|
Post by AZ Ranger on Aug 7, 2015 6:11:30 GMT -6
wild
I think the argument was that there was no Indian testimony. I have never heard there are no Indian accounts.
Regards
AZ Ranger
|
|
|
Post by tubman13 on Aug 7, 2015 6:24:40 GMT -6
AZ,
I think we are slicing and dicing with the verbiage. We have plenty of accounts. Some skewed because early on the NA's were afraid to come forward and tell the truth, fear of reprisals. Some were off due to poor translation. We do however have enough solid first hand accounts to give us a solid picture of what happened. Much of what we get is what was important to the NA's, from their perspective.
Regards, Tom
|
|
|
Post by AZ Ranger on Aug 7, 2015 6:34:53 GMT -6
As far as what was in Custer's mind I think that is important and is a common tool used in law enforcement investigations. It doesn't mean you always get it right but it can't be ignored or simply dismissed. That was the hard part for me regarding Custer until Montrose brought forth the book Blink. It deals with rapid decision making and getting it right. Custer's actions were inexplicable for me but realizing that in his mind he potentially had a different view of what was going on helps to understand.
As far as what's in the common crook's mind and what they will do next I believe it helps in making arrests and solving crimes.
Regards
AZ Ranger
|
|
|
Post by AZ Ranger on Aug 7, 2015 6:54:43 GMT -6
AZ, I think we are slicing and dicing with the verbiage. We have plenty of accounts. Some skewed because early on the NA's were afraid to come forward and tell the truth, fear of reprisals. Some were off due to poor translation. We do however have enough solid first hand accounts to give us a solid picture of what happened. Much of what we get is what was important to the NA's, from their perspective.
Regards, TomTom I went through the earlier discussion (years ago) when it was about Indian testimony. There were those that argued their accounts were testimony. I agree that the accounts leave something to be desired for the issues you state but I believe it is an error to say there were no accounts. I think in the military and in law enforcement we make reports that include various statements from witnesses. We do have stand alone witness statements and these would be similar to an account. It's a view point of an individual at a specific location and time. We also have what some call accounts which are more similar to a report than a witness statement. If you separate witness statement accounts from report "accounts" I believe it would help. Regards AZ Ranger
|
|
|
Post by tubman13 on Aug 7, 2015 7:01:22 GMT -6
One of the issues that we kick around is command and control, on the part of the NA's. I tend to think there was plenty command. Sitting Bull and others in the village shepherding the noncombatants to where they needed to go. Crazy Horse, Lame White Man, Gall, Crow King commanding/leading large numbers of warriors into the fray. Control after entering the battle may have been an issue, but those leaders seemed to get the warrior where they wanted them.
I do not think Custer took this interlocking command into account when he was concerned about scattering. Command and control was at least as large an issue for the cavalry on this day, probably larger.
Regards, Tom
|
|
|
Post by wild on Aug 7, 2015 8:33:17 GMT -6
AZ As far as what was in Custer's mind I think that is important and is a common tool used in law enforcement investigations. It doesn't mean you always get it right but it can't be ignored or simply dismisse. How do you assertain what was in the mind of a deceased person ? Our friend Keogh of the adjoining parish claims Custer intended to fix and flank the village. In the light of what you are now saying should we review our critism of his scenario?
I understand [and tubman will correct me here]that there was no written Indian language . And direct interpretation to English was not possible. Cheers
|
|
|
Post by wild on Aug 7, 2015 8:43:16 GMT -6
Hi Tubman
Post by tubman13 on about an hour ago
One of the issues that we kick around is command and control, on the part of the NA's. I tend to think there was plenty command. Sitting Bull and others in the village shepherding the noncombatants to where they needed to go. Crazy Horse, Lame White Man, Gall, Crow King commanding/leading large numbers of warriors into the fray. Control after entering the battle may have been an issue, but those leaders seemed to get the warrior where they wanted them. They had leadership not command and ocntrol, there is a difference . Custer was possibley undone by the culture of command and control. Troops take no action until ordered.
Just in replying to WO and checking something re Isandlwana . Durnford asked the camp commander for two of his companies .Dunford was senior .The Camp CO refused saying he would require a direct order. Compare that with the Benteen/Reno issue.
Cheers
|
|
|
Post by welshofficer on Aug 7, 2015 9:34:07 GMT -6
AZ As far as what was in Custer's mind I think that is important and is a common tool used in law enforcement investigations. It doesn't mean you always get it right but it can't be ignored or simply dismisse.How do you assertain what was in the mind of a deceased person ? Our friend Keogh of the adjoining parish claims Custer intended to fix and flank the village. In the light of what you are now saying should we review our critism of his scenario? I understand [and tubman will correct me here]that there was no written Indian language . And direct interpretation to English was not possible. Cheers Wild, I had hoped that I would never hear those "fix and flank" nonsense words ever again! Reno fixed nobody, and had the combat power to fix nobody. If you want to look at what a "fixing" looks like, take a look at RHQ/F stuck up on LSH with no cover beyond shooting their own horses... GAC rode off miles downstream, to launch a frontal assault across a river barrier against another mass of hostiles. No flanking of Reno's defenders was involved. GAC was not engaging the hostiles opposing Reno. They joined the GAC fight later, after Reno's rout. I will revert more generally later. WO
|
|
|
Post by welshofficer on Aug 7, 2015 10:05:26 GMT -6
Just in replying to WO and checking something re Isandlwana . Durnford asked the camp commander for two of his companies .Dunford was senior .The Camp CO refused saying he would require a direct order. Compare that with the Benteen/Reno issue. Cheers Wild, It's not quite as simple as that. Defence of a camp was a matter for the imperial infantry, at Isandlwana that being the 5 companies of Pulleine's 1/24 and another reinforced company from 2/24. Not for Durnford's reinforcing irregular native cavalry, whilst Thesiger/Glyn proceeded towards Dartnell with the other 6 companies of the 24th. The better analogy with LBH is looking at poor written orders, Thesiger to Pulleine/Durnford via Crealock and GAC to Benteen via Cooke. It was not made clear that Durnford was to assume command of the camp, or what allowance (if any) he had to depart from Thesiger's orders to Pulleine to remain on the defensive. Pulleine allowed one company to move forward. As it was, Durnford triggered the Zulu impi attack a day early and Pulleine did not/could not concentrate his infantry to meet the threat. Instead of pulling his isolated company back, probably because it was covering Durnford's disengagement and fighting retreat, the error of sending it at all was compounded by sending forward another 2 companies to reinforce it. Pulleine probably never realised he was facing the full Ulundi impi until too late. That left the remaining 3 companies of the 24th with far too much terrain to cover, with native infantry deployed at the pivot between them and the advanced/engaged 3 companies of the 24th, so when the ammunition started dwindling and the rifles jamming... WO
|
|
|
Post by wild on Aug 7, 2015 10:05:55 GMT -6
Hi WO As per AZ
As far as what was in Custer's mind I think that is important and is a common tool used in law enforcement investigations. It doesn't mean you always get it right but it can't be ignored or simply dismisse Agree FnF but AZ's above needs clarifying . Cheers
|
|
|
Post by wild on Aug 7, 2015 11:30:23 GMT -6
Hi WO Thanks for that on Isandlwana . My THE ZULU WAR then and now has Durnford taking responsibility for the forces at Isandlwana but Pullaine remaining in command of the camp. And just by the by it has Dartnell disobeying orders and causing the split in the column. Lots of similarities with the LBH . Do you know and not alot of people know this but the company sergeant at Rorke Drift gave an interview to the BBC many years later which was recorded but later disposed of because they thought no one would be interested. And sorry for this but there were more Irish at Rorke's drift than Welsh .In fact I think the regiment was really recruited in England. Cheers
|
|
|
Post by tubman13 on Aug 7, 2015 12:29:03 GMT -6
AZ As far as what was in Custer's mind I think that is important and is a common tool used in law enforcement investigations. It doesn't mean you always get it right but it can't be ignored or simply dismisse.How do you assertain what was in the mind of a deceased person ? Our friend Keogh of the adjoining parish claims Custer intended to fix and flank the village. In the light of what you are now saying should we review our critism of his scenario? I understand [and tubman will correct me here]that there was no written Indian language . And direct interpretation to English was not possible. Cheers Richard,
My expertise ends at numbers, as I had seen those. Have never seen the Cheyenne written word. I am certain that it exists today as the tribes are trying to preserve their history and language. I believe it is phonetically written. I am certain another of our sister boards(American Tribes) would be a wealth of knowledge on this topic.
Regards, Tom
|
|
|
Post by wild on Aug 7, 2015 12:59:06 GMT -6
Roger that Tom
|
|
|
Post by welshofficer on Aug 7, 2015 16:29:19 GMT -6
Hi WO Thanks for that on Isandlwana . My THE ZULU WAR then and now has Durnford taking responsibility for the forces at Isandlwana but Pullaine remaining in command of the camp. And just by the by it has Dartnell disobeying orders and causing the split in the column. Lots of similarities with the LBH . Do you know and not alot of people know this but the company sergeant at Rorke Drift gave an interview to the BBC many years later which was recorded but later disposed of because they thought no one would be interested. And sorry for this but there were more Irish at Rorke's drift than Welsh .In fact I think the regiment was really recruited in England. Cheers Wild, It's a little more complex than that. (1) Dartnell/Lonsdale had undoubtedly exceeded their orders by not returning to Isandlwana, resulting in Thesiger moving forward overnight with 6 companies of 2/24. (2) Durnford was aware that Thesiger had little confidence in him. He tried to do his sweep with his own No.2 Column native troops, the only point of contention with Pulleine being Cavaye's infantry company in support (Durnford, as you say, had requested 2 imperial infantry companies move forward within supporting range and Pulleine had demurred and only agreed to one company proceeding to the ridge line and with 1 platoon from it under Dyson advancing further). (3) The 24th Foot was still the 2nd Warwickshire regiment in 1879. From the 1850s it had been recruiting predominantly from industrial workers in Birmingham and primarily of Irish and Welsh extraction. It established a depot at Brecon in Mid-Wales in 1873, which then became its primary recruiting base. With the Cardwell reforms of 1881, it was formally allocated 5 Welsh counties (Brecknockshire, Montgomeryshire, Monmouthshire, Radnorshire and Cardiganshire; with the counties to the south/south-west being allocated to the Welch regiment and the counties to the north allocated to the Royal Welsh Fusiliers) and took the name of one of the militia battalions that had been under the command of the Officer Commanding the brigade depot at Brecon ("the South Wales Borderers"). WO
|
|
|
Post by wild on Aug 7, 2015 17:03:50 GMT -6
Roger that WO very informative thanks Cheers
|
|