Stewart did give a few "what ifs" in CUSTER'S LUCK . . . but over all it's mostly the facts.
Fox's book is a great study of the battle based on archaeology and his theory is based on that, not an agenda . . . which is fine. I loved the book and his analysis is enlightening without being critical.
Regardless of what book one reads . . . we can only assume some of the horror and fear experienced by soldiers . . . and I wouldn't be surprised if many Indians felt some of the same.
Post by Treasuredude on Jun 6, 2006 18:46:07 GMT -5
I read Custer's Luck years ago. I still pick it up now and then. I agree that Where Custer Fell is fantastic. I love the before/after pictures. I took my time with that book and looked at most of the photos with a magnifying glass.
The photo of Deep Ravine is shocking compared to how it looks today. In the photo you can see steep cliff-like sides. It looks nothing like the Deep Ravine of today.
7thtroopers.blogspot.com "For our class reunion, we wanted to hire a Molly Hatchet tribute band. They were too expensive. So we hired Molly Hatchet instead."
Post by Montana Bab on Sept 27, 2007 0:04:54 GMT -5
Upon re-reading this thread from way back in June of 2006, (I'M SLOW,BUT I'M SURE! ) I was interested in the exchange between Elizabeth and Fred on the Fox book and his theories. Elizabeth made mention of a S.L.A. Marshall in relation to combat psychology while discussing Fox's book.
Could anyone please tell me a little about Marshall and what his theories were, or is there a book with information about his theories? Elizabeth mentioned that he had been "exploded".
I'm still learning about LBH and will be for the rest of my life, I think, but I'm interested in learning the different theories and conclusions that have been drawn. I'm especially interested in those theories that have been de-bunked!
Post by harpskiddie on Sept 27, 2007 21:26:02 GMT -5
Exploded?1?!? Maybe yes and maybe no. Like a lot of other theories, some of Marshall's have adherents as well as detractors. He had more than one, and it is difficult [for me] to offer a simple synopsis.
Marshall wrote dozens of books, most of them histories of individual battles or campaigns [including Crimsoned Prairie, which deals with the Plains Wars], but you might access some of his theories most easily in: Men Against Fire, and The Soldier's Load....which should be readily available in cheaper used editions on most of the popular book sites .
Gordie, you know the Foolkiller's comin' - he's gettin' closer every day........................................
Post by Montana Bab on Sept 27, 2007 22:47:03 GMT -5
Thank you, Gordie,
I got off my duff and did a little research on General Marshall and learned about his theory of "ratio of fire". It was interesting, but a Roger J. Spiller, a professor from Leavenworth, Kansas, debunked his theory and clearly (almost) proved that his "research" that was the basis for his theory was non-existant.
I believe that Elisabeth was pointing out that Fox, in his book on archeology, seemed to relie somewhat on Marshall's theory. (My take on her post, I stand corrected, if I'm wrong.)
It's amazing the directions that this LBH will lead you. Gordie, I wish I knew what you have forgotten!!
Thanks again, kind sir!
Last Edit: Sept 27, 2007 22:47:50 GMT -5 by Montana Bab
Post by harpskiddie on Sept 28, 2007 0:53:42 GMT -5
"I wish I knew what you have forgotten!!" So do I, my dear, so do I. I have to remember eggs when I go shopping tomorrow [today, I guess it is now], since I forgot to put them on my list yesterday [whenever that was].
Gordie, I said the Foolkiller's comin' - I'm gonna have to make my getaway.................................
With the amount of books on the subject it is too easy to fall into line with the last book you read, being that any book found on the subject will re-feed your desire to know more. We are all subject to our own theories and interpretations just like the writers.
I personally found Fox's work fascinating if labourious, repetative but interesting and should be viewed, as always, with our standard caution. The finds, like the markers, are subject to, as we all agree, a very picked over and disturbed site. I remember reading Kuhlman and finding his interpretation of Reno's fight in the timber pretty thrilling because he filled it with detail until I questioned some of his findings. Heredeen mentioned being left behind in the timber after his horse bolted with troopers wearing Company A caps and Kuhlman seems to want to insist they were Company G men; the lost platoon sent out with McIntosh. Where Kuhlman drew a blank moment from me was his timings to make Weir Point the time where Benteen and Reno, having done their upmost not to support Custer, now spend up to 3/4 of an hour watching while he is destroyed okay I am being harsh here maybe, Benteen and Reno arrived some time after Weir but you get my drift]
I was taken by Scott, Wiley etc and their work on the bones of the fallen 7th members plus an insight into the ages, background etc of the men. This to me is where history can come alive when you can see a face in a photo and track them to where they fell.
How about "The Custer Myth" by W.A. Graham? Informative, objective, and essential for establishing a fundamental concept of what actually occurred before and after the battle.
The only time Col. Graham strays from the beaten path of objectivity is in his stance that the officers who testified at the RCOI were totally honest in their testimony and, would not stretch the truth a tad to preserve the honor of the regiment.
Better to be Without Logic Than Without Feeling...Formerly Walkingstar