| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| bhist |
Posted - December 31 2004 : 5:17:14 PM
Who do you think is the best historian on the LBH?
I would have to vote for John Gray, first.
Robert Utley, second.
I humbly ask all participants of this forum to not attack the person that list a historian you despise.
|
| 25 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| joseph wiggs |
Posted - February 23 2005 : 8:54:19 PM
I bet you could write a lot of interesting tomes that way! |
| Frank Spencer |
Posted - February 22 2005 : 2:02:12 PM
Call the plumber Betty!! |
| hunkpapa7 |
Posted - February 22 2005 : 1:39:05 PM
Oh,no Frank,what have you done now ? |
| Frank Spencer |
Posted - February 22 2005 : 08:46:40 AM
Oh Betty!!! |
| Dark Cloud |
Posted - February 21 2005 : 4:21:01 PM
An even worse historian than you were a tv show. |
| Frank Spencer |
Posted - February 21 2005 : 4:07:44 PM
Wild1 is probably the best historian on this site!! |
| movingrobewoman |
Posted - February 08 2005 : 11:19:58 PM
Utley. My other favourite, although I'd probably not consider him a true "historian," is Van de Water. Both writers have provided us with beautifully written, succinct biographies of one George Armstrong Custer. Granted, I am not voting on the more specific LBH sub-genre ...
Regards, |
| lorenzo G. |
Posted - February 08 2005 : 6:15:09 PM
I choose Walter Donald Horn. A gentleman, a great historian. |
| joseph wiggs |
Posted - January 28 2005 : 7:11:41 PM
I choose Walter Camp.
"He was named the most knowledgeable man of his generation concerning Indian wars in the West by Generals E.A. Godfrey, Charles King,Anson Mills, and William Carey Brown. To scholars he remains one of the best sources of oral information on the Indian Wars in the nineteenth century."
J.D. McDermott
Camp studied several Indian languasges, including Sioux and Delaware, which was nearly extinct. Between 1908 and 1919 (32 to 43 years after the battle) he interviewed two hundred Indian wars veterans, the most extensive one with Sgt. John Henley of "B" troop, 7th. cavalry. Henley was very familiar with the Sioux language allowing him to speak directly with the hunkpapa who were involved in the Custer battle. Camp also interviewed nunerous Indian participants such as Curley, Two Moon, White Bull, Tall Bull, He Dog, and others. Camp advised that he visited at least forty-one battlefields. One of these, the Wagon Box Fight, had been lost over time until rediscovered by him.
The following historians and researchers sought his advice:E.A. Brininstool, W.A. Graham., and Ralph Ellison.
I can think of no single person who was a better source for information regarding this event than the man who was respected and deferred to by so many other respected researchers/historians. |
| Dark Cloud |
Posted - January 24 2005 : 1:44:09 PM
I don't think it fair to put Connell (or a participant) in as any sort of historian. He's a story teller, made no real original research, and laid out the conflicts fairly according to what was known. He makes no claims of surety. His first edition had Kit Carson alive years after he died, and there were other mistakes, but as an epic story I don't think it will be easily surpassed. Beautiful work, and all in all pretty accurate.
I don't know what you mean that Godfrey was the first writer. I suppose all the officers, writing their reports, or the newspaper hacks that made up the first releases could all be considered 'first' writers. But Grant, right after the battle, lay the blame squarely at Custer's feet and so annoyed Mrs. Custer that the battle was on. Whitaker had the first book six months after the battle. Whitaker started the continuing habit of just taking stuff from Custer's book (and, later, his wife's)and rewriting it as third person fact, unexamined.
I disagree on Camp, but only because we have no basis to judge the abilities of Indian translators one way or the other; and it was fifty years after the fact when Camp did his work. Can you imagine compiling a history of WWII with no first hand info acquired from Germans or Japanese till 1995, and this if they had no written language or recording devices before except the notes of meetings from people of unknown prejudices and language ability now dead themselves? And (to maintain comparison) so few speak Japanese or German, we have to take people's word that they're actually able to translate the old soldiers and civilian bombing survivors with accuracy? I realize the comparison is forced, but to illustrate how iffy that all is. |
| MarcusAurelius |
Posted - January 24 2005 : 11:55:13 AM
I present these ideas without rancor, but as earnest observations. I think that the published work we have is certainly much better than none at all...but.....
The early rancor involving Reno, Benteen, Rosser and all the rest really has persisted, hasn't it? There really haven't been many trained historians, who have come up through the academic ranks. Since writers have come from other vocations, most have had no reason to act or write in a way which gives credit to those who have gone before, or present their own thoughts in a humble way. Au contraire, the prefaces and introductory materials in most books are laced with accusations against others, and self-congratulatory claims of non-bias, common sense, and accuracy. The overwhelming majoritiy of publications are single-authored, without the course-correcting influence of a partner.
The other problem with a non-academic approach is that individual concepts and conclusions have not generally been subjected to the academic scrutiny that would allow for the kind of corrections, adjustments, etc that would allow for steady progress. Most books are either self published or published without editorial review. There are obviously exceptions to this. For example, I think that the presentation of papers in the kind of format used by the CBHMA lends itself to a healthy sort of discussion prior to publication.
Godfrey we should not forget.. was the original writer...he did a very good job, given the standards of the day. The efforts of the enlisted men should not be minimized in view of their educational backgrounds: Peter Thompson, John Ryan, and William Taylor; they are flawed but important. We have to give Graham great credit for bringing sources to light. Camp only wrote a few things but he stands as the dominant historical worker in the field. Scrupulously devoted to avoiding bringing any bias to his interviews. Camp was a professional writer, who knew that accuracy was crucial...people died right and left in railroad accidents, and Camps writing in that field was the best available, to help improve the field. He was a very responsible man. Brininstool was too much of a journalist for my taste. George Bird Grinnell was a great writer and such a great man; his work should not be ignored. Fred Dustin tends to be overlooked but he collected a number of important materials, and his writings provide some important insights. John Gray stands as a pioneer in his efforts to provide a framework for analysis; that he made mistakes in selecting and analyzing the data is to be expected. We have to build on his model. His body of orginal analysis and writing seems to eclipse that of any other writer. Those who have published Indian sources and Camp's notes have provided a great service to the field. Michno's effort to organize them in Lakota Noon is a great step forward; like Gray's, his work is not definitive, but provides a basis for ongoing efforts. Evan S. Connell tends to polarize people, for reasons that I don't quite understand; he has his place. Fox provides a new dimension to the field, and brings forward some new historical sources as well. Sklenar's book provides some courageous and important progress. Liddic's recent effort complements his earlier work.
So I would divide the credits into three categories : Historian/researcher: Camp, followed by Gray, Michno, Fox, Dustin, Hardorff, Graham, Hammer, Liddic,
Historian/writer: it has to be Gray; his body of work overwhelms the others. Was he perfect? no. Will his work endure? yes. is it something we can build on? yes. Followed by Michno, Godfrey, Dustin, Fox, Liddic, Sklenar, Connell
Special accomplishments: Peter Thompson, Hank Weibert
Thats my take.
|
| bhist |
Posted - January 21 2005 : 11:42:32 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Anonymous Poster8169
quote:
Originally posted by BJMarkland
I am saddened that no one included Jerome Green in their picks. Granted, he is not as flashy as some, but as far as solid history goes, he is tops.
Billy
Tops? I actually think he's the best one out there right now. I rate "Yellowstone Command" as the best he's done, and he's still keeping at work: a book on Sand Creek was published not too long ago.
R. Larsen
He's tops because he's such a thoroughly fast researcher (he’s the Clint Eastwood in the research field – always completes his films ahead of schedule and under budget) and clear writer. In less than a year he researched the administrative history of the Little Bighorn Battlefield National Monument, wrote the copy, and it has just now reached the hands of the Chief Historian at LBH for his final review.
When I'm up there the first week of February, I'll review it then. Jerry couldn't let me "borrow" it until it is approved.
There will be a whole chapter just on the "Custer" organizations alone along with some of their battles against the NPS. But, Jerry's wording is written such a way that it can't inflame (unless one is a "Custer Idiot").
|
| Anonymous Poster8169 |
Posted - January 21 2005 : 05:06:11 AM
quote:
Originally posted by BJMarkland
I am saddened that no one included Jerome Green in their picks. Granted, he is not as flashy as some, but as far as solid history goes, he is tops.
Billy
Tops? I actually think he's the best one out there right now. I rate "Yellowstone Command" as the best he's done, and he's still keeping at work: a book on Sand Creek was published not too long ago.
R. Larsen |
| bhist |
Posted - January 20 2005 : 11:48:15 PM
quote:
Originally posted by BJMarkland
I am saddened that no one included Jerome Green in their picks. Granted, he is not as flashy as some, but as far as solid history goes, he is tops.
Billy
So true, Billy. Greene inscribed in my copy of Finding Sand Creek: “Friend and colleague for many years. With Warmest Regards, Jerry Greene Jan 13, 2005" |
| BJMarkland |
Posted - January 20 2005 : 11:38:10 PM
I am saddened that no one included Jerome Green in their picks. Granted, he is not as flashy as some, but as far as solid history goes, he is tops.
Billy |
| joseph wiggs |
Posted - January 15 2005 : 3:03:22 PM
Thanks Paul, your comments prove that you share a similar hope that we all, in the future, may refrain from personal condemnations and deal with non-personal issues. I believe your recent attempt to extend the "olive branch" was a sincere one. Sadly, it was refused. |
| BJMarkland |
Posted - January 14 2005 : 11:48:27 PM
Paul, were you able to type this with a straight face?
"Too bad more do not appreciate this position on simply enjoying polite discussion and simple conjecture on this subject. Unfortunately, some suffer from such insecurities and no real contributable foundational knowledge of the subject you express here, but instead they must try to assert themselves as unchallengeable guru's sitting on a nonexistent pinnacle of knowledge. "
Laughing my butt off,
Billy |
| joseph wiggs |
Posted - January 14 2005 : 8:36:13 PM
For all we know the poor unfortunates, whose last resting place was Deep Ravine, may have been deposited there by aliens, possible but, not likely. Whenever we approach the "cause and effect" for the fatal outcome of this battle we should look for reasonableness. Fox's psychological, and judicious, approach to warfare is but one of many plausible variables that may, or may not, be correct. We simply don't know, nor has anyone professed such a claim.
The obvious fascination for this battle, over a hundred years after its advent, is founded upon speculation. Due to the death of every white witness under Custer's command and the confusing and contradictory Indian statements, we are bereft of hope of ever discovering the truth. Thankfully this lack of knowledge (hard cold facts) allows us to pass through a wondrous portal of speculation, conjecture and, what if's that enable all of us to wonder, pause, and reflect. How utterly boring these threads would be if anyone of us was so blessed with superior knowledge that he possessed the answers to everything. Why then have any discussion?
Greatfully no one of us enjoys such stature. Therefore, we are afforded the grand opportunity to be a gum shoe, an investigator, a real live detective! To gather information, peruse archives, research sources of information and, finally, to share that knowledge with others who have a common bond in their passion for this event. That is why we are all here.
If some sinister, dark soul would ever attempt to deny me my God given right to express my thoughts and feelings in a manner of dignity and openness, I would "vomit." |
| Dark Cloud |
Posted - January 14 2005 : 12:22:33 AM
Breakfast consists of a series of episodes interrelated in time and space, for God's sake. An insight? "...comprehending how humans react" would require said God given that we don't know what specific stresses anyone was reacting to, and can only guess. What larger picture? That implies a revelation of great insight, a Unified Custer Theory, and it never appears.
This is academic phrase porn that doesn't mean anything but apparently sounds really impressive to the intended audience. Like "clustering" and "tactical disintegration." Makes me vomit to hear those things repeated like a damned mantra. Diagnosed "clustering" by found casings could really be "dead horse to hide behind sequentially" and "t.d." sounds so much better than "incontinent and running away." We don't and can't know.
Again, for all we know, the guys in Deep Ravine may have gotten there on the way up or fallen on the lip and pushed in after death. We simply don't know. And really, what difference does any of it make? None of the plausible scenarios for Custer's last whatever could be remotely as interesting as what happened on Reno Hill and Weir Point. |
| joseph wiggs |
Posted - January 13 2005 : 9:45:15 PM
My vote is for Fox. This is not to say that the other candidates are not worthy. However, Fox is the only researcher to analyze certain stressful behavior patterns of men in combat. He deals with specific behavior patterns that have prevailed throughout the ages. His reference to "a battle consists of a series of episodes interrelated in time and space" espound upon the complexity of all battles. Comprehending how humans react to specific stresses during combat enables us to understand how a battle unfolds. It affords us an opportunity to see the "larger" picture. Gray seems to feel that that the men discovered in "Deep Ravine" represents a dilemma. "Why would all the men enter so obvious a death trap before they had fallen?" A rational conclusion on the surface, however, men crazed with fear, faced with a myriad of sizzling bullets and arrows tearing into their flesh will seek shelter anywhere. This desperation is a response to "perceived" safety. Under critical stress, perceived safety may, in fact, be actually a death trap.
|
| El Crab |
Posted - January 06 2005 : 12:22:34 AM
I'm particularly torn. I've spoken to Michno via email, and spent several days with Fox. I don't necessarily agree with all of the conclusions Fox comes to (but was surprised at how willing to consider other theories he was), I lean closer to Michno on that one.
I've said it before, but I'll add Fox to the mix.
Evan S. Connell is the best for the little details and myths, Fox and Michno for the conjectures on the battle's course. I think Michno has a slight edge on how the battle unfolded (and was nice enough to snail-mail me Trinque's LSH defensive tactics article), but Fox has a very cool ranch and throws an excellent BBQ. So I'll cop-out and say I can't choose between them. |
| frankboddn |
Posted - January 05 2005 : 02:06:29 AM
Dr. Richard Fox.quote:
Originally posted by bhist
Who do you think is the best historian on the LBH?
I would have to vote for John Gray, first.
Robert Utley, second.
I humbly ask all participants of this forum to not attack the person that list a historian you despise.
|
| Dark Cloud |
Posted - January 03 2005 : 11:42:22 PM
So show us then where you found Michno being coy. You know, about his credentials. |
| bhist |
Posted - January 03 2005 : 02:44:50 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Anonymous Poster8169
quote:
Originally posted by Warlord
Actually, not wirhstanding the fact his book on E troop being excellent, one of the first things I noticed about Gray was how coy he was about his background.
I doubt you could have "noticed" this unless drunk, as Gray never wrote a book about E Troop. Michno's guilty of that. Odd you confuse them, since they're so little alike.
R. Larsen
Larsen: Warlord thinks John Gray wrote "The Mystery of E Troop"? How the heck did he get that idea? And, from the quote you post by Warlord he says Gray was coy? Does Warlord really mean he thinks Michno is coy?
As usual, Warlord continues to enlighten us with his total lack of knowledge of the historians writing about the LBH or the battle itself.
I personally know Michno, and I knew John Gray -- I spent time in Gray’s home and his extensive basement library. Neither man is coy -- Gray was one of the most upfront and honest men I knew, and Michno is just as credible.
I think Warlord is trying so hard to make himself look important, but he just can't seem to understand that the harder he tries, the louder we laugh. It's actually getting quite funny watching Warlord implode. Too bad I won't be able to read what the poor fellow says about me next since I HAVE WARLORD ON MY IGNORE LIST.
|
| Anonymous Poster8169 |
Posted - January 03 2005 : 02:22:19 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Warlord
Actually, not wirhstanding the fact his book on E troop being excellent, one of the first things I noticed about Gray was how coy he was about his background.
I doubt you could have "noticed" this unless drunk, as Gray never wrote a book about E Troop. Michno's guilty of that. Odd you confuse them, since they're so little alike.
R. Larsen |
|
|
