|
Post by rch on Feb 27, 2008 12:14:23 GMT -6
Aside from Trumpeter Dose, the men you would expect to be with the regimental HQ were found on or closer to Custer Hill than Keogh's position. These were the regimental adjutant, sergeant major, chief trumpeter, and standard bearer; Kellogg, Bouyer, B. Custer, Reed, Custer's personal flag bearer, and possibly Dr Lord. While the positions of some of these bodies are disputed, I think that overall they weigh more heavily in support of the idea that Custer was alive and in command on reaching his Hill, than the idea that "the" someone shot at the ford while wearing a buckskin coat was Custer.
rch
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on Feb 27, 2008 14:02:23 GMT -6
Alive, in command, and badly wounded. The worst of all scenarios.
|
|
|
Post by fred on Feb 27, 2008 14:25:37 GMT -6
This is beginning to move into the re-hash territory.
I completely agree with "RCH" and while I accept some of "darkcloud"'s ideas, Custer wounded is not one of them. Custer's body found on LSH does not adequately address the question of why would they move that way if Custer was mortally wounded, especially with Keogh found where he was found. There is no chance, in my mind, that a man like Myles Keogh would have allowed any usurpation of command by Tom Custer or anyone else, if George had been disabled. Even Tom's DOR-- 2Dec75-- made him only 7th out of 8 captains in the regiment. Every argument I have read for a northward move under these circumstances is weak and makes no military or tactical sense. It is the same with the "attack at Ford B while 58% of your troops are a mile back" situation. All those reasons seem to me to be more rationalization than reality.
Best wishes, Fred.
|
|
|
Post by wild on Feb 28, 2008 3:32:00 GMT -6
Fred This is beginning to move into the re-hash territory We are doomed to chase our tails on this subject unless something along the lines of my suggestion is adopted----we should have a thread in which board accepted theories are posted. Only your goodself would have the status to set in train such an arrangement. However I did notice the complete indifference by the board to such a suggesion.Perhaps none of us actually want to give credit to another contributer .Although I hasten to add this is not the case with yourself renowned as you are for distributing much praise and encouragement [and not a few brickbats] .
|
|
|
Post by fred on Feb 28, 2008 5:19:08 GMT -6
I doubt it would work, "wild." I'm in the proverbial doghouse, for one, and for two, I think too many people are concerned they would be taken to task for posting their complete thoughts on the matter. I guess it could be set up with certain ground-rules that could be monitored and enforced-- and I actually wouldn't mind seeing it done. I just don't know how successful it would be. I think the earlier experiment with the "chronology threads" was something of a bust, but that was because we wanted more "proven fact" than theory, so thoughts were necessarily limited. Your idea could certainly work if the guffawing could be eliminated.
Best wishes, Fred.
|
|
|
Post by elisabeth on Feb 28, 2008 6:38:53 GMT -6
Not quite sure if this is what Wild's got in mind, but wouldn't the existing "Battle Theories" board be a possible home for that? I realise that at the moment it's mostly looking at individual episodes ... However, it could be quite useful to list there the main known theories. (If that's what you mean, Wild?) E.g. the Custer wounded/killed at Ford B one, the buffalo hunt/rout/panic one, the Ford D/hostages one, and so on. Seeing them all there side by side might be an aid to sifting the wheat from the chaff, you never know.
|
|
|
Post by wild on Feb 28, 2008 6:40:38 GMT -6
Your idea could certainly work if the guffawing could be eliminated. Right on Fred.Much of it coming from the "the unit was spread out in a bunch"school of tactics.
|
|
|
Post by wild on Feb 28, 2008 6:49:50 GMT -6
Yes Liz something like that. There are some good ideas but they are smothered by the chaff and of course we tend to debate in circles with new posters going over the same old ground. But it would require serious moderation and that is too much like work.
|
|
|
Post by fred on Feb 28, 2008 7:02:24 GMT -6
I think you are correct, Elisabeth. That would be a perfect place for it. I think what "wild" has in mind, however-- please correct me if I am wrong-- is a posting of complete theories, starting at, oh, let's say, the last time Custer was seen or supposedly identified, and culminating at the end. I would imagine it would includes routs, further divisions of command, objectives, reasons, etc. It could even be set up in such a way as to make those points "mandatory." In other words, a poster should have to address certain issues, pre-determined or pre-posted in the thread introduction.
Anyway, I guess it is certainly a workable idea. There is interesting room for discussion because it would be an entire scenario, not just bits and pieces.
Best wishes, Fred.
|
|
|
Post by wild on Feb 28, 2008 10:47:07 GMT -6
Exectly Fred.If a template or framework was established to maintain somesort of comparable order or sequence to which a theory would be required to adhere. But then look at Gray's work and he is only dealing with the time frame. Maybe someday if it's raining and I dont have the price of a pint I might just tackle it.
|
|
|
Post by elisabeth on Feb 28, 2008 10:52:02 GMT -6
Could be. The problem with the "bits and pieces" approach is that while it's been great for analysis of/speculation about individual chunks of action, so much of that requires accepting a poster's theory for the previous or subsequent chunks. For instance, any Battle Ridge scenario stands or falls by whether one agrees with (say) a Ford D foray, or a Co. C charge, or whatever. It might be very good to see coherent start-to-finish scenarios presented as well.
A caveat: I think discussion might be freer and more productive if the putters-forward of theories aren't regarded as espousing them, necessarily -- but merely as putting them forward for consideration as possibilities. (I suspect most of us play out different and entirely contradictory scenarios in our heads from day to day, without ever arriving at total certainty.) The essence should be that the reasoning holds up. As you say, satisfying certain "mandatory" points.
Could get interesting.
|
|
|
Post by fred on Feb 28, 2008 12:18:56 GMT -6
Elisabeth and Wild--
I agree with everything you have put up here. And you are also very right, Elisabeth, about the espousal business. One could just throw something up as an idea. The caveat, however, would be that the theory must still be responsible to certain parameters that would apply to all theories and must be addressed before a continuation or even a posting. The theory would not have to be "approved" ahead of time, but the poster would be required to address these parameters. In other words, no wild speculation (sorry, wild... you know what I mean). I don't really see that as a problem, now that I mull it over a bit more.
Well...
Best wishes, Fred.
|
|
|
Post by bc on Feb 28, 2008 12:24:43 GMT -6
Yes Liz something like that. There are some good ideas but they are smothered by the chaff and of course we tend to debate in circles with new posters going over the same old ground. But it would require serious moderation and that is too much like work. I'm one of those new posters you are referring to that probably goes over the same old ground debating in circles except that this is all new to me. If you don't want me and other new posters involved then say so unless this is a public message board. If you want to set up a select group of people who are experts who are trying to refine their theories, then set up your group through IM and instant message each other without interference from the rest of us newbie riff-raff. The Custer debate will be a circle for eternity and that same old ground we are going over sometimes turns up new information. I don't know if you were just making a general remark without any intent to offend someone or not. Maybe you just caught me on a bad day. I apologize if I took it wrong cause most likely you weren't out to offend anyone. I normally don't bother responding to these types of posts but it just rubbed me wrong and I wanted to defend the other newbies. I've only been here a few months and I see coverage of old ground but it also carries with it a new perspective which helps me in the long run. I just usually try to post some factual information, an analysis of mine, an opinion of mine, or my personal preference which is to crack jokes and kid around whenever I can. I try to debate some things on a limited basis, but, either I don't know enough to carry a debate very far, or I don't really care what the results of the debate will determine, or I would lose the debate, or it doesn't serve any purpose to me to get into a tit for tat or back and forth debate over a minor point. bc - asst. MC/assistant master of chaff
|
|
|
Post by fred on Feb 28, 2008 13:05:49 GMT -6
"BC"--
No, please! Don't get the wrong idea. It is precisely because of guys like you that this is a decent idea. This would-- as I understand it-- allow you to see various scenarios, as well as post whatever you have in mind. The only "chaff" would be when we sort of go off-topic, which we always do, regardless of the thread. One thing always leads to another. We would want to stop that. So, by doing it this way, you or I or Elisabeth or Wild or Darkcloud or Crzhrs or gocav would put up his/her own "scenario," whether that's what he/she believes happened or not. Parameters would be things like, "Custer's objectives"; or "reasons for going to..."; things like that. We would then discuss it, debate weaknesses, strengths, etc., and come to the invariable conclusion that none of us will ever agree that we or someone else has the answer. The hope is similar to what happened to me when I finished reading the RCOI. I saw so many participants in a completely different light than what I originally thought. Benteen's personality was vivid; Doc Porter turned out to be much less a military man and more a doctor than I had thought; Herendeen seemed a little less reliable; DeRudio, more so. The dislike for Reno, while only an undercurrent, was palpable. And on and on.
The whole idea is to teach, to learn, to get people like you who may not be quite as up on this thing as some others, to participate, and to learn. You have already posted some great stuff; some things you've put up have given me reason to pause, to think, to re-hash. That's what this is about. Right now, no theory I have is any better or any more valid than what you can put up here in the next 60 minutes. The only thing I would ask is that you justify your reasons "for" and "why." But then, you would ask the same of me, right?
Besides, guys like me would stick up for his friends. You wouldn't have to be the least bit concerned. We are equals here, BC. You know as much as I do.
Very best wishes, Fred.
|
|
|
Post by wild on Feb 28, 2008 13:48:08 GMT -6
BC I had no intention of suggesting that the board be hogged by the experts and shirt wearers just that with a little more organisation everyone would find it more informative and challenging. I was just looking for a system which took a theory which had been discussed at lenght and raised it to a recognised level of acceptance. I imagine that a template would set out all the influencing factors from Custer's motivation to his relationship with his officers to his tactical assumptions etc . However I'm now begining to think that such an opus would take the form of a tome.
|
|