|
Post by tubman13 on Feb 25, 2015 8:35:44 GMT -6
Come on he was not at the store for apples or oranges. He already told you that, follow the post!
|
|
|
Post by welshofficer on Feb 25, 2015 8:57:07 GMT -6
SF,
That post kind of encapsulates your entire superficial muddled thinking on this aspect of the battle.
You assume another 50 mins for the "scout", and then everything carries on with exactly the same timings.
But it doesn't, does it? There are serious knock on implications of such a delay for Benteen in relation to the pack train/morass. Think about it, and why Benteen would be losing more time going forwards if he had returned to the main trail around 2.40pm rather than around 1.50pm.
It is not simply a question of moving Benteen's arrival time at Reno Hill from around 3pm to around 4pm.
And what in practical terms can any officer arriving upon Reno Hill at 4pm do to save GAC....?
WO
It wouldn't have any implication on the pack train or the stop at the morass to water since Benteen came out ahead them - a change in arrival time wouldn't change that. Nothing practical could have been done to support GAC with a 4pm arrival time. SF,
But Benteen only came out of No-Name and on the main trail ahead of McDougall because he came out before 2pm? That's the entire point, isn't it?
If Benteen came out at 2.40pm, he would be way behind McDougall. Indeed, McDougall would have finished at the morass by that point and, under the terms of his orders from Cooke, Benteen would have had little option but to stop the weakly escorted pack train ahead whilst he watered his own command. I think Fred (I don't yet have a copy of his book) has the pack train starting to arrive at Reno Hill around 4pm. I would add another 20-30 mins, if McDougall beat Benteen to the morass.
WO
|
|
|
Post by callmeconrad on Feb 25, 2015 9:04:05 GMT -6
Most of the time when I go to the corner shop a few blocks away, I move at a leisurely stroll. If it's 5 minutes to close and I realise there's no milk for breakfast tomorrow I'll go at a jog. If I ran into a friend in the checkout who said that I seemed a bit out of breath, I would claim I had hustled down, or had gotten there pretty quickly, or something else along those lines, implying that I had moved "rapidly indeed." If I then got a call on my phone telling me there was an emergency at home, I would be sprinting back at easily double my speed, probably more. It's "more than achievable" and I wouldn't say my earlier claim to my friend about hustling was being disingenuous. The question you should be asking is to AZ Ranger asking him if he thinks that distance is doable at that average speed on that ground. If his answer is yes then that's the point where I'd drop it. Apples and oranges. If you sprinted home for an emergency and claimed to have moved "rapidly indeed" and then later claim "well I could have easily gone twice as fast", then I would question your original "rapid" claim. As you should, because I might be moving rapidly but I wouldn't be sprinting. If I'm sprinting, I'm pretty much flat-out without much room left to double my speed. That's why I used jogging to start in my example. I don't think anyone has claimed that a 4.2 average speed is anywhere near flat-out for a horse, just fairly quick given the terrain. Don't read so much into the semantics of the single term "rapid indeed".
|
|
|
Post by welshofficer on Feb 25, 2015 9:11:00 GMT -6
callmeconrad,
We know, with the benefit of hindsight, that a calamity was about to unfold.
But there was no "emergency" in Cooke's note to Benteen. Ambiguities, and conflicting instructions, but no sense of emergency.
WO
|
|
|
Post by AZ Ranger on Feb 25, 2015 9:31:01 GMT -6
For those that understand. Here is an imagine along our route that illustrates a change in direction do to vegetation.
|
|
|
Post by callmeconrad on Feb 25, 2015 9:33:14 GMT -6
callmeconrad, We know, with the benefit of hindsight, that a calamity was about to unfold. But there was no "emergency" in Cooke's note to Benteen. Ambiguities, and conflicting instructions, but no sense of emergency. WO Hi WO, I agree completely. Benteen was already back on the main trail when he got the note, and I didn't mean to imply that Cooke's note would be the equivalent to my "emergency call" at the store. I was just trying to show that "rapid" is subjective. It's my own fault for using metaphorical examples.
|
|
|
Post by dave on Feb 25, 2015 9:37:02 GMT -6
WO From Fred's timeline "3:55 - 4:17 pm Pack train begins arriving on Reno Hill. Benteen's timing would have put the arrival of the first mules at about 4:15." "4:17 pm The last of the pack mules arrive" Regards Dave
|
|
shaw
Full Member
Posts: 187
|
Post by shaw on Feb 25, 2015 9:45:49 GMT -6
"Benteen, come on, big village, be quick. Bring packs."
"Be Quick"
Sounds sort of urgent to me. Not that Benteen wasn't coming at a reasonable pace. That's not the issue. Reno Hill got in the way. As we know Custer wasn't engaged with the NA's yet.
Benteen, come on, heavily engaged with enemy, hard pressed, big village, be quick. Bring packs. It has a different ring to it.
I know, never would have happened.
|
|
|
Post by AZ Ranger on Feb 25, 2015 10:02:18 GMT -6
Let's take a hill or in my country a crater. Both persons start from the same point one runs around it and the other climbs it and down the other side. They both arrive at the same point the finish line at the same time. They both moved rapidly and were worn out at the end. Going around the speed had to be greater to arrive at the same time. Climbing a cinder hill crater may be a slower rate of travel but it cuts distance. The degree of difficulty is certainly greater for climbing and descending the crater. Yet both arrived at the end point at the same time. Both moved rapid for the route they took.
Regards
AZ Ranger
|
|
|
Post by fred on Feb 25, 2015 11:21:49 GMT -6
I don't think anyone has claimed that a 4.2 average speed is anywhere near flat-out for a horse, just fairly quick given the terrain. Don't read so much into the semantics of the single term "rapid indeed". Thank you, Conrad. Well put. I hate to break some hearts here, but I will address this 7.1/10 miles, 4.2/5.9, "rapid indeed" thing one more time. I am doing it as well for our former member, "wild," who has been rather kind to my work next door. Something, by the way, I appreciate even more since a number of "friends" over there do not feel the need to be quite as kind. Benton's speed on his scout varied with the terrain. Everyone knows that. His take-off from the divide was probably quite rapid; there were stretches, as well, where he could also increase speed. Then there was No-Name Creek, a stretch of more than 2 miles where he could probably go considerably faster: and why wouldn't he?When I did the timeline I understood the terrain difficulty-- that's why I used Darling's work, as well as Steve's and Terry's, in addition to my own. The additional problem I was confronted with was one of "presentation"... how to present the variables. In other words, should I do a timeline for my 7.1-miles figure and a separate timeline for some unknown number of miles (and strange as it may seem, I guessed at 10 miles for the terrain variables... great minds think alike)? My decision was actually quite simple: I could justify 7.1 miles because of my topo work, because of Darling's maps, and because of Steve's GPS and map work. I could not accurately present a 10-mile figure and most of all, I wanted accuracy. Therefore, to make things more accurate, more readable, understandable, and presentable-- in other words, less confusing!!!-- I chose 7.1 miles along with the explanation in the preface. Now... I stand by that and I reject completely any comments and any innuendo that the timeline is compromised because of that choice. In either case, Benteen and his men were quite capable of moving at either speed, slower in difficult terrain, faster in good terrain, and according to what they said, did exactly that. That is all that matters to me: was it possible? In either case, the answer is, Yes; and in either case, there is sufficient supporting evidence, i. e., accounts and simultaneous contexts, to justify my overall analysis. Best wishes, Fred. P. S.-- Will someone who posts on both boards please express my thanks to my old "antagonist," "wild," for his very kind comments? I would thank you for doing so.FCW
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 25, 2015 12:25:00 GMT -6
I don't think anyone has claimed that a 4.2 average speed is anywhere near flat-out for a horse, just fairly quick given the terrain. Don't read so much into the semantics of the single term "rapid indeed". Thank you, Conrad. Well put. I hate to break some hearts here, but I will address this 7.1/10 miles, 4.2/5.9, "rapid indeed" thing one more time. I am doing it as well for our former member, "wild," who has been rather kind to my work next door. Something, by the way, I appreciate even more since a number of "friends" over there do not feel the need to be quite as kind. Benton's speed on his scout varied with the terrain. Everyone knows that. His take-off from the divide was probably quite rapid; there were stretches, as well, where he could also increase speed. Then there was No-Name Creek, a stretch of more than 2 miles where he could probably go considerably faster: and why wouldn't he?When I did the timeline I understood the terrain difficulty-- that's why I used Darling's work, as well as Steve's and Terry's, in addition to my own. The additional problem I was confronted with was one of "presentation"... how to present the variables. In other words, should I do a timeline for my 7.1-miles figure and a separate timeline for some unknown number of miles (and strange as it may seem, I guessed at 10 miles for the terrain variables... great minds think alike)? My decision was actually quite simple: I could justify 7.1 miles because of my topo work, because of Darling's maps, and because of Steve's GPS and map work. I could not accurately present a 10-mile figure and most of all, I wanted accuracy. Therefore, to make things more accurate, more readable, understandable, and presentable-- in other words, less confusing!!!-- I chose 7.1 miles along with the explanation in the preface. Now... I stand by that and I reject compl;eatery any comments and any innuendo that the timeline is compromised because of that choice. In either case, Benteen and his men were quite capable of moving at either speed, slower in difficult terrain, faster in good terrain, and according to what they said, did exactly that. That is all that matters to me: was it possible? In either case, the answer is, Yes; and in either case, there is sufficient supporting evidence, i. e., accounts and simultaneous contexts, to justify my overall analysis. Best wishes, Fred. P. S.-- Will someone who posts on both boards please express my thanks to my old "antagonist," "wild," for his very kind comments? I would thank you for doing so.FCW Fred, I accept and understand your explanation and withdraw my "disingenuous" accusation.
|
|
|
Post by fred on Feb 25, 2015 12:26:47 GMT -6
Thank you, Mark.
And thank you, too, Dan.
Best wishes, Fred.
|
|
|
Post by Beth on Feb 25, 2015 14:37:03 GMT -6
Based on GAC's exprience on Washita, could Custer's move North have also been then to make sure there wasn't another village beyond what they just found, not just looking for Ford D? Beth Beth, at that point the last thing Custer needed was an extra village. His attention was on what he already had or what already had him. For whatever reason he was trying to find the end of what he already had on his plate.
Regards, Tom
I agree the last thing he needed was an extra village but at the time he started up on the bluffs did he have an idea on the size of the village. I understand after saw the village from 3411 he understood he had a huge village and was just trying to deal with it but before that point would he have known if he was facing on village or a series of villages spread along the river? Of course we can't know what Custer could possibly have been thinking. Hum I wonder if Libbie every tried to use a medium to try to talk to him. Beth
|
|
|
Post by tubman13 on Feb 25, 2015 14:46:49 GMT -6
Maybe, before Houdini pronounced it bunk!
|
|
|
Post by Beth on Feb 25, 2015 15:03:43 GMT -6
Maybe, before Houdini pronounced it bunk! I believe Spiritualism would have been extremely popular and in vogue at the time. I did some quick googling and found a letter from Libbie to Thomas Mumford written in 1901 saying she was not a spiritualist. Beth
|
|