|
Post by Yan Taylor on May 22, 2013 10:07:03 GMT -6
Thank you Chuck, if anyone can complicate any issue it would be me, I must say though that I myself would have seen these nine men (horse holders) as prime targets, standing there struggling with the horses, I bet it wouldn’t of took much to dislodge them and scatter the whole party.
Ian.
|
|
jag
Full Member
Caption: IRAQI PHOTO'S -- (arrow to gun port) LOOK HERE -- SMILE -- WAIT FOR -- FLASH
Posts: 245
|
Post by jag on May 22, 2013 10:07:55 GMT -6
I too must admit to hearing and liking the debate between Fred and Dc. And if who's right or wrong. Vote. Should be entertained, I'd side with DC. It's still the unknown that creeps in and suggests something different, something more, far removed from the constructs ever drawn in error before. Ford "B" ever a point of contention. As much as any ford on downstream was/is a similar point of contention, still the unknown. Alike we have Benteen whose image need not be defamed as Custer's is today after he departed Weir Peak. Speculation is as speculation does. But not Benteen. Not even Reno. Sure I've agreed to the peace treaty between Fred and I. But as with all treaty's it doesn't mean I have to agree with him. He knows that. The agreement being not to throw his work under the bus before I've see it in print. Having not seen it, doesn't mean I should refrain from my views absent ridicule, name calling, whatever. The same should apply to all who herein post. But it doesn't. Even when life's reality snatches away a dear one's life in the utter agony of bereavement. Does not stop a select few or make it abate but for a very short time. Correct the error and go on. Or ignore it, we're all smart enough to know which is true and judge that for ourselves. Give us some credit in knowing something. Still. I like what Fuch's said. And like most statements of this kind. It blows over the heads of those who don't like hearing it. Or is ignored to the point of ignorance. Fuchs Re: Ford "D ..." « Reply #43 Yesterday at 11:37am » -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I would like to suggest that if a plans doesn't make any military sense, and the commander in charge has shown on other occasions that he isn't completely incompetent, than it might be a good idea to look for something other that might have been the plan. I can buy a plan that looks reasonably from the outset getting overtaken by events, or backfiring badly because of assumptions made that turn out to be incorrect. But massive cognitive dissonance or denial of reality from the get go? No, sorry Custer was on the trail of a large camp that stayed together for weeks. At the oldest camp sites Reno found, they were already about 400 lodges. At the latest from the sundance camp forward, this number started to grow, and this would have been visible. Still one single, compact camp (1-2 miles extension at the max). Boyer estimated the older camps to be weeks old, Gibbons scouts knew them to be weeks old, and this was at the latest communicated to Terry at the Terry/Gibbon linkup. So Custer knew that there was a large, steadily growing camp that was together for at least one month. In the light of this knowledge, how anyone can propose that he planned on the assumption that he would find a widely distributed camp, unable to lend mutual support for the initial fight, is beyond me. This would paint Custer as unbelievably incompetent. Not someone who rose to the rank of general based on success (at least that's what I assume). Another point I cannot swallow is the notion that he would have been surprised that MTF turned out to be near the middle of the camp. Didn't Custers command moved along the crest of the heights above the camp, locations from where supposedly the guys around Reno/Benteen were able to see the entire camp and count/estimate the lodge number? Either you can see the whole camp from there or you can't. So at the latest here he HAD to be aware of the full size of the camp, and proceeded accordingly. Or did I only imagine reading things like that here? (Honest question, it sounds just that far-fetched, that I almost had to have imagined this.)
|
|
|
Post by fuchs on May 22, 2013 10:36:54 GMT -6
I figured you would know Clark Kent and Bruce Wayne, but I was surprised that you knew of Billy Batson, just as surprised as Custer was when he found out that Indians would fight. Go figure. You figured correctly. His alias did ring a bell, though. Yep, that one got through the wall of disbelief. Knew a guy to whom this fits to the dot of the i. Scarily smart, scarily successful, and still his sense of entitlement lead him to make staggeringly stupid decisions at times. So, denial of reality is it then. Note that I still do not buy the "taking hostages" plan. After seeing the village. That one is just THAT far out.
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on May 22, 2013 11:28:15 GMT -6
QC and Fred keep trying to append a specific source to my theories and pretend I've claimed something I have not, and asking me to 'explain' things not important to avoid what I've been requesting from them for years. Why Kellog ended up where he did or Boyeur could easily be a chase or escape intent gone bad. What difference does it make to the general pattern.
I really think the specifics of E and C company are based on fan fiction more than actual science or fact. C's dead were all over the field, and in any case the general consensus was that the dead were mostly too revolting to identify. After three days, no kidding.
Again: explain why all those officers were on top of LSH, totally visible for 360 degrees.
Again: you cannot pretend the CD's did not exist, did not do what is said they did (ride around, nothing much, so no props for drama to them...) and that those that said they saw them did not. Since they could easily account for 1.) tales of soldiers in the camp, 2.) most of the soldier artifacts between LSH and LBH, and 3.) Gall's tale (perhaps second hand or worse) of soldiers in that area if seen from a distance.
|
|
|
Post by fred on May 22, 2013 11:42:42 GMT -6
Sure I've agreed to the peace treaty between Fred and I. But as with all treaty's it doesn't mean I have to agree with him. He knows that. Absolutely correct, and disagreement should never be the issue. There is no one on these boards who likes and admires DC more than I do. In fact, I doubt even within his circle of friends, there is no one who respects him more than I respect him. DC has done things for me only my wife has done; when I needed encouragement and a kind word, a kind hand, DC offered it. We may never meet and we may never agree on all of this, but if that book of mine ever gets published, DC's name will hold a prominent place in the acknowledgments, simply because of the standard he has held me to. As for you, Jag, may we never again see the field of battle except on the same side. QC and Fred keep trying to append a specific source to my theories and pretend I've claimed something I have not, and asking me to 'explain' things not important to avoid what I've been requesting from them for years. Why Kellog ended up where he did or Boyeur could easily be a chase or escape intent gone bad. What difference does it make to the general pattern. No, I do not, DC. Like I have said, you are the ultimate pragmatist and now you are postulating Kellogg ended up in some unlikely place due to what would amount to an incredible escape attempt. (Boyer has nothing to do with this; only obfuscation.) Virtually everything I say or write is based on a series of percentages. My beliefs run between 51% and 99%. 50-50 is a toss-up and I have no toss-ups. I present both sides in whatever I write, and I explain why I choose as I do. In every case I present, the pros out-weigh the cons. In Custer's trek down Reno Creek, for speed, the score is 7 - 0. In the manner of Reno's move down the valley, the score is 3 - 0. In a controversial event like horses being held in the timber, the score is more like 7 - 4, but I debunk the "4" by placing them into the proper context. It is the same with the move toward Weir Peaks; the same with Tom Weir speaking-- or not speaking-- to Marcus Reno. You need sources with this stuff; you need to play percentages; you need to look at odds; and you need to play reason and logic. You need to understand the military mind-set... and it is different once you have been in the army and have served, have figured and learned the way we have learned. Montrose gets it; Steve understands; QC knows. We take risks; bullets quickly re-write tactics. The smell of victory is utterly over-powering. I did things in Vietnam I shudder at today... but my former driver never lets me forget. I am not half the man George Custer was, or 1/4 the man we call Fred Benteen. Hell, I'm not even in the same league as Marcus Reno; but we have an empathy. I can stand in Custer's boots and see "why" and "how." When we debate this stuff, all I ask is for an even playing field. Don't denigrate the sources, the archaeology, the translations, the memories. There is validity to all of them, some more than others. The C Company bodies tell a tale, especially when we go all the way back to the divide and we determine the battalion breakdown. Context! It's context! C Company was with Keogh, not Yates, not GAC. There is no proof of platoon breakdowns... platoons are just a device to prove an otherwise unprovable theory. The flow of C Company bodies makes perfect sense, especially when coupled with a dozen or more Indian accounts of how the battle unfolded. It is no different with L or I companies. And if my GD book ever gets published, you may understand why Myles Keogh did what he did. DC, if you thought "3,411 vs Weir Point" was an "a-ha," wait until I tell you about Myles Keogh "a-ha." Best wishes, Fred.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on May 22, 2013 12:00:53 GMT -6
Fuchs: Billy Batson = Captain Marvel.
Hostages: Neither do I. Killing warriors, giving them a good thumping, is the only way to deter future war. Taking hostages, might be a temporary solution (were it possible), but had they done so, what would prevent a reservation break out in 1877 or 78, or 79. Nothing, and it would be back to the same old crap, different day. Utter catastrophic defeat, followed by humane treatment, and a real investment in their culture is the only way I see making all of that stop. That is a pie in the sky solution I suppose, but one that would have worked, I think.
Before one goes to far down the road of waging war, it is wise to think about winning the peace, and what that peace would look like.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on May 22, 2013 12:15:51 GMT -6
Fred: You tease you.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on May 22, 2013 12:38:37 GMT -6
DC: I think you misread my intentions here. I don't require a source. None at all. You are perfectly entitled to you views and beliefs, as I am to mine, along with the right to disagree.
Neither do I have to defend. It is not my work so there is no need for me to defend work, not my own. All I have ever done or intend to ever do is review what is out there and decide which makes the most sense to me. I have.
There is a widely believed generally accepted version of this battle, widely promulgated by various agents and agencies. You are wide off the mark from that generally accepted version. You then have two choices as I see the matter. You can completely reject or ignore those versions, or, you can try to explain why the accepted version should be changed or altered to fit your views. What you cannot do is change the mind of those who believe as Fred, I, and others do, without stating a reason why it should be changed, and backing up that change with either overlooked or newly discovered evidence that would support any change to accepted belief. Otherwise any alternative theory is a house built of cards subject to destruction from the next slight breeze that comes in your window. Fred has one such slight breeze in his new book, what he eluded to above.
PS: I have no doubt whatsoever that there were transvestites, both during the later stages of the battle and in the immediate aftermath, and that they were litterbugs.
|
|
|
Post by Yan Taylor on May 22, 2013 13:36:53 GMT -6
‘’Again: explain why all those officers were on top of LSH, totally visible for 360 degrees’’DC, I have tried to give an explanation which could fit your idea and give Fred’s Ford D credence too. C Company men were identified in three locations, Calhoun Coulee / FFR, Keogh’s position & two on LSH. E Company men also were only identified in three locations LSH, South skirmish line and Deep Ravine. Now I know what you said about revolting bodies and to trying to identify them all would be impossible, but is there is any truth that 29 out of 38 men from E Company were identified? Chuck them Suicide Boys are almost as bad as them Cheeky Girls; en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Cheeky_GirlsThey are responsible for one of the worst records ever made. Ian.
|
|
|
Post by fuchs on May 22, 2013 14:15:39 GMT -6
Hostages: Neither do I. Killing warriors, giving them a good thumping, is the only way to deter future war. And here we go again. The Army was, by and large, simply unable to accomplish this, unless using ridiculously disproportionate force and logistical efforts. The only way to really force warriors to fight was a credible threat to their families. You will only get to take hostages AFTER you have killed anyone even remotely qualifying for the designation "warrior" in the vicinity. The Soldiers were unable to fight mounted. So you cannot round up the families while twice your number of warriors are among them. Even if there are much less than your number in warriors among them, you still have a big, big challenge. If you deploy, they run and/or dive for cover, and you can only move slooowly or you loose control. And you don't have time for this. Those breakouts happened, by the way. There were rumors in 1877 that the shifting of the Platte Agencies to the Missouri was a prelude to wholesale removal to the Indian Territory. More than a thousand melted away to Canada on the way. The Cheyenne WERE removed to Indian Territory, and their kids started to drop like flies there. So some tried to get back to the north. The credible threat of it was what did the trick. Simply not stopping after a devastating defeat. The winter campaign. No decisive battle necessary. In combination with a large carrot that you know full well you are not authorized to dangle in front of Crazy Horse et al. Ultimately the Hostiles came in as much on promises as on threats, with both Miles and Crook knowing that those promises would most likely turn out to be empty. But once they were all in, there was no focal point anymore for any concerted outbreak unless a unifying thread was raised, like the dreaded Indian Territory. And anyway, the vast majority of the Indians had accepted that the fight for survival could only be won on the political level by now, not by force of arms. The train tickets to the east for Indians leaders were probably the most cost effective contribution to end the Indian wars. And the Army saw it as well. The crackdown on Red Cloud Agency in Autumn 1876 was directed against the political leadership and the half-assimilated mixed-blood Loafers that might spread the word to the sympathetic white public. Not against any suspected militants. Single bands might panic and stampede on occasion, but with no common purpose. The only one who might have had the clout to lead massive numbers out again was Crazy Horse. But he had apparently made up his mind to give it up, and that was that. Just in case he might have gotten second thoughts, his deportation was staged and oh, sorry didn't mean this to happen, honestly. "Anachronistic" would be the right word for it. In 1876 and still in 1890, nothing else but extermination was even thought about. The only real debate was if it was to be cultural (vast majority opinion) or physical (fringe opinion, but stronger on the frontier, naturally) extermination. But even the proponents of the "peace policy" would have no qualms whatsoever to contemplating accelerating that cultural extermination forcibly. About as much thought was put into this as in how to effectively conduct the non-conventional Indian Wars ... The Indians would accept the White Man's Superior Ways (tm) and silently dissolve into the bottom of the melting pot. As hard laboring subsistence farmers. On lands more or less unsuited for that purpose.
|
|
|
Post by fuchs on May 22, 2013 14:18:52 GMT -6
Sooh, how long do we have to wait again ...? ;D
|
|
|
Post by fred on May 22, 2013 14:20:51 GMT -6
I am at a complete and total loss here...?!?! Best wishes, Fred.
|
|
|
Post by fuchs on May 22, 2013 14:22:40 GMT -6
I am at a complete and total loss here...?!?! Best wishes, Fred. Quote(d) For Truth! (Strong affirmative)
|
|
|
Post by fred on May 22, 2013 14:23:04 GMT -6
DC, I have tried to give an explanation which could fit your idea and give Fred’s Ford D credence too. Don't. They are incompatible. Best wishes, Fred.
|
|
|
Post by fred on May 22, 2013 14:24:43 GMT -6
I am at a complete and total loss here...?!?! Best wishes, Fred. Quote(d) For Truth! (Strong affirmative) Thank you, my friend. Now all I need is to figure out what QC meant.... Best wishes, Fred.
|
|