shaw
Full Member
Posts: 187
|
Post by shaw on Sept 7, 2015 13:07:16 GMT -6
Good one. Some similarities. Lucan, who was Lord Cardigan's commander and brother in law disliked him and vice versa. He didn't support Cardigan and the Light Brigade with the Heavy Brigade which was nearby. Blunder or not, Lucan was in place to send the Heavy Brigade down the valley. He didn't see the reason or just decided not to. "Lucan himself was to follow with the Heavy Brigade. Although the Heavy Brigade was better armoured and intended for frontal assaults on infantry positions, neither force was remotely equipped for a frontal assault on a fully dug-in and alerted artillery battery—much less one with an excellent line of sight over a mile in length and supported on two sides by supporting artillery batteries providing enfilading fire from elevated ground. The semi-suicidal nature of this charge was surely evident to the troopers of the Light Brigade, but if there were any objection to the orders, it was not recorded." en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charge_of_the_Light_Brigade#The_ChargeThis was also borne out in "The Reason Why", a detailed book written about the famous charge. The major difference being that the Heavy Brigade on that day was not under recent attack as Reno and Benteen had been.
|
|
|
Post by fred on Sept 7, 2015 13:19:42 GMT -6
Ramblings from the newbie but I hope this adds a viable dimension to the topic. You may be a "newbie," that is one hell of a good post!!! I think this and the Reno-drunk business may be the two issues coalescing into the biggest argument points about the whole shebang. Well... I guess I have to add Benteen's movements and the sojourn atop Reno Hill, but for the time being these two rule the roost. If you notice, most experienced combat officers take the viewpoint Custer disobeyed rather than obeyed; and that they were in fact orders, as opposed to anything else. Those arguing otherwise are usually civilians, used to finding any sort of exonerating evidence. Anyway, it wears me out, especially when the pomposity sets in and the incredible rationalizing begins. Marvelous post! Best wishes, Fred.
|
|
|
Post by fred on Sept 7, 2015 13:20:45 GMT -6
... oh, and I may also add, don't get bogged down over there. It'll wear you out and drive your crazy with the distortions.
Best wishes, Fred.
|
|
|
Post by edavids on Sept 7, 2015 14:09:23 GMT -6
... oh, and I may also add, don't get bogged down over there. It'll wear you out and drive your crazy with the distortions. Best wishes, Fred. While the concern is appreciated, I had mentioned in my first ever post that I usually go to the other board for "entertainment" purposes. There are several excellent posters over there and I'm realizing that several people on this board frequent the other. For the record - I'm aware that the cavalry v. infantry mindset is a fabrication, Reno's supposed "drunkenness" anywhere from an excuse to a fallacy and the moderator over there will promote and praise anything anti-Reno. I know how Zulu Warriors fought, am aware of Edward Braddock's failures at Fort Duquesne and see no likenesses between the Wagon Box fight and Reno's timber position. Benteen did not dawdle (IMHO) but I will acknowledge grounds for discussion and controversy on whether or not it was his duty to support Reno (and relinquish his command?) or continue on to "save" Custer's command. I will stop short of any personal attacks on the 3 primary posters over there who seem to want to convince us that Custer's **** didn't stink. One served his country, one is obviously very intelligent and has dedicated a chunk of his life to study LBH (albeit also to prove Reno as the villain), and the other is too biased to clearly see the intent behind Terry's LOI and other matters. I have no reason to disparage the messengers but the messages are very flawed IMHO. I've even been to the CusterWest site, which I believe no longer exists and is now custeroverblog(?) I always found it interesting how there is no way to respond to any of that David's claims that I could find. All the above is "for what it's worth" - David
|
|
|
Post by edavids on Sept 7, 2015 14:12:08 GMT -6
David Lord Raglans order to the Light Brigade 'Lord Raglan wishes the cavalry to advance rapidly to the front - follow the enemy and try to prevent the enemy carrying away the gunsTake what you will from it. Cheers Well put, Wild. Lord Raglan has made his point much more professionally and in a gentlemanly fashion than "Goddammit charge the bastards and make them eat dirt!!!). IMHO of course.
|
|
|
Post by fred on Sept 7, 2015 14:45:53 GMT -6
All the above is "for what it's worth" - David It is worth a lot. For a newcomer, you have an extraordinary grasp of this whole thing. I must tell, David, I am impressed... not easy to do. And yes, several of us post there as well; we too appreciate humor. And if you knew more about this Griffith guy, you would be amazed at how prescient your observations really are. It is marvelous what a little Googling can do!!! Right now, whether one believes it or not, most of his posts are aimed at me. He and I have had this out before; the difference now, is I no longer respond to anything he posts. Actually, I am rather surprised he even mentioned my name-- I guess that was to see if he could get me to respond. I will respond to Robb, but no one else. Robb and I have developed a "working" relationship. Anyway, as I have said, I am delighted to see you here, on these boards. Best wishes, Fred.
|
|
|
Post by edavids on Sept 7, 2015 15:02:32 GMT -6
Thank you Fred. You've handled his jabs with a great deal more class than Scarface/Scarface2/A**hole5 and other monikers did with Quincannon firing away at him on this board. I have no interest in Griffith or his opinions about LBH and I am sure he would feel the same of mine.
As far as my grasp; I LOVE history, especially military history and love reading about it. Favorites are Civil War, both Battles of the Atlantic and LBH off an on for many years but really caught the bug 1-2 years ago. I am far more interested in "why" than finger pointing. No military background except as a "Navy Junior" from 1956-68 when Pop retired. You and I do share one thing in common - I believe you were a Wall Streeter in NYC while I spent a number of years on "Madison Avenue". It is a pleasure being part of this board and yes, I can take broadsides too when I'm wrong.
Now - back to LBH!
|
|
|
Post by dave on Sept 7, 2015 15:24:27 GMT -6
Of course what I failed to mention above, and for the sake of anyone not familiar with ACW - Ewell took "if practicable" a little too literally and failed to carry out the assault. I believe this was Ewell's first battle as a Corps commander having been pressed into service after Stonewall Jackson's untimely demise at Chancellorsville. The speculation is that Jackson would know exactly what Lee wanted despite any wording anomalies while Ewell missed the boat on this one. The Day 1 partial victory turned into the Day 2 stalemate leading to the Day 3 catastrophe of Pickett's Charge. Clear as mud? Best, David David Two very articulate and accurate posts regarding the Gentlemen's rules of writing orders in the 18th century. A.P. Hill's lackadaisical obeying of Lee's orders at Gettysburg showed the crying need for Lee to have a larger staff and plainer speaking. However, if you look at the orders of a man who was not a Gentlemen you will see clarity of intent and demand for action. N.B. Forrest, was known for his use of aphorisms, such as "hit 'em on the ends", at Parker's Crossroads where he was surprised and surrounded he ordered "Charge ’em both ways” and the most famous "Get 'em skeered and keep the skeer on 'em".An excerpt from his Farewell address sums up the man himself "I have never, on the field of battle, sent you where I was unwilling to go myself; nor would I now advise you to a course which I felt myself unwilling to pursue."
Plain speaking from a man who went right at the enemy. In some ways he reminds me of Steve and Dan's and every Marine's hero, Chesty Puller, who also spoke plainly and went up the middle at the enemy with his troops nearly at the front. Regards Dave
|
|
|
Post by edavids on Sept 7, 2015 16:08:27 GMT -6
Of course what I failed to mention above, and for the sake of anyone not familiar with ACW - Ewell took "if practicable" a little too literally and failed to carry out the assault. I believe this was Ewell's first battle as a Corps commander having been pressed into service after Stonewall Jackson's untimely demise at Chancellorsville. The speculation is that Jackson would know exactly what Lee wanted despite any wording anomalies while Ewell missed the boat on this one. The Day 1 partial victory turned into the Day 2 stalemate leading to the Day 3 catastrophe of Pickett's Charge. Clear as mud? Best, David David Two very articulate and accurate posts regarding the Gentlemen's rules of writing orders in the 18th century. A.P. Hill's lackadaisical obeying of Lee's orders at Gettysburg showed the crying need for Lee to have a larger staff and plainer speaking. However, if you look at the orders of a man who was not a Gentlemen you will see clarity of intent and demand for action. N.B. Forrest, was known for his use of aphorisms, such as "hit 'em on the ends", at Parker's Crossroads where he was surprised and surrounded he ordered "Charge ’em both ways” and the most famous "Get 'em skeered and keep the skeer on 'em".An excerpt from his Farewell address sums up the man himself "I have never, on the field of battle, sent you where I was unwilling to go myself; nor would I now advise you to a course which I felt myself unwilling to pursue."
Plain speaking from a man who went right at the enemy. In some ways he reminds me of Steve and Dan's and every Marine's hero, Chesty Puller, who also spoke plainly and went up the middle at the enemy with his troops nearly at the front. Regards Dave Agreed and I too am a huge admirer of Forrest. Great thought.
|
|
|
Post by Beth on Sept 7, 2015 17:11:23 GMT -6
Of course what I failed to mention above, and for the sake of anyone not familiar with ACW - Ewell took "if practicable" a little too literally and failed to carry out the assault. I believe this was Ewell's first battle as a Corps commander having been pressed into service after Stonewall Jackson's untimely demise at Chancellorsville. The speculation is that Jackson would know exactly what Lee wanted despite any wording anomalies while Ewell missed the boat on this one. The Day 1 partial victory turned into the Day 2 stalemate leading to the Day 3 catastrophe of Pickett's Charge. Clear as mud? Best, David David Two very articulate and accurate posts regarding the Gentlemen's rules of writing orders in the 18th century. A.P. Hill's lackadaisical obeying of Lee's orders at Gettysburg showed the crying need for Lee to have a larger staff and plainer speaking. However, if you look at the orders of a man who was not a Gentlemen you will see clarity of intent and demand for action. N.B. Forrest, was known for his use of aphorisms, such as "hit 'em on the ends", at Parker's Crossroads where he was surprised and surrounded he ordered "Charge ’em both ways” and the most famous "Get 'em skeered and keep the skeer on 'em".An excerpt from his Farewell address sums up the man himself "I have never, on the field of battle, sent you where I was unwilling to go myself; nor would I now advise you to a course which I felt myself unwilling to pursue."
Plain speaking from a man who went right at the enemy. In some ways he reminds me of Steve and Dan's and every Marine's hero, Chesty Puller, who also spoke plainly and went up the middle at the enemy with his troops nearly at the front. Regards Dave One thing that has to always be remembered when reading writings from history is that meaning and importance of individual words change with time. It makes it difficult at times to really weigh what is being said. Something that might not seem plain to us in 2015 might have been very clear in its meaning and intent in the mid 1800's. If you don't believe how much things change, try to explain to a teen today the popular slang, entertainment (radio, TV, movies...) and book from your own teen years--especially when it comes to things that were just from a shared common culture. I can speak with authority that my teens are totally lost watching "The Brady Bunch" because they don't understand how to use the slang and don't have a clue who Davy Jones was.
|
|
|
Post by dave on Sept 7, 2015 17:40:12 GMT -6
Oh Yeah, that's the guy who has the locker at the bottom of the sea,right? Or is it that little Brit kid who sang with the Monkees who my old girl friend thought was "Grovvy"? Regards Dave
|
|
|
Post by edavids on Sept 7, 2015 17:59:46 GMT -6
LOL Beth & Dave. At the risk of sounding like a BROKEN RECORD - well put. (Try broken record out on your kids or grandkids - talk about separated by the same language!!!!)
|
|
|
Post by Beth on Sept 7, 2015 18:11:57 GMT -6
Oh Yeah, that's the guy who has the locker at the bottom of the sea,right? Or is it that little Brit kid who sang with the Monkees who my old girl friend thought was "Grovvy"? Regards Dave You dated Marsha Brady?
|
|
|
Post by fred on Sept 7, 2015 18:19:32 GMT -6
Thank you Fred. You've handled his jabs with a great deal more class than Scarface/Scarface2/A**hole5 and other monikers did with Quincannon firing away at him on this board. I have no interest in Griffith or his opinions about LBH and I am sure he would feel the same of mine. As far as my grasp; I LOVE history, especially military history and love reading about it. Favorites are Civil War, both Battles of the Atlantic and LBH off an on for many years but really caught the bug 1-2 years ago. I am far more interested in "why" than finger pointing. No military background except as a "Navy Junior" from 1956-68 when Pop retired. You and I do share one thing in common - I believe you were a Wall Streeter in NYC while I spent a number of years on "Madison Avenue". It is a pleasure being part of this board and yes, I can take broadsides too when I'm wrong. David, I got out of the service, totally, in 1972, after 10 years. I got a job on Wall Street that year, eventually retiring in 1994. I did quite well, but got kicked around too much with all the mergers and acquisitions. It was a tough time: 11 firms in 22 years, and when you consider I spent a little over seven years with Donaldson, Lufkin, and Jenrette, that becomes 10 firms in 15 years. In one stretch I was with 5 companies in 53 weeks. And for a number of years my commute ran 6 hours a day, minimum, subject to the Long Island Railroad and the NYC subways. During the blizzard of '78, it took me 26 hours to get home. Back in 2010, I got the itch to return, so I took all the tests over again, got a job with Morgan Stanley (a very nice firm), then got wracked with prostate cancer; spinal surgery; and my wife falling down the stairs and shattering her ankle: "Sorry boys! I've enjoyed about all of this I can stand" and walked out in 2012, grateful for the return opportunity, but no thanks. Plus, the business was unrecognizable from the "old days." I imagine Madison Avenue wasn't a lot different. And people wonder why I'm grouchy. During that snowstorm, when I got homes after that 26-hour ordeal my (ex-)wife yelled, "Where have you been?" Oh, really? Best wishes, Fred.
|
|
|
Post by edavids on Sept 7, 2015 18:45:33 GMT -6
Thank you Fred. You've handled his jabs with a great deal more class than Scarface/Scarface2/A**hole5 and other monikers did with Quincannon firing away at him on this board. I have no interest in Griffith or his opinions about LBH and I am sure he would feel the same of mine. As far as my grasp; I LOVE history, especially military history and love reading about it. Favorites are Civil War, both Battles of the Atlantic and LBH off an on for many years but really caught the bug 1-2 years ago. I am far more interested in "why" than finger pointing. No military background except as a "Navy Junior" from 1956-68 when Pop retired. You and I do share one thing in common - I believe you were a Wall Streeter in NYC while I spent a number of years on "Madison Avenue". It is a pleasure being part of this board and yes, I can take broadsides too when I'm wrong. David, I got out of the service, totally, in 1972, after 10 years. I got a job on Wall Street that year, eventually retiring in 1994. I did quite well, but got kicked around too much with all the mergers and acquisitions. It was a tough time: 11 firms in 22 years, and when you consider I spent a little over seven years with Donaldson, Lufkin, and Jenrette, that becomes 10 firms in 15 years. In one stretch I was with 5 companies in 53 weeks. And for a number of years my commute ran 6 hours a day, minimum, subject to the Long Island Railroad and the NYC subways. During the blizzard of '78, it took me 26 hours to get home. Back in 2010, I got the itch to return, so I took all the tests over again, got a job with Morgan Stanley (a very nice firm), then got wracked with prostate cancer; spinal surgery; and my wife falling down the stairs and shattering her ankle: "Sorry boys! I've enjoyed about all of this I can stand" and walked out in 2012, grateful for the return opportunity, but no thanks. Plus, the business was unrecognizable from the "old days." I imagine Madison Avenue wasn't a lot different. And people wonder why I'm grouchy. During that snowstorm, when I got homes after that 26-hour ordeal my (ex-)wife yelled, "Where have you been?" Oh, really? Best wishes, Fred. Anyone who spent any time in the NYC Metro Area has to have 1) A weather story; 2) A commuting story and 3) a crime story. I lived in Northern NJ; working in NYC for 15 of my 33 years there. I moved to that area in 1979, got into advertising because I could type 60 wpm on an IBM Selectric 2 typewriter and the rest is history. Was with 2 different ad agencies, 2 newspapers, a publishing company of a different sort and spent 11 years with LexisNexis in their law firm marketing division before a big layoff 2 years ago. There are virtually no similarities between the ad world of 1988 and 2015 with the power of the Internet. In 2012 decided it was a good time to change lifestyles, hence Colorado and not looking back. Had stops before NJ in (ascending order) San Diego, Carmel, Annandale VA, the US Naval Surface Weapons Lab in Dahlgren VA (16" guns make a lot of noise!!) and 11 years in Columbus OH. 1) - Weather - 30" of snow in 1994 or 1995 shutting down the whole area. Watched the whole thing from my 16th floor apartment. 2) Commuting - through Hoboken Terminal during a Nor'Easter in 1996 or so. Had to slog thru knee-deep Hudson River water in the terminal to get to a bus and get to work 4 hours late. 3) Crime story - stopped a pickpocket on the subway in 1992. I kept my wallet, caused him a little bit of pain, no one got hurt and hopefully that individual found a more gainful way to make a living. Good swapping stories with you. PS - I think I'm one of the babies in this forum 59 years old and not quite ready to retire.
|
|