| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Wrangler |
Posted - November 30 2003 : 10:32:11 PM
John S. Gray's, Custer's Last Campaign, was a significant contribution to gaining a better understanding of the chronology of events on 25 June 1876. Speaking of this work, Thomas Dunlay of the Journal of American History remarks,
“His detailed time motion analysis of the movements of the various participants frankly boggles the mind of this reviewer. No one will be able to write of this battle again without reckoning with Gray”.
Michno’s Lakota Noon uses Gray to define the start time for Reno’s fight in the valley and the start of his narrative for sorting out Indian accounts. In fact, the idea for Lakota Noon found its roots in Gray’s time-motion analysis in Custer’s Last Campaign. One would think that in reading these two books, you would have THE references for timings and locations of events associated with the battle that day. But what if Gray was wrong? What if the time-motion studies in Custer’s Last Campaign failed Gray as they had failed him in Centennial Campaign? Compare the two and you will see what I mean.
In Centennial Campaign, “the battle was probably all over by 4:45”. In Custer's Last Campaign, Gray concludes that the battle was over about 5:25. To what do we attribute this 40 minute change from one book to the next? On this point Gray is silent. He does leave us a clue in a footnote in Custer's Last Campaign (p. 261-262):
”In Centennial Campaign I proposed troop itineraries for the descent from the divide halt to halt to the Little Bighorn, but no farther. The present time-motion analysis, more systematic and detailed and based on better maps and more extensive sources, continues all the way to 6 P.M. of June 25. This extension revealed that the earlier itineraries were unacceptable for they led to later impossibilities. The main problem was Benteen’s off-trail scout…”
That Gray viewed footnotes as “pedantic ritual” and avoided them if at all possible; I find this footnote most informative as to the importance of this 40-minute change in battle’s end from his previous book. This is as close as he could get to admitting the time-motion analysis in Centennial Campaign was "wrong".
Now, what if new evidence was presented that influenced his time-motion study--again? What if the statement “it is useful to know that the standard cavalry walk covered three miles in an hour, the trot six, and the gallop nine…” was incorrect (Gray, Centennial Campaign, 299). What if Gray had instead used the speed’s actually listed in Cooke’s Cavalry Tactics (printed 1862 & 1872) and reinforced in the Cavalry Journals through the 1930s (i.e. walk 3.75 mph, trot 7.5 mph, and gallop 10 mph)? If he were still alive, Gray might answer these questions in this way [emphasis mine],
"As I progressed, the time-motion analysis pattern grew ever more complex, for there were frequent interconnections between the numerous parties, resulting from separations, meetings, and courier messages, as well as cross-sightings and hearings. In such a pattern no event can remain independent of others; all must be compatible with one another, and the more interconnections, the stronger the constraint they impose. They also provide validity checks on the growing pattern, for each interconnection must prove feasible as judged by speed. Every time the pattern failed a feasibility check, I had to start over again." (Gray, Custer's Last Campaign, xv)
The first time new evidence influenced Gray's calculations, it was because the tail (Benteen) wagged the dog. New march speeds "wag the dog" once again in how they impact on (as a minimum) the "interconnections" between Benteen, McDougall and the packs, Boston Custer, and Sergeants Kanipe and Martin. If you think this is hair-splitting, what impact do new timing's and locations have on authors whose interpretations depend on or are supported by what Boston Custer sees of the valley fight? (i.e. Gray & Sklenar)
I think it's time for the "reckoning" mentioned by Dunlay in his review of Custer's Last Campaign, and we should follow Gray's advice and start over again with time-motion analysis before any more historical interpretations using Gray's work hit the bookstores.
v/r
Wrangler
|
| 25 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Wrangler |
Posted - January 22 2004 : 11:04:41 PM
Check your PMs. |
| Dark Cloud |
Posted - January 21 2004 : 11:50:23 AM
Well, that has the whiff of 'knowing' what the truth is and looking for evidence - or trying to quash certain evidence - that precludes your desired conclusion from being reached. That's religion, not science. That's Michno and Sklenar, not Gray.
If Michno has read this thread he'd be uneasy not about me but about Larson, who has pointed out some paper thin reasoning on Michno's part, potentially indicative of much.
If Wrangler has noted a fallacy in Gray (and I've admitted there'll probably be one sooner than later), and wants to make a book out of it hidden from view, fine. But if it's based on lines he developed in this thread, it's highly questionable. He insulted Gray rather rudely and unnecessarily, I think, and after a big build up his evidence essentially was "Let's pretend instead that THIS happened...." which is neither evidence nor pursuasive. And then - under a fire that could only be called delicate by scholarly standards - he whines that he cannot compete with Gray's work and numbers of charts.
Indeed. The point.
He might do it, Rocky - I have no way of knowing - but I don't think it's a passion for truth or good that propels him or you. It's to take down Gray, at least to the degree that the boys can play in the sandbox again like they used to, unhampered by those damned charts. |
| frankboddn |
Posted - January 21 2004 : 02:59:45 AM
Rocky, you've been here a week and learned many things about dark cloud's "personality." Kinda reminds you of buffalo robe, doesn't he? Most intelligent minds have fled this forum and the other because of folks of their ilk. I think I'll just be deleting these two from my favorites so I won't even be tempted to see what the good guys are fighting dark cloud over. Hang in there. |
| Rocky76 |
Posted - January 20 2004 : 11:43:09 PM
Your response is familiar, and your handle is apt. My question to you is why are you here? "if it were easy, it would have been done", to paraphrase a wise man. You seem to want it easy, just read enough books and you will have the "answers"...and they will please you, and you will go to your grave defending those "answers", and basking in your knowledge, even at the expense of others who seem, at least to you, to want too much--the truth...and make no mistake there is a truth...a truth that has eluded researchers for 127 and one half years because they accepted less. Opinions are great at dinner parties, but this is not a dinner party my friend. "Granting Hyperbole", I did my best, I have my limits...turning dark clouds into sunlight is not one. |
| Dark Cloud |
Posted - January 20 2004 : 7:24:47 PM
Okay, when we see phrases like someone "is not just an asker of questions, but a seeker of the deeper truths", it's usually followed by parables and how He passed among us but briefly before being called Home. Or, if in an airport, being asked for donations and to sit at His feet in the lotus position.
If we're structuring this as a crime investigation, at your suggestion, we aren't looking for Bigger Truths but for the responsible party. What's that called again? An agenda, right.
And I haven't seen evidence that the car couldn't have been at the crossing at the time the train crossed it. Hell, I don't know if the car ran blindly into the train or got stuck on the tracks and was hit by the train. Because by the time I got there, much time had passed, people had been celebrating the event for years, the remnants of the car and train had been stripped, the bodies buried....rumor has it. The accident was in Ringworm, Montana where there ain't much going on except the controversy over whether the engineer was on smack and didn't slow down or the car driver was drunk and didn't know what he was doing. There is, though, this long, detailed and yet boring report of evidence available formed into a plausible timeline.
There is also someone on a rock by the crossing screaming 'Repent Idiots!! What if the car left the Dairy Queen two minutes earlier than projected because in Burma, waitresses a decade later wearing rollerskates often are faster than required! And anyway, the Dairy Queen Manual says it should only take 3.24 minutes for a party of four with that order to be served and he allowed six minutes! Put THAT in your pipe and smoke it!"
Granting hyperbole, this a fair summation? |
| Rocky76 |
Posted - January 20 2004 : 3:31:35 PM
Let's say you are investigating a car/train crash and all the evidence recorded says the car couldn't arrive at the crossing until 2 minutes AFTER the caboose passed the roadway...maybe you just say, ok, somethings wrong with the evidence and leave it at that, or maybe you are a perfectionist and NEED to know WHAT evidence is wrong and how that misinformation affects the rest of your interpretation of the whole event....Wrangler is not just an asker of questions, but a seeker of the deeper truths...how could that be bad, it's his time not ours, although I will give him all the help he asks for, and knowing myself, more than he wants...Yes, I am aware of the magnitude of his undertaking and take my hat off to him. Gray was not always an old man...and his skill at presenting the evidence is not the issue here. A good read for you might be, Young Men and Fire by Norman Maclean...maybe that will help you understand. |
| Dark Cloud |
Posted - January 20 2004 : 12:34:28 PM
Rocky,
Again, I was Wrangler's first supporter here on this, but he weaned me from that.
At one time, 'horrendoplasty' was a joke term some surgeons used for a ghastly operation. I've seen it in the lay press.
I know, better than some, what Wrangler is up against, and just like the stages of grief - anger, denial, acceptance etc.- there are stages of sanity trying to work Gray's stuff around. It is unbelievably frustrating, and until you get into it, you don't realize just how interconnected everything is. Gray was an old man, and this was boring work, and he's an unexceptional writer anyway which may explain why the book is talked about more than actually read. Still...... |
| El Crab |
Posted - January 20 2004 : 12:54:35 AM
As Lt. Colonel, I must deny your request, Private. |
| Rocky76 |
Posted - January 19 2004 : 11:36:36 PM
Wow, I have only been in this Army for a week or so, and already have a green star next to my name and have been promoted to Private....can I get a picture for the folks back home? |
| Rocky76 |
Posted - January 19 2004 : 11:23:07 PM
Well Capt., are you satisfied now? "horrendoplasty" was neat to read, but dictionary.com rejected it as a word....maybe it is, maybe not..but you need to take a deep breath and rethink your position.... Wrangler has made some really good points that stand up under the scrutiny that separates them from being just someones opinion. I will honestly admit I am not a fan of Dr. Gray's work...but that is based on my research of his statements that relate to areas in which I have knowledge and the research of another whose opinions I respect...now Wrangler is questioning those same things, and offering to check into these questions for us, questions that will bring forth answers for researchers that depend on the work of others, like Wrangler's, to make reasonable assumptions...this is how it works. We are dealing with an episode that occured 127, going on 128 years ago, in which no acceptable witness survived to tell the story....your thoughts are as good as mine...but it must be remembered that we have honest witnesses whose accounts take us at least half way down Cedar Coulee....this is a pretty solid "check point" for the work that Gray done....let the man do his work and support him...if he is wrong, I think he will be the first to admit it. |
| Dark Cloud |
Posted - January 19 2004 : 9:40:03 PM
You don't? Regarding the fueling attitude towards Gray, read the first page of this thread again, not just the opening posting. Maybe it doesn't seem so belittling in a Power Point presentation, but it sure reads as if there was resentment and a desire to break the logic chains Gray put on once free roaming game pieces flexible to the imagination.
|
| El Crab |
Posted - January 19 2004 : 7:38:09 PM
Well, I for one do not believe anything Wrangler seeks is denigrating or dismissing Gray. Its expanding on his work. He does question his sources for information, and I think he has a right to. Gray seemed to offer no information as to where he got his rates from. They might be spot on, they certainly seem plausible, but that doesn't mean they can't be questioned.
I agree 100% with your last two paragraphs. But what can you do? Its mainstream America, and its public seems to be afflicted with ADD. What can ya do? |
| Dark Cloud |
Posted - January 19 2004 : 5:51:43 PM
El Crab,
Well, your paragraph on my use of the term 'Burmese' for animals in Burma biodegrades before its end, but in any case, it wasn't an accusation that someone had claimed some expertise or profession that wasn't true, and this as a means of degrading him and his position. However, in the spirit of reconciliation, I apologize to the late mules for labelling them Burmese without personal knowledge.
I've done rather more research on this that you give me credit for, but it was years ago and my stuff, upon which I am dependent, doesn't travel with me. But if you're suggesting I'm pulling a Tom Sawyer and trying to get others to do my work, you're mistaken. My interests in LBH are not the same as that of others.
Beyond the fact I think Custer being hurt explains best the horrendoplasty of a battle that occured past MTC, and that confusion between Weir Point and Sharpshooter Ridge (absent from key maps) caused much of the issues that led to suspicions of a coverup, I have no particular point of view on this battle, and neither view is original.
I have, however, always been sensitive to the number of people attracted to this event who degrade the dead - mostly Custer, Reno and Benteen - with emotion that is not justified by their own, if any, military experience and simply use the battle for projection of their own issues, whatever they are, however defined. And not just soldiers.
I think the late Gray is owed more grace than some give him, but surely at some point his charts will succumb, to some degree, to better evidence. He did the backbreaking work to create these sometimes prissy charts and graphs that underlined the fact his method should be applied to much history. But face it, most people just like to hypothesize and sling bull about the battle, and rather resent having stuff being nailed to an interconnected chart.
The fact is, Gray, errors and all, is still the gorilla and not so easily dismissed by those willing to 'remove all doubt' of their intent and ability to do so. Because his charts rival Sominex for excitement, he doesn't get coverage that sobbing men in period soldier suits do. Has his name ever dampened the air emerging from the History Channel, PBS, or Discovery in all the shows on LBH they've done? No, they want controversy and 'mystery' and resent Gray's presence, if they're even aware of him, more than most. |
| Rocky76 |
Posted - January 19 2004 : 12:22:41 PM
browsing back over this thread I note wrangler stated:
5. That the “average company” of the 7th Cavalry had 2 officers and 38 enlisted men. Of these, one could expect (per Cooke’s Cavalry Tactics) that up to 11 men would be “out riders” and/or “file closers” (3 Officers, 2 Trumpeters, the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd Sergeants, farrier, saddler, and blacksmith). In simple terms, by regulation, these men were not included within “sets of four”.
6. That for purposes of this study we will stipulate that on 25 June 1876, the average number of "outriders" per company was 8.
[Note ref Premises 5 & 6: Not all companies had their full complement of men occupying these duty positions given individuals not physically present with “the colors”. Some were with the pack trains, on detached duty, sick, in confinement, etc. This leaves an average of 32 enlisted men or “files” that would make up the main body of the “average” company, or 8 sets of four or 16 sets of two for purposes of determining the length of company column formations. The construction of this premise is consistent with the company strengths stated by Gray in Centennial Campaign which, given his numbers, average 49 men per company. If we subtract the average of 7 men per company as detached to the pack trains, this yields an average strength of 42 men actually present with their companies on 25 June 1876 per Gray's numbers.]
So how do you account for Farrier Fitzgerald of C Co. being in Peter Thompson's set of four?
|
| Rocky76 |
Posted - January 18 2004 : 8:56:16 PM
Wrangler, you asked if Anders located the Crow's Nest...yes he did, in section 9 if that helps you...I would gladly send you scans of three of his maps if you would respond to the email I sent you last night..therefore letting me know that you are receiving them. Three things that interest me about the battle are the route taken, the action on NCR, and I forget the other but the fact that Anders spent so much time near the divide trying to prove that Godfrey was right and then having Hutchins blow the whole deal with the Bozeman party entrenchments is a little too pat for me...I sent Tom Heski the complete file of letters through John Doerner and when they were returned I got a polite thank you and no opinion....I have seen the Anders manuscript as published by John Carroll, but it conveniently leaves off when the column reaches Busby...I have access to all the data beyond that point but no time to study it...but I will make one observation here...your timed marches will be different if the column went up Thompson creek, but probably not by all that much. |
| El Crab |
Posted - January 18 2004 : 8:14:13 PM
DC: Show me where it says the mules were Burmese, and I'll agree that they were Burmese mules. All that was said about the mules in Burma was just that, they were mules and they were in service in Burma. And I've read a bit on WWII and the use of mules, and they seemed to be supplied to soldiers, not commandeered in all cases. And when troops with mules island-hopped, they had to load them on transports and take 'em with.
Complain about others reading what's not there (i.e. your teaching of high school physics) and then decide on your own that the mules are Burmese. And maybe you don't, because of your inability to seek more than what's fed to you, want to look further. Maybe you don't want to find out more about mules because they aren't the EXACT same mules from the 7th's packtrain. But I think an understanding of the pieces that make up the puzzle is the only way to put together something decent. If we're just going to read a book and decide that's the end-all explanation, then disband the forum and join the general public. But some of us, regardless of how foolish you might consider it, believe there's more out there. And if reading everything we can get our hands on about Army mules in 1940s Burma is what we deem necessary, then we'll do it. Which did, by the way, offer evidence that Montana in June is easier on animals than humid Burmese jungles would be. What does it prove? Not much of anything. But that's not the intent of seeking more info on mules. LBH is like a puzzle with extra pieces. Its not clear which ones are the extraneous pieces, because they still fit. But having a better understanding of every piece may be the key to putting a picture together that's closer to the truth.
pjsolla, my normally reliable website is no longer reliable. I'll email ya a different AKA working email address for Michno. Again, much thanks.
Its a shame Michno decided against it, but I believe I have a general idea of his reasoning. And I can't say I blame him.
Wrangler, I don't expect anything on this subject to be rushed. Take your time, and I'll also patiently await what you have to offer.
I think DeNiro said it best in "Ronin"...
"You're either part of the problem, part of the solution or part of the landscape."
|
| Wrangler |
Posted - January 18 2004 : 5:04:33 PM
Larsen,
Understood.
v/r
Wrangler |
| Anonymous Poster8169 |
Posted - January 18 2004 : 4:35:22 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Wrangler
Larsen,quote:
Originally posted by Anonymous Poster8169
Which I guess means you're conceding that Gray's itinerary is perfectly plausible, based on the evidence we have from the battle.
No. My sense of plausibility was lost at 12:12 before anything took a step when three battalions left from the same point at the same time.
Which is why I look forward to seeing your alternate itinerary, so we can find out how much of a difference you think that really makes over the next five hours.
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Anonymous Poster8169
But what's your itinerary? How do you think all those interconnections go together? It could be even more plausible. I'm just wondering how much you *really* disagree with Gray, and I'd like to see it measured in minutes.
Gray was allowed 210 pages, 14 tables and 7 figures to describe his interpretation of the timing of the battle. It is my belief that what you ask requires a similar endeavor so I will not be able to oblige you. If you are convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that Gray accurately represents the timing of the battle, I will not begrudge you your belief any further.
That's all right. I'm a patient man and can wait as long as needed. If you get it published, I'll happily buy it. Good luck. Just bear in mind that if you want to really challenge Gray, you'll have to come up with a system of your own that explains the whole day better than his does. What you have so far won't cut it.
R. Larsen
|
| BJMarkland |
Posted - January 18 2004 : 4:20:33 PM
quote:
Have you been drinking?
No, but now that you mention it
Have a good rest of the day everyone!
Billy |
| BJMarkland |
Posted - January 18 2004 : 4:14:58 PM
Another link which may help:
1912 Movement Table
http://www.military-info.com/freebies/D3.htm
Billy
|
| Wrangler |
Posted - January 18 2004 : 4:09:07 PM
Larsen,quote:
Originally posted by Anonymous Poster8169
Which I guess means you're conceding that Gray's itinerary is perfectly plausible, based on the evidence we have from the battle.
No. My sense of plausibility was lost at 12:12 before anything took a step when three battalions left from the same point at the same time.
quote:
Originally posted by Anonymous Poster8169
But what's your itinerary? How do you think all those interconnections go together? It could be even more plausible. I'm just wondering how much you *really* disagree with Gray, and I'd like to see it measured in minutes.
Gray was allowed 210 pages, 14 tables and 7 figures to describe his interpretation of the timing of the battle. It is my belief that what you ask requires a similar endeavor so I will not be able to oblige you. If you are convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that Gray accurately represents the timing of the battle, I will not begrudge you your belief any further.
v/r
Wrangler |
| Dark Cloud |
Posted - January 18 2004 : 2:34:37 PM
Markland:
What possible relevance could actual, verified times of cavalry and packtrains over bad ground have to this argument? Have you been drinking? We are weighing items of importance: the times of Burmese mules in a different century against Army Holy Book times for a different species, acquired in other ecosystems under unknown but safely assumed different circumstances, from which - with the spatial/temporal application of physics - great truths can be obtained. Get with the program, will ya? Stop hindering the argument with things that are on target, relevant, and to the point.
All notice that the page 13 note to the lecture quoted the term 'rate' is used as both speed and rate by manual definition, previouosly offered. Gray isn't alone.
But, those times correspond almost exactly to Gray's, or at least don't threaten them. A pack train on an unfavorable road (the divide to LT) and, granting a courtesy - favorable conditions - could be expected to make 1.4 mph. A rate of note. Of course, if insane and willing to call it a good road overall, as some sections were, it could be expected to make 3.5 mph.
I'm back where I can access info other than the web, now, and I have to admit I read through stuff to see if my mind was holding a fire sale and memory no longer served. I found some errors on my part (hey, who'd believe it?) - amongst which there was a pack train with Reno (there would have to be, if I thought about it) although it wasn't mentioned in the stuff I found on the web, just the Gatling. But reading Godfrey, Fry, Ryan, and Benteen again soothed my aristocratic brow. And be it said, all manuals ought to be drop kicked around the room for all the relevance they have to this issue.
And the issue is, which people may have forgot: was Gray correct in a using a 3mph average rate for a packtrain from the divide to the Lone Teepee, and as an average overall? Because so many things tag to it. Yes. Nothing produced threatens it.
Other things: Godfrey complained about the state of the mules at the start of Custer's going up the Rosebud, Custer wanted them to carry extra forage but when remonstrated with told the officers they were responsible for their particular mules and supplies, the regiment marched in two columns (of 4's? doesn't say) to avoid too much dust, the mules started out behind their respective companies not in train, some mules fell several miles behind, it took 90 minutes at least for the mules to cross the Rosebud (a pathetic excuse for a stream) which was undrinkable and so no water for the animals from at least 8 PM June 24 until they reached the morass (wherever it was) 17 hours or so later. To make the sudden burst of 4mph on the final jump to the Wolf Mt.'s packs were cut loose and left deliberately, and that the descent from the divide was a god awful trail.
Did they follow the manual recommendations of gaits and breaks? Hard to prove, but apparently not. They stopped at Indian sites, which were not timed to their gait. Sometimes testimony says 'numerous' halts, sometimes they marched over two hours without a break. And breaking the mules into a trot was guaranteed to leave half the load on the trail. So overall? No, they didn't follow the manual.
Further, given the morass - a think of unknown size and location - probably couldn't accomodate huge numbers at the same time (it didn't make it in definition to 'water hole'), twenty minutes to briefly water 130 odd horses hardly seems excessive given they had had no other moisture since well before 8 PM the night before on a hot day.
It's likely Wrangler is entertaining other names for both me and the mule to be named for me, but none the less, Lord Dark Cloud and Arnold the Magnificent thank you for the info. |
| Anonymous Poster8169 |
Posted - January 18 2004 : 2:23:40 PM
quote:
Originally posted by BJMarkland
My apologies to any I offended with my frustration at the board and my own self for not doing a control C before attempting to post.
No apologies necessary. Your frustration is shared by many. None of this used to happen, but since the board started forcing people to log in in order to make a post, I myself have lost several posts due to neglecting to sign in. Yeah, it's my fault, but it's also because of an unnecessary rule, which for some reason doesn't appear to apply on the Alamo board: I have seen several people post anonymously there since the change. I guess we're the blessed ones.
R. Larsen
|
| Anonymous Poster8169 |
Posted - January 18 2004 : 2:12:11 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Wrangler
You suggested, “I have to remind you guys that our limits on plausibility are not old textbooks or what have you, but what is left in the historical accounts themselves.” I provided you a reminder of what the historical accounts say, and I do understand that the validity of old textbooks must be confirmed or denied based on what is actually seen on the ground and in the testimony.
And I just reminded you that there are other historical accounts out there that would have to be considered, not just a raw estimate of total distance which even Godfrey (one of your citations) admitted to be "impossible" to really make. Memories of where they went, who they met, etc., which combined, would seem to make it unlikely Benteen traveled more than about 8 miles. Even you (down below) appear to think the *total* evidence shows that Edgerly and Godfrey overestimated the distance. I think the problem here is that when I said "the historical accounts," I didn't mean just "some historical accounts." No account can be considered in isolation; it has to be interpreted in light of other known evidence.
quote:
In your post, you present an interesting scenario to be explored with regards to an off-scout distance of 15 miles. I look forward to your assessment of it. However, until then, I believe Darling is correct in describing the off-trail scout path and distance for Benteen's Battalion. Until someone can walk the ground, fly the plane over the area, and screen the testimony as he did--and provide a better explanation, I'll stick with Darling.
I gave my assessment in my last post, when I agreed with Darling and Gray's evaluation.
quote:
However, I disagree with his using an unsubstantiated 3-mph as the speed for the trains. Especially given his analysis:
”The rate-of-march takes into account the actual terrain traversed as well as the facts known about the battalion's pace at the time. We know, for example, that Benteen was ordered to "ride rapidly," and the scout participants tell us a trot was maintained most of the time. This would have Benteen moving along faster than the regulation walk of four miles per hour. But not in this terrain, under the orders Benteen received from Custer. An adjustment is therefore made which places Benteen's rate at something faster than the pack train walk (3 miles per hour), but slower than the cavalry walk. The figure used is 3.4 miles per hour." (Darling, Benteen's Scout-to-the-Left, 12)
This explanation is not sufficient for me. Where did his 3-mph for the trains come from? If in anyone's mind the trains traveled faster or slower, than each interconnection and associated time has a high potential to change. Evidence previously excluded now has to be reconsidered and reconciled. If you believe the trains moved slower, you would find sympathy in Godfrey’s “…or 30 minutes” testimony about the length of the halt at the morass. If you believe the trains moved faster, you would find sympathy with Benteen’s “not 15 minutes” testimony. If you believe Gray and Darling’s 3-mph for the trains, you would find sympathy in Godfrey’s “20…minutes” and getting some additional speed out of Benteen and the boys to compensate for the location of the trains at the end of the column at the divide halt (and the time it takes for them to get to the 12:12 start point).
Which I guess means you're conceding that Gray's itinerary is perfectly plausible, based on the evidence we have from the battle. But what's your itinerary? How do you think all those interconnections go together? It could be even more plausible. I'm just wondering how much you *really* disagree with Gray, and I'd like to see it measured in minutes.
R. Larsen
|
| pjsolla |
Posted - January 18 2004 : 2:06:54 PM
TO ALL: I have received an email from Greg Michno. He went to the site again to consider possibly participating in the forum. His words, not mine, "too many people on there appear to arguing for the sake of arguing. I don't want to have to get caught up in that". No comment from me. I asked him and that was his repsonse.
He will however, email with El Crab. Trouble is El Crabs email address is "not working". So, if El Crab reads this, perhaps he can advise me of a working email address.
Greg felt a lot of good material was on the site, but he felt very strongly about the "people arguing for the sake of arguing". I know he is involved in his new works on the Sand Creek Massacre and is busy with other projects. I guess time is precious and he feels the forum will just be one endless argument.
I can be reached at pjsolla@yahoo.com I don't want to clutter up the AAO site with personal matter. It's not the place for it.
Regards, PJS |
|
|
