|
|
Post by battledetective on May 1, 2018 16:28:51 GMT -5
Hello, I just joined so I don't know the rules of this forum very well. Is it allowed to 'resurrect' old threads (even if one doesn't have new groundbreaking info to add) and if not, how old is a thread to be considered 'definitively dead and buried'?
|
|
|
|
Post by Colt45 on May 2, 2018 8:48:25 GMT -5
Feel free to resurrect any of the old threads. It is sometimes good to revisit old discussions, especially if something new crops up.
|
|
|
|
Post by shan on Dec 8, 2019 6:19:14 GMT -5
Not sure where to put this, but I'd like to examine a few things that seem to get lost in the sheer amount of discussion going on in these boards.
Take for instance the never ended discussion on the other board about the exact location of Reno's first skirmish line. Now whilst this is all very interesting in its way, given the amount of changes that have occurred in the area ~ road building ~ railway lines and of course the ever changing meander of the river and its various tributaries, it looks to me as if we can never be sure. But what's wrong with that? According to what evidence we have, we know it happened, and the order that it happened in, not down to the last minute I'll give you that, but again, does it really matter?
Now I know that this is an old man's moan, I was a young man God help when I joined these boards, but do we really need to get bogged down by so much minutiae, and worse, by a tendency to insist that we are right and the others are wrong? For it seems to me that we are robbing ourselves of the pleasure of learning something new.
To take an example. There had been a bit of a spat between a few posters on the other board, about the rate of travel from the divide onwards. Now after much back and forth and some dis-agreement, I actually leant something from two members who not only ride horses for a living, but as a consequence, know a great deal about them. What I learnt seemed to me quite profound, for it made me re-think some of my assumptions.
Like most people who've grown up watching westerns, I liked to imagine Custer's force galloping full pelt in order to catch the Indians before they fled. But as has been pointed, that would be plain foolish, because A, given the distance, a horse can only travel at a much slower rate under such conditions, and B, a more obvious point, you need i your mount to be as strong and healthy for when you really need it to gallop under combat conditions. As an aside to that, given that I accept what they say, which is that the force mostly moved at a trot or a lope, how come at least two, and maybe more horses of company C gave out as Custer's wing reached the bluffs?
I know I know, I should really be asking that question over on the other board, but I'm afraid its a bit like a private club at the moment.
Lastly, I like to ask a question about the Indian scouts. Now I've read the Arickree Narrative a number of times, for apart from anything else its a marvellous read. But, and it has to be said. it's somewhat confusing. So my question is, how many Rees actually made it across the river and got involved in the Reno fight?
Shan
of
|
|
|
|
Post by montrose on Dec 10, 2019 10:13:53 GMT -5
Not sure where to put this, but I'd like to examine a few things that seem to get lost in the sheer amount of discussion going on in these boards. Take for instance the never ended discussion on the other board about the exact location of Reno's first skirmish line. Now whilst this is all very interesting in its way, given the amount of changes that have occurred in the area ~ road building ~ railway lines and of course the ever changing meander of the river and its various tributaries, it looks to me as if we can never be sure. But what's wrong with that? According to what evidence we have, we know it happened, and the order that it happened in, not down to the last minute I'll give you that, but again, does it really matter? Now I know that this is an old man's moan, I was a young man God help when I joined these boards, but do we really need to get bogged down by so much minutiae, and worse, by a tendency to insist that we are right and the others are wrong? For it seems to me that we are robbing ourselves of the pleasure of learning something new. To take an example. There had been a bit of a spat between a few posters on the other board, about the rate of travel from the divide onwards. Now after much back and forth and some dis-agreement, I actually leant something from two members who not only ride horses for a living, but as a consequence, know a great deal about them. What I learnt seemed to me quite profound, for it made me re-think some of my assumptions. Like most people who've grown up watching westerns, I liked to imagine Custer's force galloping full pelt in order to catch the Indians before they fled. But as has been pointed, that would be plain foolish, because A, given the distance, a horse can only travel at a much slower rate under such conditions, and B, a more obvious point, you need i your mount to be as strong and healthy for when you really need it to gallop under combat conditions. As an aside to that, given that I accept what they say, which is that the force mostly moved at a trot or a lope, how come at least two, and maybe more horses of company C gave out as Custer's wing reached the bluffs? I know I know, I should really be asking that question over on the other board, but I'm afraid its a bit like a private club at the moment. Lastly, I like to ask a question about the Indian scouts. Now I've read the Arickree Narrative a number of times, for apart from anything else its a marvellous read. But, and it has to be said. it's somewhat confusing. So my question is, how many Rees actually made it across the river and got involved in the Reno fight? Shan of |
|
|
|
Post by montrose on Dec 10, 2019 10:15:44 GMT -5
You raise three issues, will address them one at a time
|
|
|
|
Post by montrose on Dec 10, 2019 10:32:51 GMT -5
The location of the valley fight has consumed hundreds of posts on these boards. I regard your claim that these discussions are based on fact and evidence as laughable. It is based on emotion and is a great example of why these boards fail.
A poster on that other board is the sole reason this topic exists. He has posted thousands (4k as a minimum) of posts on this topic. Here is the problem. He lies
He posted a thread proving his fictional line existed. Then someone posted that the fact he presented was a location east of the river. Then he posted a witness testimony supporting his fictional line, cut off in midsentence. Then Benteeneast posted the whole sentence it was east of the river. We can go on and on, this person has hundreds of fabrications. Not a surprise he is a convicted felon, due to hundreds of lies.
I see no middle ground here. The evidence supports the Wagner line. The convicted felon line has no evidence.
The other board is dominated by an evil person, with an extensive criminal record. Please note his pedophile charges are directly related to LBH. He claimed he was trying to replicate the discipline methods on the 7th Cavalry in the 1870s. You may want to read the opinion of several New York State judges, who did not agree. We have a senior LEO person here, Benteeneast, what is your opinion?
Jason Pitsch has a criminal record. Yet his evidence has never been disputed. He does not lie, as opposed to other poster. His evidence has been fact checked hundreds of times. This does not mean you want to see him get parole, he is in prison and should stay. Just means his co-pedophile on other board should also be in prison for next 30-40 years.
|
|
|
|
Post by herosrest on Dec 10, 2019 12:44:25 GMT -5
Hello Shan and Montrose, From recollection, it was around 12 or 13 of the scouts who became involved in the skirmish fight but this may have included Siuox scouts of whom there were four including Isaiah. If I get some time I'll check through because I'm intending to revisit the Arikara Narrative which will be the 4th time 1. As I understood it, not all of those who remained with the troops, went online and Forked Horn stayed at the edge of the timber with the scouts horses. Now, there has been a vote for F. Wagner's ideas about the valley fight locations and to a limited degree I accept some of the Pitsch information but most of it is fool's gold. Changes in the riverr directly place finds east of it, when the fighting occured so there is confusion with those finds and they cannot be verified since being sold on into private collections. Where I have no doubt about his finds is those made in the fields west of Garryowen. There is a simple reason for this. Newell. Dan Newell, who stated in 1930, ' Major Reno must have seen that we couldn't possibly go any further and soon the order came to dismount and fight on foot. We threw a skirmish line across the valley, each number four standing behind and holding the horses. Today there is a railroad station, Garry Owen, right where our line crossed the valley.' There is no reason to doubt him, particularly in having visited the 1926 anniversary and reunion. We know where the railroad station was and therefore know where Reno's men stood shooting at the Indians. The question then arises why and how, Wagner, for example but many others too, can come up with what they do and urge it upon audiences? Well, that battleground is now railway, roads and private lands whilst the Pitsch property passed to the Custer Battlefield Historical and Museum Association (CBHMA) who conduct tours on their land tour. I am happy to accept that Dan Newell knew where he fought and that solves the historical question of said, for me. Others are more demanding and require rocket science to solve it. Accepting that Newell gave all we need to know, then the questions that raises are fascinating and as yet untouched. The boards are chaotic with topics and insights, and I frequently wished to reference participant data and insights from those contributing. The raw data - particulaly, so I did this and pass it on to hopefully be useful. I apologise in minor degree if cross boarding upsets anyone but it doesn't bother me. link Company M made the pooch happy and is here. Scouts etc are done as well, if you hunt around. Be well and.......... give 'em hell. Woudn't be LBH without parentheses, so 1 It will be a little while, since I am currently cross referencing Mari Sandoz's Battle book with Marquis's 'Last Bullet'. |
|
|
|
Post by AZ Ranger on Dec 11, 2019 11:29:18 GMT -5
HR
There is no such thing as Wagner's skirmish line. He is not that old. Fred looked at the volume of information and formed an opinion. Dr Douglas Scott came to the same conclusions.
I will say that I believe that William speaks the truth. I don't care what the motive was you will not take my son away from his school in a personally owned van and spank him without a personal reaction from me.
Regards
AZ Ranger
|
|
|
|
Post by herosrest on Dec 11, 2019 12:08:44 GMT -5
In terms of the 'Wagner' skirmish line, that is an acceptable way of identifying a strand of thought and proposition. I understand the humour also.
With regard to 'your' son and a van, I am at a loss to comprehend.
Regards
It has proved difficult, impossible, or both; for students, authors and researchers to relate participant descriptions of the terrain, to Maguire's map, other period maps, the actual terrain they find, and the ideas of others. There is nothing confused or confusing about Newell's location of the skirmish line. Fitting that to the terrain then unfolds the various locations where events took place. There is a simple account from a participant which pinpoints the fighting position and a tombe of gathered data from Wagner which is multi-faceted and considerably less than it seems in following the poor practice of Brininstool and Kuhlman. Newell wins, hands over feet every time. There is a littany of these failed battle interpretations stretching back to Whittaker and Wagner sits head and shoulders up there with Whittaker's rubbish.
In parallel with serious historical study is the ongoing practice of making visits to the battlefield enjoyable, safe and entertaining. This is worthwhile. Since pointing out the actual location under the railway and roads is impractical and dangerous.
|
|
|
|
Post by noggy on Dec 12, 2019 3:12:59 GMT -5
I will say that I believe that William speaks the truth. I don't care what the motive was you will not take my son away from his school in a personally owned van and spank him without a personal reaction from me. Pardon my (almost) language, but what or who the f is this??? All the best, Noggy |
|
|
|
Post by noggy on Dec 12, 2019 3:19:35 GMT -5
Fred is working on a book about the Reno fight, I believe?
|
|
|
|
Post by AZ Ranger on Dec 12, 2019 18:47:32 GMT -5
I will say that I believe that William speaks the truth. I don't care what the motive was you will not take my son away from his school in a personally owned van and spank him without a personal reaction from me. Pardon my (almost) language, but what or who the f is this??? All the best, Noggy I think if you PM Montrose he can fill you in. Regards AZ Ranger |
|
|
|
Post by noggy on Dec 13, 2019 3:01:16 GMT -5
Pardon my (almost) language, but what or who the f is this??? All the best, Noggy I think if you PM Montrose he can fill you in. Regards AZ Ranger Might be I`d rather not know (I understand who the person is, not the action). Noggy |
|
|
|
Post by herosrest on Dec 13, 2019 7:07:34 GMT -5
I'm William and haven't clue what this is about. What gives?
|
|
|
|
Post by montrose on Dec 13, 2019 7:33:18 GMT -5
I do not want to dwell on personalities. My point is some people with agendas have fabricated data to support false positions, based on ego and emotion, not in a search for truth.
The data supports the valley position outlined by many historians and scientists. Wagner's book Strategy of Defeat contains the primary data and review of previous historical work that supports this position. Before this book was published, this issue was discussed at length on both boards. One thread had 152 pages.
The arguments for other positions get very flaky, very fast. They argue actual finds on the true valley line were planted, and that there is zero evidence at the false position because it was stolen by thieves. Many other measurement justification arguments also head to cloud cuckoo land.
Hero, you dispute all other evidence except one recollection of one participants, fifty years later. I do not think I can find firefights I participated in from fifteen years ago. I think you need more evidence to support your position.
There was an excellent book on M Company that goes deep into sources on the valley fight. I don't have access to it right now, it went into storage when I went into the hospital. Supporting data is dozens of participant accounts and archeology and geology data. I do not want to repeat arguments we went into at length 5 years ago.
To me the most interesting thing on the valley fight is how the entire line flipped with M starting on the right flank and ending up on the left flank. There was tactical chaos when the main body failed to support the advance guard.
Respectfully,
William
|
|
