What is the Best OBJECTIVE LBH Book?

[crzhrs]

For me it's CUSTER'S LUCK by Edgar Stewart. No bones to pick . . . no agenda . . . no Reno COI conspiracy . . . no who was lying . . . no who was drunk . . . just the facts, ma'am . . . and a few what ifs.

[fred]

Horse--

No opinions?

[crzhrs]

Ah Fred:

<No Opinions?>

CUSTER'S LUCK, or am I missing something in your post?

[Treasuredude]

crzhrs said:

Ah Fred:

<No Opinions?>

CUSTER'S LUCK, or am I missing something in your post?

CUSTER'S LUCK is also one of my favorites. I read it years ago but still pick it up and page through it on occasion.

[Jim]

WELL, if FRED isn't responding, then I will, because of his recommendation!!! "Archaeology, History, and Custer's Last Battle", by Richard Allan Fox, Jr., has got to be one of the BEST on the Market!!! -- at least of my 150+ books.

Jim

P.S. - I don't know if Fred get's "Kick-Backs" on these recommendations!?!?!?

[George Armstrong Custer]

For me the best up-to-date resume of the state of battle research has got to be Brust, Pohanka & Barnard's Where Custer Fell. This book spells out with clarity what is known beyond any reasonable doubt. As to the rest, it honestly indicates what is speculation. And where the authors occasionally and cautiously suggest the most likely scenario from competing versions, they clearly flag these as speculation as opposed to fact. The book doesn't favor one personality over another. And whilst it takes into account what is of undoubted value from the archaeological work done on the field, it does not hold this up as sufficient to build an unassailable paradigm of what happened at LBH. The authors' collective grasp of the battlefield's geography in relation to the battle, in combination with the historical background is admirable, and in my opinion will stand as close to definitive for a long time to come.

Fox, I'm afraid, very much does run to an agenda, at least in my view. That agenda is obviously that archaeology on the field from the 80's on can solve the outstanding questions of the battle's course. I'm far from convinced of this; and though I'm happy to admit the value of Fox's work, I think he extrapolates too much from the yield of a very disturbed archaeological site.

Ciao,
GAC

[AZ Ranger]

GAC
I agree with your conclusions on Fox. There is a difference between forensics and archeology. Although some forensic techniques were used the conclusions drawn were not at the same level of acceptance for evidence. Identifying that a particular firearm left markings on a cartridge is forensic evidence and can be repeated by others identifying the cartridges. The firearms themselves in the most part were not recovered. We don't know who fired them only a guess. Direction of travel is also a guess. Did a trooper fire it or did a Indian pick it up from a dead trooper and then followed the troopers remaining alive. There are to many alternatives that are plausible to make direction and the shooter not acceptable as fact or evidence. Whereas the cartridge cases can only be identified as being fired from the same firearm but at least is repeatable in regards to fact or evidence. There was observed shooting into the ground by Indians after the battle. Which firearms were they using? Thier newly acquired Springfields and Colts SAA?

[fred]

Sorry for being a little late on this thread, but somehow I missed once I made that very obtuse post. All I meant, Horse, was did Stewart offer any opinions. I have the book, read it back in the '80s, but remember nothing. So, after I finished my current stack, I will once again tackle Stewart.

Jim is right about my opinion of Fox' book. It is my favorite. (Again-- GAC-- I have the Brust/ Barnard/ Pohanka book, but, as usual, have not gotten to it yet.)

I think most people don't fully grasp the Fox book. It's not that he has told us anything we don't already know (he has, but that is not what is really important), it is just the way he presents it that impresses me. His major contribution-- to me-- is not even the archeology. All that is, is a means of proof, however limited it is & it reflects Fox' opinion. What is important to me is the following: (1) his thesis about panicking; (2) his thoughts on how the battle actually began, i.e., C Company's charge into Calhoun Coulee; (3) his belief Custer was on the offensive, virtually throughout.

I categorize writers of this battle in three ways (sorry, but I guess that is the German in me!!): (1) researchers; (2) chronologists; & (3) theorists.

To me, Bruce Liddic is a chronologist; so was Jim Willert. Vern Smalley would fall into the "researcher" category. So would Camp, so would Graham. Fox would NOT. Fox, to me, is a theorist. Some guys will straddle the lines, blurring my definitions. Liddic does that from time to time: chronologist to theorist. All-- to me-- are equally important; w/out one, you cannot have the others. Fox' value is not in WHAT he found; it is not even in the chronology of how he interpreted events. His value is in how he perceived the battle in its unwinding phases. The Deep Ravine/ Cemetery Ravine issue is not important, per se. What IS important is WHY men would have gone to Deep Ravine. If they panicked, it would make sense & support the Fox thesis; if they fought, stood their ground, then it doesn't make sense & would tend more to Michno who doesn't believe there was that much panic. If you have read my previous posts on another thread, you would see that this area-- to me-- is Fox' biggest weakness.

I have been told-- off these boards-- that Fox has more & almost irrefutable proof that those men DID die in Deep Ravine. Well, if he has, then it backs up HIS thesis of utter & sheer panic. If Michno is correct & those men died more toward Cemetery Ravine, it shows ME that the panic was not quite as pervasive-- in that part of the battlefield-- as Fox would have us believe. This might have been because of the presence of senior officers such as Smith, Yates, & the 2 Custers. The panic along Keogh's sector was probably real & probably occurred because Keogh was either dead or incapacitated. Notice how Fox points out the skirmish lines on Calhoun Hill. Calhoun was a strong officer & took charge. What happened to C Company? Was it because Harrington may have been killed early in the battle or because that unit was utterly overwhelmed?

THIS is the importance of Fox' book. To me, no other book ever written has made me THINK as much as this one. Fox has brought a very clever & very thoughtful mind to this business. It is the controversy he provides us that is so important. I wish he would follow it through w/ another & I wish we could see more archeological work on places like Luce, MTC, SSR, Weir, the divide, along Reno Creek... . I would become a slave to it!

Best wishes,
Fred.

[Scout]

Boy Gac...you said it perfectly about Fox. I agree totally. The LBH is a very disturbed crime scene. To much stuff has been dug up or hauled off through the years to make the kind of deductions he makes, usually based entirerly on what he has found. He ignores all other information. fred old boy, just because we don't agree with him dosen't mean we don't 'grasp' what he's saying. As a 'detective' he relies only on physical evidence and ignores eyewitness accounts and testimonies. I do agree with some of what he says, but in the long run cannot except his investigative mode.

Best Wishes,
Scout

[fred]

Scout--

Maybe we are missing the eye contact or the inflection, but I do not recall saying you or anyone else did not "grasp" what he was saying because you don't agree w/ him. And I have read his book 7 times & can't quite agree w/ you that he ignores all other testimony. He simply posits a theory based on his reading of the evidence he found. Not a lot different from anyone else. What would you like him to do, ignore it just because it is disturbed? No one is going to court over this.

Best wishes,
Fred.

[elisabeth]

Fred --

I like your identification of Fox as a theorist. That's a really helpful pointer as to how best to read him, perhaps. I think what worries some of us with regard to his book is the extent to which it's claimed -- not necessarily by him, but by many who cite him -- that because it's "science", it's unarguably the definitive truth about what happened in the battle. Seeing it the way you describe it, simply as a workable theory spun from the limited physical evidence, is another matter. His ideas about the flow of the battle (especially the C Company episode) and the offensive posture make a great deal of sense.

What worries me somewhat about the book is the heady combination of archaeology plus combat psychology theory plus zeitgeist. The archaeology: brilliantly done, but the conclusions drawn from it take too little account of a) relic-hunting, b) contamination, c) reality -- as in all the points azranger raises above. Combat psychology: he seems to rely an awful lot on S. L. A. Marshall, who's been more or less exploded. And having once latched onto the "bunching" theory, he seems reluctant to consider any of the other possible explanations for body groupings. (For instance, men stepping up to fill in the gaps in a decimated skirmish line would present the same appearance as a skirmish line that had suffered reduced intervals through bunching. Or a concentrated line for volley firing. Or a gallant "shield-wall" to protect a stricken leader or a bunch of wounded. For that matter, collecting the wounded in an ad hoc field hospital or place of apparent safety would give the impression of a "bunch". He's too certain, I feel.) And the zeitgeist: well, look at the glee with which the reduced-to-headlines version of his theories was greeted -- "whoopee, now we can not only hate Custer as a genocidal maniac, we can spit on his men as well". In an anti-heroic age, the "they were all rubbish" thesis suited a lot of people very well.

Which isn't to say he may not be right. But "may" is the operative word. It's not Fox's fault that his work is so impressive as to have driven all other theories out of the window for now ... but it's valuable to be reminded that it is just a theory!

[fred]

Elisabeth--

I am in complete agreement w/ you & it is why I say that I am not in 100% lock-step w/ Fox, especially about, (1) the Cemetery Ravine, Deep Ravine issue, & (2) the extent of the panic. I do believe there was panic, simply because it was a terrible fight & you will always have panic in that situation. The C Company men were found all over the battlefield & some of I's were, as well. That leads me to think, "panic." Leads me! Doesn't say I'm drinking the water (!), just leads me there. I am not sure I will ever be convinced of some of these things, as much as I would like to lead myself to believe.

As for S.L.A. Marshall, I discredited that man many, many years ago. Even David Hackworth, whom Marshall befriended, grew to dislike the man intensely.

I am also not terribly big on the "science" aspect of almost anything. Science, to me, is merely a guide. You may be able to use it as a definitive measurement in things like police work, but archeology is another matter. And Scout is correct about emphasizing the amount of destruction caused by treasure-seekers. Fox does allow for that, however, just as he allows for testimony. This is what bothers me about some of the criticism of him. Like I said, I have read his book 6 or 7 times & he does make these allowances. He does cite testimony, he does allow for pilferage. Maybe not enough in the eyes of some, but then who has the agenda?

I do not expect to convince anyone regarding my own personal theories. I am simply in this thing for my own satisfaction of coming as close to the truth as I can. The problem I see w/ this Website-- as w/ so many things in life-- is there is little give & take, few people are willing to be talked out of pet theories. It smacks too much of their own personal insecurities & the fear of admitting they might have been wrong. Ego never stops interfering. It is the exact same mentality you have w/ corporate cover-ups & the lying about certain atrocitites that might have occurred in a place like Iraq. Cover it up! There is no difference. When is the last time you can remember someone taking the responsibility for his or her actions? It is always the other guy. Of course, that is true of so many of these writers, as well. And incidentally, Elisabeth, you do not fall in that category. I would like to be able to say I do not, either. Fox could show some people videos of the fight-- agreeing or not w/ his own theories-- & these people would still not believe they were incorrect. It is that kind of rock-headedness I cannot abide.

To be brutally honest w/ you, it is sort of like the current American administration.

Best wishes,
Fred.

[Lawtonka]

Hey Fred and Elisabeth - Interesting subject. I find the archeology very interesting. When I started my Custer library back around '85, nearly all of the first books I purchased were on the archeology. As a mater of fact, I think the first one was the National Geographic of 1986 featuring "Trooper Mike"

I agreer with you Fred on the "theory" aspect, and it has always bugged me that only the official recoveries seems to be the basis of these theories.

One of the first things I noticed was the "lack of evidence" on Last Stand Hill. Man, don't you know that early visitors to the battlefield concentrated around Last Stand HIll. Just like today, I know that there are so many people out there who visit the battlefield that never even drive down to the hilltop, much less the valley fight area. My point is, for those who visited the field in the early days, there had to be hundreds, maybe even thousands of artifacts removed from that area. As far as the military presence in the area, I feel safe to say that for the most part, the common soldier would not have had a lot of interest in a spent casing as so much as a civilian who visited the field looking for something to take home with them.

We do know that Godfrey and Camp collected spent casings, we have the L.A. Huffman photograph to prove it. How many did they collect? What ever happened to them?

Before Jason, there was Henry and Don Weibert. I find it interesting that Weibert did make an effort to document his findings and published the large book Custer, Cases, and Cartridges . Importantly, I think he pioneered the method of labeling the artifacts on the maps using the "Indian Positions" and "Soldier Positions", and coding the cartridges, etc. Although the format of text being in all caps made it rough to read, he did an exhaustive piece of work in photographs and mapping. I think he even motioned the finding of one of the brass cartridge casing that he attributed to one of Custer's from his sporting rifle down near the river, and he even speculated that Custer may have even been wounded down at that area and brought up to the hill top.

Later in Sixty-Six Years in Custer's Shadow He even included an aerial photo map showing his opinion of the events that took place on the field by his recoveries. I think this was an outstanding piece of work from an amateur.

I think at a visit in '96, Jason told me that he had recovered approximately 9000 artifacts, mostly cartridge casings in the six years he had metal detected on his family property in the valley.

I think if we can look at the artifact recoveries for what and where they were found, whether or not they were dug by professionals or not, we have lots of physical evidence.

I think I have all of the books by Fox and Scott too. Even the one of the Reno Benteen Dump site. I love these books. An know we have Where Custer Fell. I saw where someone had posted it was just a nice picture book, but I have found it to be much more. There is a great deal of information that can come from studying photographs and these guys have done a wonderful job in doing so. For example, taking the Curtis notes and applying them to the photographs taken, look what that has revealed.

Anyway, I find all of this exciting.

[fred]

Lawtonka--

I may have been the one who called Where Custer Fell a nice picture book, I don't really recall. If I did, I was wrong; I agree w/ you & while I have not read it yet, I have skimmed through it again, & it does look extremely worthwhile.

I am not sure what to say regarding all the "pilfering" (too harsh a word, certainly) & how it has affected the conclusions some people draw regarding the battle. Fox tries to make allowances for it in his book by saying something to the effect that the collecting has been treated as universal, thereby only changing the amount referenced, not the sampling itself. I don't know. What I do know is that our forerunners have destroyed an awful lot & that includes the entire Cemetery Ridge & probably a good deal of the Cemetery Ravine area. I also have little respect or tolerance for the locals, as well, especially since almost everything I read above them includes agendas, money-making schemes, & indictments. Weibert seems to have been an exception.

When I was at the battlefield in April, I did my usual walk-through of the visitor's center, scanning the books & junk they sell there, & picked up an interesting map, a fold-out. It is titled, Little Bighorn Battlefield Map: Archeological Finds & Historical Locations. It is produced by someone named Mike Bonafede in 1999, Atalissa, Inc., 1530 N. Boise, suite 104A, Loveland, CO. It is a bit tough to read because of the way they printed it, but it is loaded w/ archeological information. I would actually like to see it printed in a multi-page leaflet of sorts, but for the time being, it is good enough. If you are interested in the archeological aspect of the battle-- & I am-- this thing is worth having. I think it cost $7.95.

As for Fox, I believe-- & I would like to make this as plain as I can-- his book is the most definitive ever written about the empirical view of the battle. He throws more theory on the table than any previous writer or any writer since. He couches his discoveries & his theories in such a way I find almost irresistable. His logic is sound & he approaches the whole thing from a position I feel is an absolute must, especially when discussing quick, sharp military engagements: simplicity! I have said this before: KISS: the military acronym for keep it simple stupid! A rule of thumb I use is: when approaching a particular scene or situation or terrain feature, what is the first thing that pops into my mind. That is one of the reasons I am so fascinated by Bruce Liddic's theory of Sharpshooters' Ridge versus Weir Peaks. Like I have said before, I am not convinced Liddic is correct, but if I was 50-50 before going to the battlefield, I am now 75-25 in Liddic's court afterwards. The more I study testimony, that percentage has now risen to 80-20.

An example. I am currently reading Hammer's book, Custer in 76, the compilation of Walter Camp's notes. I recently did some work on Fred Gerard & I used these notes. Then I started reading & note-taking on the surviving officers. On at least 2 occasions so far, Camp makes asides alluding to his belief that Custer's column went down Cedar Coulee, yet there is no direct testimony (so far as I have read!) that backs up this contention.

Back in January, I met one of the most knowledgeable people I have ever met regarding this battle. He assured me there was no way you could move a column of fours down Cedar Coulee. When I was at the battlefield, while I didn't go down Cedar, I paid particular attention to it, at least from a distance. I did look kind of narrow. Now, I ask you: if you were Custer & you were confronted by a space too narrow to move your command, would you change formation or simply ride a higher ridge or crest to accomodate your column? And especially since you are in a bit of a sweat, have an enemy jumping all about... . The simplest, easiest, most expedient thing for me would have been to simply ride the high country.

I am way off the track here, but this is one of the things Fox brings into play in his book. Now maybe he overdoes the panic business-- & I believe he does, just a bit-- & I think his Deep Ravine defense is a bit weak, but overall, his theories are extremely sound. When you look at it closely, as well, he is not that much different than so many others. The thing that peeves me is people's intransigence & refusal to change their theories for someone else's.

Now wake up & read something intelligent!

Best wishes,
Fred.

[Lawtonka]

That's a good point of view Fred. I appreciate your comments.

Yeah, I think you are right about Cedar Coulee, given the conditions and the pressure applied......if I were Custer sure would not want to press my men into a narrow draw that might entertain the possibility of ambuse. Remember that almost happened at the Rosebud. Had it not have been for the Scouts refusal to move into the canyon, I would imagine that group of soldiers would have seen their last day.

On the move, I agree, especially not being familiar with the terrain, the most logical move would have definately been to move along high ground as much as possible.

Glad you reminded me of the artifact map, I think I saw where Frank hand mentioned this somewhere recently. Sounds like a must have item.

Custer in '76 is one of my favorites too. I think I refer to it over and over and it never gets tiring. I am glad we have the great reference tools.

Have a great day Fred,

Tim