| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| hunkpapa7 |
Posted - February 21 2005 : 7:14:46 PM
Which general do you think could hav come out of this battle with honour
|
| 8 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Dark Cloud |
Posted - February 22 2005 : 2:14:55 PM
No, my apologies. I'm not reading well. That's the second time I've flubbed one of Dave's postings. Apologies. Argh. No excuse. |
| hunkpapa7 |
Posted - February 22 2005 : 1:12:01 PM
My apoligies guys,
It was well after midnight when I tabled the poll,and when I thought about it,I tried to change it,but for some reason I couldn't get it back.
My question would be which,if any ? other general could have handled the battle better.
The approach,and after MTC[given the senario most of us think happened]
You could add say,Hancock or even Col Stanley.
Being a Aussie,Dave knew what I was trying to say ! |
| BJMarkland |
Posted - February 22 2005 : 11:51:02 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Cloud
You've avoided the issue, Dave, and are now pretending you asked who would have handled the battle best. That's not at all the same thing as your original question of who would have come out of the battle with honor.
There's no hyperbole whatsoever in my response. If so, what was it?
I'm not convinced any then current cavalry unit could have won it against those numbers except for the 9th or 10th. The Army just wasn't very good in the daylight, never mind at night.
Uh, Dave was the one speaking originally about "handling" the battle. Hunkpapa was the one who initally mentioned "with honor."
Personally, I do prefer Dave's format for the question, i.e., who would have handled (managed) the battle best.
Billy |
| Dark Cloud |
Posted - February 22 2005 : 11:46:28 AM
You've avoided the issue, Dave, and are now pretending you asked who would have handled the battle best. That's not at all the same thing as your original question of who would have come out of the battle with honor.
There's no hyperbole whatsoever in my response. If so, what was it?
I'm not convinced any then current cavalry unit could have won it against those numbers except for the 9th or 10th. The Army just wasn't very good in the daylight, never mind at night. |
| dave |
Posted - February 22 2005 : 11:18:02 AM
Far be it for me to rain on your parade DC, but...
I do appreciate that you love to wax lyrical and indulge in excessive hyperbole, but can we please stay on track - just this once?
Personally I think Hunkpapa's has asked an extremely interesting question, one which I've considered in the past actually. I think Miles would never have allowed half of his force to be wiped out. Of course Miles would have approached the situation in far different manner, I would imagine that he would have angled for a night attack - if possible, and if possible he would have brought light artilary.
So whats your thoughts DC? - which of those CO's do you think would have handled the battle best?
And while we're on the topic, I think Ranald McKenzie should have been included in the list. |
| Anonymous Poster8169 |
Posted - February 21 2005 : 11:47:57 PM
quote:
Originally posted by dave
Miles got my vote. A vastly under-rated general from everything I've read. He might not have had the charisma of a Custer, and he might have made his share of mistakes, but he got the job done.
And made sure that everybody knew of it. That's what hurt him more than anything, that he was so relentlessly self-promoting. Custer wasn't much different, but could at least be entertaining about it, while Miles took himself too seriously to ever arouse much love. Shelby Foote loathes him, and there are a number of screeds directed against him in his Civil War book regarding his role as Jefferson Davis's jailor.
R. Larsen |
| Dark Cloud |
Posted - February 21 2005 : 10:26:38 PM
Any of them. What do you mean by honour? Victory? Non-defeat? Custer came out of this battle without shame, if that's what you mean.
I have animosity towards the word. Most people concerned with personal honor, as with "class", don't have it, which is why the issue is ever before them. (That's not about you, by the by. Just in general.) If you mean what I would generally assume you would - self-respect based on fidelity to elevating personal values expressed and not, along with some fame of accomplishment and commensurate social standing - then I don't understand the question. Any of those guys could, and Custer did.
For the question to be consistent and make sense, you must think losing means you lost your honor.
In any case, I don't think anything in the Spanish American War provided anyone with much honor, whatever it is. Spain collapsed before any shots were fired, but we wouldn't let it go without a fight. If honor was greatly exhibited it was to by that pathetic Spanish Navy trying to take us on with no hope whatever.
Miles was in charge at Wounded Knee, and it's hard to pat that baby into any sort of honorable shape. Whatever was intended, it was badly done, and along with civvie Indian dead, it was a circular firing squad with significant friendly fire casualties. Miles also is at the bottom of two fabrications involving Custer: the Mary Adams affadavit, so called, and the letter of Miles' views that someone, hard to say who, tried to get published under another officer's name through Mrs. Custer, till that officer renounced it both because he had not written it and it did not reflect his views.
I haven't read the newest pamphlet about the Adams affadavit, but have great difficulty in believing there were three sisters sorta/kinda employed by the Custers in what must have been an early Newhart routine. "Hi, I'm Nancy. This is my sister Mary, and that's my other sister Mary. Called Maria. My brothers, John and Juan, are employed elsewhere." I'm also interested in the signatures of people who can't write, and their remarkable memory for upper class English given in dramatic fashion years later just after the deaths of people who could, would, and had contradicted it. |
| dave |
Posted - February 21 2005 : 9:35:21 PM
Miles got my vote. A vastly under-rated general from everything I've read. He might not have had the charisma of a Custer, and he might have made his share of mistakes, but he got the job done.
His campaign on Puerto Rico during the Spanish-American war was a classic example of how an army can be used as a tool of diplomacy. Unfortunatley Roosevelt and his rough riders garnered the glory for their charge up San Juan Hill and Miles short, victorious campaign is over-shadowed.
|
|
|
