|
Post by tubman13 on Feb 16, 2015 13:57:22 GMT -6
I think Gordie had spent some time with Weibert and is similar to what Weibert believed. I think you may be right. Gordie and I agreed on very few things. Since he is dead and cannot, therefore, defend himself, I will let it go at that. Best wishes, Fred. Fred, one only needs to defends themselves when, attacked. I think I know you better than that, it never hurts to share other opinions, or differentiate one's opinion from another. Many other writers have passed yet we still can disagree without them here to defend their position, we often do that rather vociferously. It was not my intent in any way to touch a sore/tender spot.
Regards, Tom
|
|
|
Post by fred on Feb 16, 2015 13:57:42 GMT -6
I must say that I agree with him on certain points but disagree on others, for one I agree with this; He could for the first time see the full extent of the camps [they extended just past Deep Ravine Ford] and at the same time could see what he took to be a general decampment by the NAs. This led him to believe that Reno had been successful in his valley mission. He also knew, or thought he did, that the balance of the regiment was being hurried forward.
The camp did not extend beyond Deep Ravine Ford. He either made that up or someone else did. He always claimed he was privy to a lot of "new" NA "folklore" that was never published, so unless this claim is highly substantiated, it is sheer bunk. So... do I believe Gordie or do I believe Wooden Leg? For me, the choice is rather easy. Another example was his claim Custer used outriders-- flankers-- on his way up to Reno Hill. Where do you find that information? When I asked him, he simply told me he got it from Indian sources, but he couldn't reveal who, what, when, or where. Now where, pray-tell, do we hear anything of the sort from any of the Custer column survivors-- those who dropped out, plus Kanipe and Martini-- and when you finish scratching your head, ask yourself why would you use flankers when the left side of your column dropped off 200 feet or more and the right side was a vast, wide-open space where outriders would make about as much sense as a picnic table. Someone, earlier-- Tom, maybe?-- quoted something Gordie wrote about the column heading down the east side of SSR. How does that nonsense square with anything said at the RCOI? That is Bruce Liddic's claim, as well, and it makes absolutely no sense, either militarily or practically. It's like his battle flow: right out of Charles Kuhlman and in complete contradiction to logic, reason, and the placement of bodies. Wa-a-ay too complicated stuff! Sorry to say this, but Gordie's ideas-- probably translated into print... I do not know precisely because I have no intention of ever reading it-- fit way too nicely and way too conveniently into the Custer Apologist Program. Let's all hate Benteen, Reno, and Richard Fox for their awful betrayal of the golden-haired wonder. Best wishes, Fred.
|
|
|
Post by fred on Feb 16, 2015 14:03:11 GMT -6
It was not my intent in any way to touch a sore/tender spot. You haven't, Tom... not at all. It is just that Gordie was a member here and revered by many... a damn sight more than "revere" me, that's for sure. I will be remembered in the Dark Cloud Column (proudly, I might add); but then I never was interested in popularity contests: I'll stand by my beliefs, regardless of the consequences. So basically, I am watching my Ps-and-Qs here. Gordon and I mixed it up more than once: he enjoyed sniping, a little like "wild," but more informed. I never did take to that kind of criticism. We did, however, manage to bury the ol' hatchet and I think we were both happy about that. We planned on meeting in June 2011-- I think it was. Unfortunately, he died and I got cancer. Scotch all plans.... Best wishes, Fred.
|
|
|
Post by Yan Taylor on Feb 16, 2015 14:10:39 GMT -6
Fred, could Custer have mistakenly misread the refugee situation and thought that the Reno was in fact still active and maybe the cause of all this exodus plus Benteen was on his way.
Take care my friend, from what I hear your are in for some "brass monkey weather" so keep warm.
Ian.
|
|
|
Post by fred on Feb 16, 2015 15:49:08 GMT -6
... could Custer have mistakenly misread the refugee situation and thought that the Reno was in fact still active and maybe the cause of all this exodus plus Benteen was on his way. Ian, He could have thought anything, I don't know; or, for that matter, would anyone else. I do think Custer understood Reno was in some trouble, but at this point in the whole 40-day affair, couldn't have cared less. If he did, he would have done something about it. And moving north wasn't doing "something about it." To me, Custer was focused on one thing: attacking the refugees and driving them back. And he would do it with Benteen's help, otherwise he wouldn't have dropped off Keogh and he wouldn't have wasted the time and energy seeking another ford. Best wishes, Fred.
|
|
|
Post by Beth on Feb 16, 2015 16:30:59 GMT -6
But if Custer drove the refugees back to their village, then what? He didn't have the forces to contain them but did he have the force to destroy them?
It reminds me of the scene from "Bridge over River Kwai" "Madness!"
Beth
|
|
|
Post by fred on Feb 16, 2015 18:04:02 GMT -6
But if Custer drove the refugees back to their village, then what? He didn't have the forces to contain them but did he have the force to destroy them? Maybe I left you with the wrong impression: driving them toward the village... as opposed to away where they could further scatter. I believe Custer just meant to attack, kill whatever got in his way until they began to quit the fight. Best wishes, Fred.
|
|
|
Post by AZ Ranger on Feb 17, 2015 6:03:22 GMT -6
The joys of looking at this battle. I started looking more seriously because I was told I needed some outside the job activity. Even though its outside the job investigations, battle readiness, observations versus reality, certainly have their the place in law enforcement.
I would not presume to know how Gordie would have finished off his book.
I do know he had the desire to learn as much as he could and in the end he shared it through his daughter with the help of others. For sure it gives sources to let us all form opinions especially in the kindle version.
I have two of Fred's latest book . One my working book the other sits on the shelf. I also have the kindle version.
Regards
AZ Ranger
|
|
|
Post by AZ Ranger on Feb 17, 2015 6:29:29 GMT -6
Your right about the Cheyennes Fred. We were to meet with some in 2010. Gordie had lived in Busby for awhile and did have some contacts but he never disclosed to us the names. I think there is one person that might know who they were but haven't seen her on the boards in awhile.
I can't wait to get to the battlefield this summer. My approach has changed over time and its more like a vacation with a little personal research .
Fred's timelines are the best thing that has happened to serious battlefield students in a long time. Most book have the only the authors opinions and as DC has pointed out the content could be predicted by knowing the author.
You don't have to agree with Fred's timelines but you do need to show where the data he used is not accurate. Good luck with that.
Had a discussion with Rosebud (Justin), who was here also for awhile I believe, on the other boards regarding horse movement down Reno Creek. He believes the overall time to fast. So I asked him to show in the accounts used where the error was. He kept wanting to ride and prove the overall speed was not right. That is exactly what I believe DC was stating. Rosebud states he would prove that you can't ride that fast down Reno by riding it himself. For me you can limit the upper rates of travel based upon speeds of horses. You can eliminate 0 since they made it there. Within those parameters the accounts determine the start and stop times and therefore the overall rate of speed.
Regards
AZ Ranger
|
|
|
Post by tubman13 on Feb 17, 2015 6:31:57 GMT -6
This part of the battle fascinates me in that we know so little about it. The only first hand information we have about it is from the NA's and to a lesser degree archeological finds. Speculation on the part of the cavalry! On my first trip to the battlefield in 1990 the ranger said the NA's were amazed at how long the cavalry sat still on the ridge. They did not know what to make out of it. This, obviously, was the Keogh wing. It also leads me to believe that the NA's were not aware of Custer's initial move towards Ford D. I also wonder if the NA's slow build up against the troops on the ridge was because they feared a trap(other troops hiding behind the ridges). Once they found there was no other shoe to drop, that is when they unleashed hell on earth. Is that where the gap comes into play? Had many already warriors traversed the village from south to north, crossed the river at the ford area to get behind the troops on the ridge? Did these warriors run into Custer, surprising both sides? Could the volleys heard by some in the Reno/Benteen area have actually been fired by Keogh to recall Custer, as the other Beth asked?
I don't think these questions will ever be completely or correctly answered.
Regards, Tom
|
|
|
Post by AZ Ranger on Feb 17, 2015 8:17:38 GMT -6
I think a river float trip is in order.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Feb 17, 2015 9:03:27 GMT -6
There was no need for flankers when Custer was moving north along the bluff edge, for the very reason Fred states. That does not negate the requirement for a point, and the trailing company is already your rear guard.
|
|
|
Post by tubman13 on Feb 17, 2015 9:12:12 GMT -6
I think a river float trip is in order. Indeed, Fred you should join us as well.
Regards, Tom
|
|
|
Post by fred on Feb 17, 2015 9:13:18 GMT -6
There was no need for flankers when Custer was moving north along the bluff edge, for the very reason Fred states. That does not negate the requirement for a point, and the trailing company is already your rear guard. Absolutely!! And I do believe-- since there is some evidence for it-- that Custer used those F Company men as his point... though not always. I think when the command was in Cedar Coulee, so were those guys. When they started to move, the F Company men again took the point and probably led Custer up to Luce Ridge. Sheer speculation, but reasonable I think. And sound. Best wishes, Fred.
|
|
|
Post by fred on Feb 17, 2015 9:20:19 GMT -6
Had a discussion with Rosebud (Justin), who was here also for awhile I believe, on the other boards regarding horse movement down Reno Creek. He believes the overall time to fast. So I asked him to show in the accounts used where the error was. He kept wanting to ride and prove the overall speed was not right. That is exactly what I believe DC was stating. Rosebud states he would prove that you can't ride that fast down Reno by riding it himself. For me you can limit the upper rates of travel based upon speeds of horses. You can eliminate 0 since they made it there. Within those parameters the accounts determine the start and stop times and therefore the overall rate of speed. You cannot replicate that ride, not at all, not a chance. In order to do so the conditions have to be the same. I hear it all the time from a fellow named Keith Herrin (on FB). Keith is the guy who runs the 7th Cavalry school/camp... whatever the hell it's called. He does other "authentic" rides, as well, and tries to make conditions as near-perfect as possible, but even he admits conditions can never be the same. The terrain is vastly different-- for riding-- today than it was in 1876. You have no one with Custer's drive pushing you; you can't put reasonably trained men-- 400 or so-- on the ground; there is no adrenaline-induced immediacy... absolutely impossible. So what do you have? You have some local clown who says it cannot be done and you have every single shred of historical and modern evidence that says not only can it be done, but that it was indeed done. Who do you believe? Again... you cannot replicate the situation!Best wishes, Fred.
|
|