| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| El Crab |
Posted - November 13 2003 : 2:59:35 PM
What's your favorite source on the Battle of the Little Big Horn? Personally, for analysis and theory, my choice is Lakota Noon. For overall information and interesting tidbits, I'll take Son of the Morning Star. What I like about SOMS is I can open to any page, start reading, and it won't be a problem at all. Michno actually quotes a writer referring to SOMS as "incoherent", but I think it actually works best in an incoherent manner. It jumps around if you're looking for a chronological discussion of the battle, but the book is about more than that. It covers topics on the spot, such as Iron Hawk's claim of putting an arrow completely through a soldier. Instead of moving on, the book cites other sources on the ability of warriors of different tribes with a bow and arrow. Plus, it stays away from many of the traps of other books, in telling the reader what happened. It leaves that up to the reader and other more specialized literature to make conclusions. |
| 25 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Dark Cloud |
Posted - July 25 2004 : 6:10:56 PM
Uh-oh. A quick study with a long memory.
It's not 'old age' but 'late youth.'
Of course, if I had to listen to The Girl I Left Behind Me - the midi version of The Girl I Left Behind Me - while I awaited their server knitting together Adobe product on the fly, I would be obligated to retract my kindness. They probably do play it for tone during the Powerpoint - shudder - portion of the lecture.
Mumble. |
| BJMarkland |
Posted - July 25 2004 : 4:43:43 PM
That was a tirade?? Sheesh DC, you must be getting "kinder & gentler" in your old age.
Seriously though, while the studies do not break any new ground, it is something which has been touched upon by many on various threads at this site, i.e. how GAC's perceptions of the "typical" Indian behavior led him to make assumptions which proved fatally flawed. While most get it already, some people like to see it stated in black and white, with Powerpoint presentation, by a PhD. Ergo, they now have that.
Best of wishes,
Billy |
| Dark Cloud |
Posted - July 25 2004 : 2:51:07 PM
Absent from that tirade was my thanks. Good info on lots of stuff. |
| Dark Cloud |
Posted - July 25 2004 : 1:47:11 PM
My Lord. I just read the two studies in command, and as short as they were, they seemed inflated. Custer's vision was flawed because of erroneous preconceptions. Gee. Wait! One of these guys has a PhD. I must have missed something......
And the Army is tastefully unaware of the new theories, which are no longer new, and offers up studies that do not reflect....well, the vibrant offensive detail of E Company, the importance of The South Skirmish Line, the key issue of two or nine volleys and which of them was a Signal For Help. And the inexplicable absence of any detailed discussion on whether Boston Custer was smiling or not. If this is representative of our Army, well, we're just doomed, is all. |
| BJMarkland |
Posted - July 25 2004 : 07:55:37 AM
I found these at the Combat Arms Research Library (CARL) at the Ft. Leavenworth Command & General Staff College:
Studies in Battle Command
Two short articles dealing with Custer's vision of the situation.
http://cgsc.leavenworth.army.mil/carl/download/csipubs/battles.pdf
"Intuitive Vision Versus Practical Realities: Custer at the Battle of the Little Big Horn" by Maj. William M. Campsey Page 71
"Custer's Vision" by Dr. Jerold E. Brown Page 75
They also have on-line, in both PDF & HTML version their Atlas of the Sioux Wars.
http://cgsc.leavenworth.army.mil/carl/resources/csi/sioux/sioux.asp
The home page for CARL is:
http://cgsc.leavenworth.army.mil/CARL/ Their on-line publications can be found under the heading (along the top) RESOURCES and on the subsequent page various links will point to on-line documentation of various facets of interest to military and history students.
Also, in relation to something I spotted on another thread regarding the Boer War, below is the link to the book, The Defense of Duffer's Drift
http://cgsc.leavenworth.army.mil/carl/download/csipubs/swinton.pdf
Enjoy,
Billy |
| Dark Cloud |
Posted - July 22 2004 : 12:26:15 PM
It's not a big deal to me. I think it an embarrassingly bad movie that distorted its source so mediocre actors get to emote into the camera and fat wannabes get to play soldier, and succeeding as neither art nor history. Where the book was taut and fast moving and deep, the movie is long, boring, and shallow. A costume drama.
We all have our reasons for participating. It would be rough if all I enjoyed is being critical of others. Fortunately, it isn't true and there is no evidence for that contention should it ever, in the future, be relevant.
It's a historic site and the battle serves as metaphor. It belongs to all of us and not just the self-proclaimed guardians of its interpretation, and whatever lessons it provides should inform and, if not elevate, at least extend insights about our history and selves. As such I'm not going to watch it be turned over by default to "CSI:Lodge Grass!!!" (Mondays CBS)or a bunch of festive folk whose choice in clothing on days absent holiday or celebration is every bit as odd and speaking of deep needs as anything to be seen during Mardi Gras.
People have their right to dress up and pretend, but if they're adults and sober it's my right to laugh at them and their pretentions to someone else's status and, sometimes, life. |
| El Crab |
Posted - July 22 2004 : 01:19:27 AM
You have some issues with people playing soldier, it seems.
I've watched that movie several times, and I've never really noticed "waves of patriotic and aged lard, who looked and moved like cattle." But then again, I don't look for that sort of thing or really care to do so. Maybe that's why I enjoyed it, because I looked at it as a whole, not nitpicking because of the extras who probably volunteered their time and resources to make it happen.
Why do you care if people reenact? Its something they like to do, apparently. I just don't understand why its such a big deal to you? Did you fight in Korea, WWII or Vietnam? Does it eat away at your soul because some 50 year old fat guy likes to do Civil War reenactments?
I'm a pretty cynical person, but I do enjoy certain things in life. Must be rough when all you enjoy is being critical of others, accusing them of having crushes on and/or desiring to displace their own failures onto dead people.
Again, I ask: Why are you here? |
| Dark Cloud |
Posted - July 22 2004 : 12:05:03 AM
I can only agree if the Category is Crappy War Movies. What it was was a bunch of re-enactors plus Ted Turner wanting to play soldier on the actual battlefield. The emaciated young men of the CW were not represented by those waves of patriotic and aged lard, who looked and moved like cattle. The book was internal monologue, and this was just another bad war movie with no dust or smoke (Park regulations?) for that realistic feel.
Shaara's son can't write at all. His old man had one great book and several clunkers. |
| El Crab |
Posted - July 21 2004 : 7:55:55 PM
I thought Gettysburg was good for what it was, a movie about the battle. It wasn't much of a story, but it got to the point. Not bad at all, considering it was technically a cable TV movie. |
| Dark Cloud |
Posted - July 21 2004 : 3:11:26 PM
There's a nifty picture of Buford and his staff with Keogh but I was under the impression Keogh wasn't with him at Gettysburg for whatever reason. Buford's was an interesting and sad story. The novel Killer Angels was magnificent, and I thought the movie awful and totally removed from Shaara's mood and point and dumbed down something awful. |
| BJMarkland |
Posted - July 21 2004 : 1:35:59 PM
I am back . Some things do not change I see but enough of that.
Some good recommendations to follow up on. I saw a reference to Myles Keogh while reading the thread and it reminded me that I had learned something new last week on vacation. While reading Longacre's General John Buford I was surprised to learn that Keogh had served on Buford's staff pre-Gettysburg, thru Gettsyburg and on up to Buford's death.
Also, I spotted a reference to Joseph G. Masters. The KS Historical Society has microfilmed all of Master's papers. I had been looking through them with an emphasis on the Bozeman Trail era but will see what I can find regarding LBH in addition to the "Deeds" interview. Since I am "baching" this week, I will make an effort to run over to Topeka Saturday and begin digging.
Best of wishes to everyone,
Billy |
| Treasuredude |
Posted - July 19 2004 : 12:18:19 AM
I like TO HELL WITH HONOR and CUSTER IN '76:WALTER CAMP'S NOTES ON THE CUSTER FIGHT. Although a bit dated, CUSTER'S LUCK is still very good. And even though it's fiction, A ROAD WE DO NOT KNOW is a great page turner. |
| wILD I |
Posted - July 12 2004 : 03:27:41 AM
Peter Panzeri's "Little Big Horn 1876" has good maps but his description of Custer's manoeuvres tests credibility. |
| frankboddn |
Posted - July 10 2004 : 01:23:15 AM
I haven't read it, so I don't know if it covers his entire life, but John McIntosh recently wrote a book about Wallace. |
| wILD I |
Posted - July 09 2004 : 09:26:16 AM
I have a copy of the life of Myles Keogh.I was just wondering if there is anything written on any of the other officers of the 7th?
Also would Keogh's signature be of any value? |
| joseph wiggs |
Posted - June 21 2004 : 9:53:51 PM
I would like to recommend another source that, thus far, has not been mentioned. "Little Big Horn Remembered" by Herman J. Viola. The photograps are magnificent. Decendents of the actual warriors involved in the battle are interviewed. |
| Anonymous Poster8169 |
Posted - June 19 2004 : 10:09:41 PM
quote:
Originally posted by joseph wiggs
You honestly feel this way because you are incapable of understanding the meaning of this "Platitude."
No, I honestly feel that way because it's bunk. Read Shakespeare. Hell, read anything. You're making yourself look silly.
R. Larsen
|
| joseph wiggs |
Posted - June 19 2004 : 8:09:34 PM
You honestly feel this way because you are incapable of understanding the meaning of this "Platitude." |
| Anonymous Poster8169 |
Posted - June 18 2004 : 10:46:58 PM
Such a platitude is a joke. |
| joseph wiggs |
Posted - June 18 2004 : 9:21:54 PM
Lorenzo, any joke at the expense of another human being is not a joke. |
| Dark Cloud |
Posted - June 17 2004 : 09:08:01 AM
It's a joke, Lorenzo, based upon the unlikelihood that someone would be elevated by contact with me under any circumstances but certainly not the circumstances Wiggs described. He doesn't get it either, but he can't make fun of himself.
This is where language matters, and why I'm serious when I say you serve as an illustrative example of how Martin could easily have misinformed without intent to do so by minor error. |
| lorenzo G. |
Posted - June 17 2004 : 04:57:41 AM
Dark, what have to do with Little Big Horn all this ? I'm not the moderator of this forum, I know, but I still recall the discussion under the rules of correctness, even if someone disagree with another. |
| joseph wiggs |
Posted - June 16 2004 : 9:39:12 PM
Now that isn't kosher. Here I give you all this credit of single handedly unmasking my identity then you insinuate that I would resort to social climbing! For Shame. I'm cut to the quick DC. After all, you have taught me so much, the least of which is to know my social level. I know that deep in your heart you did not mean that. |
| Dark Cloud |
Posted - June 16 2004 : 5:34:00 PM
And now, social climbing. You have no shame. |
| joseph wiggs |
Posted - June 16 2004 : 4:11:35 PM
I will take a small portion of time to respond to the serious accusation that Dark Cloud has promulgated. I am an escaped inmate from an insane assylum who had nothing else to do but find Dark Cloud and lie to him. Dark Cloud was the first to catch me. |
