|
Post by AZ Ranger on Oct 21, 2007 7:58:03 GMT -6
Elisabeth I think we are only suppose to post information in Fred's Place and comment about it here so I brought this here.
I think it is consistent with his quotes. The mules were all in poor condition and 13 were injured enough to not be capable of carrying a pack. If they were wagon mules they could still pull a load and get sored up in a new location.
One problem I experienced is when posting quotes if it said the next day blah blah blah I posted it in the day it was supposed to have occurred. Therefore the post would read the next day blah blah blah on the day it occurred and the next day should be ignored.
When we were trapping bears in the Grahams Tom Wadell found one of our horses injured from saddle sores and unfit to ride with a saddle. He placed a blanket on the horse and tied a cotton rope around the girth and folded the blanket over the rope. He rode that horse all day. I was impressed with his horsemanship. I got to observe the use of a balanced seat. Tom currently manages a bison and cattle ranch for Ted Turner in New Mexico.
AZ Ranger
|
|
|
Post by elisabeth on Oct 21, 2007 8:27:27 GMT -6
Sorry -- was getting confused between what's fact and what's comment. I've removed it from the chronology. What I was trying to get at was: the quote you gave us from this interesting-sounding Shavetails book in the June 20th thread said that most of Reno's mules were broken down by the scout. In the June 21st thread, Fred gives us the info that just "13 mules" broken down on the scout were to travel with Gibbon/the battery. This is in line also with Hardorff, Packs, Packers and Pack Details, who sources his figure from Terry's diary and from that of Matthew Carroll. Granted, 13 mules broken down is pretty bad -- but it's a long way from "most". Just concerned that where we get conflicting factual information entered into the record, we should be careful that preference is given to the most soundly-based version -- which in this case seems to be that it's only 13 mules. (And even these were clearly expected to recover, or they'd simply have been shot on the spot.)
|
|
|
Post by AZ Ranger on Oct 21, 2007 8:42:50 GMT -6
I was confused also, by the time I posted your other post was gone. Poor condition and unable to carry a pack are two different things and the number (13) seems to be consistent with those unable to carry a pack. Poor condition to me means fewer miles per day and less cooperation.
I think it is more important that in the book he believes that Reno had rendered the best mules to a poor condition which contributes to overall effectiveness of the pack train. There are more quotes for the 25th but Fred hasn't got us to that point yet.
DC would find much support for his theory on the pack train. Most of mules were out of service by July 7. They could not make it much further.
AZ Ranger
|
|
|
Post by elisabeth on Oct 21, 2007 9:14:18 GMT -6
Ah, I see. That's an interesting argument.
Since here are no tales of hilarious mule antics when Reno's scout sets off, it's a fair assumption that he probably did get the majority of the pack-train-trained mules. Wish we knew more about the 13: whether they were from the trained contingent, or were ex-wagon mules. If the latter, they wouldn't be such a loss, whereas if 13 trained mules were out of action it'd make quite a difference. On the other hand, a trained mule could probably counteract the effects of bad packing by using the fox-trot gait ...
Do we know how many professional packers went with Reno? Or were the poor beasts at the mercy of troopers with even less practice than the other six companies got?
Not sure that the condition of the mules by July 7th necessarily reflects their state on the 25th. Since then, they'd been starved, deprived of water, and shot at for two whole days, and then the few survivors pressed into service carrying litters; they'd had a pretty rough time of it all round. I'll be interested to see his quotes for the 25th. The impression we usually get is that the problem with the mules was recalcitrance rather than condition, but he may have a point here. Looking forward to it.
|
|