youtube to see if it was on there, but no. Has anyone else been able to view it? Try this one Beth; link Ian.
|
|