|
Post by steve1956 on May 16, 2012 8:29:52 GMT -6
I don't think there's any "Dissing" intended...The nature of any form of historical "detective work" is that it's carried out by those who weren't there at the time....To attempt to analyse the actions of those present by their words and behaviour at the time is a basic method of research that doesn't imply criticism.......Otherwise a lot of historical work in any field would be held worthless......
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on May 16, 2012 8:43:35 GMT -6
Steve: Anyone at any time should be able to be critical of the actions of anyone else. What is said then should be labeled opinion, and that opinion should be backed by factual argument.
I can point to a dozen things I think Custer did wrong. I can point to a dozen things I think Patton, Montgomery, Rommel did wrong. Presenting why I think they were wrong and the backing them up with the facts that I used to support those views, is what it should be all about.
The problem is when a person extends those fact/opinion based critical remarks into a complete distain, or at the other extreme hero worship, that clarity of vision stops and blinders are applied. Emotional involvement in a historical character is about as useful as a prophylactic with a hole in it.
|
|
|
Post by steve1956 on May 16, 2012 8:47:45 GMT -6
Emotional involvement in a historical character is about as useful as a prophylactic with a hole in it. Isn't that the truth............
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on May 16, 2012 8:48:49 GMT -6
A lot of "historical work" IS worthless. The vast majority of Custerland "history" meets no academic standard of research. Most comment and critique has no value whatever, is based on theory with small evidence, and in many ways has nothing to do with the battle at all, but is designed to inflate the image - self and public - of the writer.
"These plonkers were just bad soldiers." That's dissing, and wild has no standing to do so.
It's one thing to quote Godfrey's opinion of Reno and say it makes sense. Even though Godfrey never saw Reno's valley fight he was a combat officer who was qualified to draw conclusions. I'm not. Most here are not. The people there are pretty unanimous in their approval of Benteen, including Reno. Who are we to argue?
What 'detective work' are you referencing?
|
|
|
Post by wild on May 16, 2012 9:22:10 GMT -6
Again, people not combat vets have no standing to dis combat vets We are to be lectured by a man who describes Buller as a fool. Buller who saved the lives of three men individually in mortal combat.Awarded the VC for his actions. What standing has Zulu got when he posts inaccuracies and when is called on it he posts voluminious blusters. The inaccuracy was no big deal but what was important was that Zulu instead of posting the standard brave "I stand corrected" blustered. Zulu is the self appointed gate guard.Heaven help a newbie who posts yawn inducing or incoherent material.The scurge of hyprocrisy and falsehoods.Well your scourging lience is hereby revoked. Status is earned.Take a cue from Ian.
|
|
|
Post by steve1956 on May 16, 2012 9:46:31 GMT -6
What 'detective work' are you referencing? Taking what facts there are and the statements of eye-witnessess and attempting to ascertain what happened....On occasion,this may call for surmises based on what is known of the participants characters and previous actions,or or drawing parrellels with similar occurances..As long as these are declared as such,they may well aid in analysis. I fully agree there is a lot of badly-written and/or inaccurate History out there...But I don't think,(for example) one needs to have served in the Light Brigade to condemn Cardigan as a bad,but brave soldier.
|
|
|
Post by fred on May 16, 2012 12:26:43 GMT -6
Herosrest—
I hope you see this post, for I am directing it mainly to you, though I welcome certainly comments from anyone—and everyone—else.
Despite several repeated attempts by me to denigrate your posts and to chase you away, you have stood ground—however misguided it may be—and have always returned. In fact, you have paid me a compliment… something that always seems to appeal to my vanity and ego and weakens my resolve for distaste.
Therefore, I feel I owe you some sort of explanation of how I arrive at my conclusions, my opinions, my ideas, and—God forbid! —my theories.
George Custer has always been a hero to me, ever since I was a child. The entire battle has fascinated me, but it wasn’t until my latter years that I became almost consumed by it. To me, it is a fascinating mystery… it is Ngaio Marsh, Dorothy Sayers, Marjorie Allingham, and Agatha Christie, all rolled into one. We could probably add a little Christopher Foyle into that, as well.
Like so many others, I read books by “writers,” “historians,” “academics,” and always came away with questions… nothing seemed to really add up. The two defining books for me were Richard Fox’ Archaeology, History, and Custer’s Last Battle, and John Gray’s second book, Custer’s Last Command. I say defining because those were the two that launched me from the pad. I wended my through all these other books, and then one day after meeting Fox and his brother Dennis, and the two yanked a book from my hands (we were at the trading post off the battlefield reservation) and replaced it with a primary source book, I suddenly realized the importance of starting over, eliminating all the hash these so-called experts were writing, and reconfiguring my opinions. I forced all preconceptions out of my head.
Once I started reading the “good” stuff, I began to reconfigure my notes, as well, and suddenly John Gray’s work became highly questionable and highly suspect. It did not fit with the preponderance of evidence I was setting down on paper and in my computer.
Time and this Wallace thing is a perfect example.
Gray decided the command operated on “local sun time.” We have no definitive expression from any of the participants that this was the case, and we have no definitive expression it wasn’t. What we do have are two very strongly worded hints that “local sun” was not used and that the command never changed the time it was operating on. These hints were provided by Godfrey and Wallace and were alluded to by a couple of others, though very indirectly, so much so as to be worthless in using them for any determination. Dr. Gray—as many academicians are wont to do—scoffed at any disagreement, and did so preemptively… and I quote: there was “no evidence of any discrepancy between official and local sun times” and that the “result is so obvious as to be embarrassing.”
To me, that is abuse of one’s qualifications for it sneers at those who may be daunted by those with higher degrees, meaning they have no right to question someone as learned. The fact of the matter is, Gray was wrong. In all the primary sources I went through, I could not reconcile Gray’s “time zone standard” with any of the accounts of the participants and after reading Gray’s book for the fourth time I realized he was rationalizing his “zone” concept with abstract events, then fitting his theories into those rationalizations. It became suddenly apparent Gray was using this as a lever to fit events into his preconceptions and how he wanted certain individuals perceived.
From my perspective, I tried to look at all three main characters as heroes and then back away from there.
When I set up my “time” studies, I concluded Wallace’s noon-divide-crossing was one axis, and because there are a fairly good number of corroborating accounts I accepted a small range on both sides of noon. I also chose a time-standard of HQ, St. Paul time because that was the time the commanding general worked from and because that was where all reports were going to be sent. But I did more than that… I contacted the U. S. Naval Observatory and they forwarded astrological data to me for the entire period, covering the entire distance. That data confirmed my belief.
And there was more. While we are always loath to accept specific times reputedly given us by Indians, it is not unreasonable to assume that when questioned by a white man a certain amount of sign language was used and times, when requested, would be alluded to by physical reference. Obviously, noon would be easiest to point out and the easiest to remember. So in doing all the research I did, one of the things that stuck in my mind was the question of when the battle began.
The Indians involved told us the first firing (the Reno fight) began at:
Antelope 10:00 AM Beard Noon – 1 PM Crazy Horse 11:00 AM Fears Nothing 1:00 PM Flying Hawk 9:00 AM Four Woman Noon Gall Before 2 PM Hump Noon Kill Eagle Noon Lights 9:30 AM Low Dog Noon One Bull 2:00 PM Red Feather Before 10 AM Red Horse Noon Respects Nothing 1:00 PM Runs The Enemy 10:00 AM Sitting Bull 2 PM (Custer) Standing Bear After noon Waterman 9:00 AM White Bull (Ice) Before noon White Cow Bull After mid – day Wooden Leg Noon – 1 PM Yellow Nose Noon
And this wasn’t all. Several of the “white” accounts claimed the same thing, Wallace’s I believe being the sole exception—for whatever reason. John Gray claimed the fighting—Reno’s fight—began at about 3:20 PM and I ask you simply to justify a 3:20 time from what you see above, especially knowing the Indians would only be using the local sun time. (And again, add those 57 minutes for the troops' watch-time.)
There is, however, a problem with all this. The distance from the divide to Ford A is 11.81 miles. Add to that another 2½ miles for Reno to travel before dismounting. The difference between “local sun time”—as all those Indian times would be—and HQ, St. Paul, time is only 57 minutes, far too short a period for that mileage—along with the attendant events—to be run. Well… with flexible Indian testimony, one can feel free to improvise a bit and with June 25th being only a couple of days after the summer solstice, we can understand the sun hanging high for more than a few seconds. Therefore, I added a half-hour or so, just to see how things would work out.
Then I needed to see if this was all reasonable from the perspective of the soldiers involved. Gray used a speed of advance for Custer moving down Reno Creek of 3.9 MPH. This is nothing but a reasonably brisk walk and considering all the circumstances—including Custer’s personality—rather odd. Going back to my “primary sources,” i. e., those who were there!, I found not a single account of troops walking down the creek. Quite the contrary… every single source—and there are about seven or eight—claimed Custer moved very rapidly, the slowest account claiming a “fast trot.” Internet sources—not the Emory Upton manual, mind you! —discuss horse speeds and durability and when coupled with assurances from people I know and respect for their experience with horses, e. g., AZ Ranger, Zekesgirl, et al., I find a slow gallop a reasonable speed. That, coupled with the noon time modification to about half-past noon, gave me all the information I needed.
I used similar methodology in determining the length, distance, and duration of the Reno fight, and of Benteen’s scout, his return to the main trail, and his move down Reno Creek and up to Reno Hill. You must also remember that a controlling factor in all this is the pack train, a somewhat amorphous mass, difficult to control, difficult to slow down or to speed up. It was the pack train that dictated the speed of all those ahead of it, for we have absolutely no evidence of the packs moving at anything but a fairly consistent speed. That speed can be measured at about 3½ to 4 MPH, a brisk walk, not a lot more and certainly, with all we are led to believe, no less.
So, Herosrest, with all that I leave you to your conspiracy theories and the witch hunts for Benteen’s and Reno’s scalps. For my two cents, all these clowns are barking up the wrong tree, for the evidence—such as it is—is there for the plucking. All you need is the time, the wherewithal, and the dispassion to find it.
Best wishes, Fred.
|
|
|
Post by steve1956 on May 16, 2012 12:31:28 GMT -6
Welcome back,Fred.......
|
|
|
Post by fred on May 16, 2012 12:59:32 GMT -6
Thank you, Steve. It is my sincerest pleasure to be able to be here with people like you. Thanks for all your kind words. Best wishes, Fred.
|
|
|
Post by benteen on May 16, 2012 13:48:43 GMT -6
[quote author=wild board=discussion thread=4182 post=79728 time=oAnd I quickly add that you guys were defending him with the same template.These plonkers were just bad soldiers. Benteen is fascinating because he is you or I arriving at the scene of an unfolding disaster.Though not a coward by any means he is Upham frozen on the stairs. Regards
[/quote]
Richard,
I honestly dont know where you are getting this from. Bad soldiers? Richard these men were thrown into a situation by their commanding officer who told them nothing about his plans or anything else. They were in the dark. What they accomplished was outstanding.
They set up a defense. A field hospital where the wounded could be attended to. They got some brave men to get water for the wounded (What more can you ask of a soldier than to risk his life for his brother in arms) Both Reno and Benteen led charges to scatter warriors that had gotten too close. They held off a far superior force for a day and a half. Benteen rather than be frozen, walked around the men under fire and instilled confidence in them. You call that bad soldiers? I dont know about you, but if I had to be in a situation like that, I would be darn glad to be with those soldiers and under the command of those officers.
Be Well Dan
|
|
|
Post by benteen on May 16, 2012 13:51:41 GMT -6
Welcome back Capt. Knew they couldnt keep an old soldier down for long. You seem to be in good spirits so the Colonel and I dont have to go to Bora Bora<G>
Be Well,,Stay Well Dan
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on May 16, 2012 14:16:52 GMT -6
Wilde's hoping that since the thread was taken down, he can get away with another smear. Here are my references to Buller at issue:
What percentage of Buller's men were casualties? What percentage of Reno's? Buller lost DEAD 225, exactly 1/3 of his command and was given the Victoria Cross for a rushed defeat. Reno lost about the same percentage of his three companies but overall was far more successful. He got nothing. What is the basis for the compassion deficit?
Buller was a hero till the Boer War, when anyone could see he was a fool and always had been..... By which is meant, he lost. The predicatable racist attacks were made that he was good enough to defeat the Zulu, but not the white Boers. Uh-huh.
That's an attitude that dies hard, based upon the assumption that white men are just better soldiers, regardless of nationality or training.
Anyone under the age of 12 or those unfamiliar with irony or sarcasm might possibly conclude it was a serious slam against Buller rather than an example of how winning and losing affect reputations rather than the specific actions. Perhaps I should have underlined the 'uh-huh.'
There were people who thought him a dunderhead, though. Lord Salisbury among them, and he liked him.
This in a post with an example of an Irish group in the Congo that surrendered after having 5-7 men wounded. They made sure the record included not the various nationalities of the enemy, but their race so it didn't look like they lost exclusively to black Africans. They were honored.
All of which is comparable to Reno and Benteen. I have the saved pages if anyone doubts.
Cardigan was called by those who served with him all sorts of things, which is fair game to discuss. He doesn't sound bright. But I could not call him a coward or a moron for a command decision in battle, nor anyone not a combat vet. He did, after all, lead the attack and reached the guns. He may have walked back or run back. But we have no standing to call him a coward or an idiot.
Yet, Benteen, Reno and Custer are all subject to that by people with zero standing to do so.
And, by the way, if we have to say the Zulu had guns, we have to say the 7th had sabers that day. DeRudio had his, representing about the same percentage of men so armed with guns among the Zulu. DeRudio at least knew how to use it and was probably a greater danger.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on May 16, 2012 17:06:53 GMT -6
Fred: Seems to me the only reason time matters at all is to prove or disprove personal theories (models) of the battle in an agenda driven effort to find someone to blame. If people would look at these things objectively, and not be hero worshiping at one end of the spectrum and judge/jury/executioner at the other we would get a lot further down the road in this matter. What the hell does it matter anyway? Is someone going to dig up a corpse and put them on trial for deriliction?
I have looked at your stuff and find that you and I are fairly close. I am shorter. You are longer, but not by much. Don't see where the difference of the fifteen to twenty minutes that serperate us is going to throw the earth off of its axis. That said I think what you have is realistic, without one trace of dilly-dally in the coulee, Custer would have won but for syndrome..
No matter though if it is your time line or any timeline that someone wants to present, the facts are that Reno was driven from the valley and up the bluffs. Benteen came upon Reno in sad shape and rendered assistance. Custer, meanwhile had put a good deal of distance between himself and Reno/Benteen. It does not matter in my view the exact timing of Reno getting to the bluffs. It does not matter at what time Benteen came upon him. It does not matter what time the packs arrived at that position. It does not matter at what time Weir rode off. It does not matter when Benteen started after him, eventually followed by the rest.
What matters is that one heck of a lot of hostiles had inserted themselves between Reno/Benteen and Custer off to the north. It does not matter where they came from. It does not matter which fords they crossed. It does not matter if Custer was offensively or defensively minded. It does not matter if he was off on a recon or scouting a defensive position. What matters, the only thing that matters, is the bazillion indians who were between the major elements of a split regiment.
Now someone can say but if all damned day long. Someone can say two hours, six hours, ten hours, ten days, unless they can say there were no indians between Custer and the rest, everything else is just trash talk with an agenda, and agendas have a way of becoming someone's reason for breathing.
|
|
|
Post by zekesgirl on May 16, 2012 17:20:40 GMT -6
Welcome back Fred.
I have never believed what 'time' events was as important as the length of time elasped between events. Such as Custer crossed the divide and so many hours/minutes later, he sent Reno off. Doesn't matter to me if he crossed at 10am or noon. He crossed, sent Benteen off and then Reno later.
Just my opinion.
|
|
|
Post by bc on May 16, 2012 17:43:31 GMT -6
Welcome back Fred. I have never believed what 'time' events was as important as the length of time elasped between events. Such as Custer crossed the divide and so many hours/minutes later, he sent Reno off. Doesn't matter to me if he crossed at 10am or noon. He crossed, sent Benteen off and then Reno later. Just my opinion. I'm with ZG on both. Welcome back Fred even if you are a little stiff and sore. Clock times just tends to confuse things. I tend to think of relative time beginning with H Hour. H Hour was the time the command moved out after the officer's call halt just before crossing the divide. That would be the start of the attack. The divide crossing would be H + 12 minutes or what ever it was. I hope no one has to ask what the date of D Day was. bc
|
|