|
|
Post by dan25 on Jun 12, 2016 16:41:22 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by mchlwilson on Jun 13, 2016 9:08:07 GMT -6
Who can blame him for his bitterness?
It's interesting that they are placing both Porter and Sturgis in Deep Ravine.
Also interesting is the perception that the ravine represented "the front" and LSH "the rear". Not true, but Col. Sturgis in his bitterness chose to see it that way.
I doubt that Custer held his Captains back and let the Lieutenants have a crack at it. But I do believe Sturgis is right when he blames Custer as a glory seeker out to restore his professional reputation.
|
|
|
|
Post by jodak on Jun 13, 2016 9:46:18 GMT -6
I'm sure that there are other considerations that might figure into any errors and distortions that occur in this account of Sturgis' thinking, but three immediately occur to me - 1. This was authored only shortly after the battle, when Sturgis was undoubtedly not in full possession of the accurate details of what occurred (we still argue about much of it), and he may have only been relating things as he currently understood them. 2. His understanding and objectiveness were probably clouded by the loss of his son. 3. The author may not have related things exactly as Sturgis did but put his own interpretation on Sturgis' words. The tone of the article is very sensational in nature, which I think was fairly normal for the times, and intended to foster interest. |
|
|
|
Post by mchlwilson on Jun 13, 2016 10:55:55 GMT -6
I'm sure that there are other considerations that might figure into any errors and distortions that occur in this account of Sturgis' thinking, but three immediately occur to me - 1. This was authored only shortly after the battle, when Sturgis was undoubtedly not in full possession of the accurate details of what occurred (we still argue about much of it), and he may have only been relating things as he currently understood them. 2. His understanding and objectiveness were probably clouded by the loss of his son. 3. The author may not have related things exactly as Sturgis did but put his own interpretation on Sturgis' words. The tone of the article is very sensational in nature, which I think was fairly normal for the times, and intended to foster interest. Well said. I agree. I would also say that it seems unlikely that Col. Sturgis would ever change his mind about Custer. After the bitterness set in, it seems doubtful new information would change his perception of the man. |
|
|
|
Post by jodak on Jun 15, 2016 9:51:31 GMT -6
One of Sturgis' comments in the article caught my attention, as it is similar to the one expressed by General Wolsey in regard to the numerous Victoria Crosses awarded to the defenders of Rorke's Drift.
Sturgis: "What credit is he entitled to for fighting when attacked? Even a spider or an ant will turn when trod upon." Wolsey: "It is monstrous making heroes of those who, shut up in buildings at Rorke's Drift, could not bolt and fought like rats for their lives, which they could not otherwise save".
While I don't necessarily agree with the sentiments expressed, I understand the point that both men were making - that the soldiers involved were like so many cornered rats that had no choice but to fight for their lives to their utmost, with bravery having little to do with it. Modern historian Victor Hanson's take on this as follows - "Modern critics suggest such lavishness in commendation was designed to assuage the disaster at Isandhlwana and to reassure a skeptical Victorian public that the fighting ability of the British soldier remained unquestioned. Maybe, maybe not, but in the long annals of military history, it is difficult to find anything quite like Rorke's Drift, where a beleaguered force, outnumbered forty to one, survived and killed twenty men for every defender lost." The same could probably be said in regard to the Medals of Honor awarded for actions at the LBH. Although those were not directly related to fighting and the recipients apparently did have a choice as to whether or not to participate in the water detail, it could be construed that they were intended to reassure the public as to the nobility and fighting ability of the American soldier and deflect attention from the disaster. |
|
|
|
Post by dave on Jun 15, 2016 13:59:37 GMT -6
I have always heard from veterans that the true heroes were never recognized because they died defending/protecting others so there were few if any witnesses to their deeds. I imagine the guys who deserve medals are the last ones asking for them or even caring. I think back to John Bradley's son stating they did not know their dad was awarded the Navy Cross on Iwo Jima and only discovered it after his death.
Regards
Dave
|
|
