| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Wrangler
Lieutenant
Status: offline |
 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
|
|
|
Wrangler
Lieutenant
Status: offline |
Posted - November 30 2003 : 10:42:40 PM
|
On second thought, I should have entitled this thread, "John Gray: The Tale That Wags the Dog--Still". :-)
v/r
Wrangler |
  |
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - December 01 2003 : 12:57:45 PM
|
You're somewhat harsh on Gray, I think. He calls his chronology for Centennial Campaign 'impossible' which seems somewhat beyond 'wrong.' Further, in his preface he writes that the idea is to set up a framework by which to judge evidence, and his time lines do that and show how future evidence must be considered. I don't find a hint that he is claiming what he has shown thus far is the final truth, but only what current evidence then allowed.
For smashing the theories that found refuge in the 'no way to tell the exact time' jungle, he should be honored. It's pretty embarrassing that nobody did that before, testimony to the fact that many people and entities WANTED the battle to remain pliable for current needs.
As to the truth of mph for horses at various gaits, this is pretty much guesswork whatever the Army manual says. Secretariat, or most officer's mounts, trotted at a brisker speed than Fred the plowhorse, and cavalry horses ill fed after miles of travel probably trotted slower than those used by the Army in flat Virginia to ascertain their speeds.
Further, Gray sets time both by Godfrey noting the sun's setting on the 25th as well as daybreak, and so his time charts are nailed at both ends. He uses milage and gait to eliminate impossibilities only. That he found some even with all the wiggle room was telling.
For example, he rightly suggests the impedimenta did not - could not - 'steeple chase' down to Weir Point to arrive at a certain time. His gaits are plausible, no more.
But while I'm here on Weir Point, I'm STILL not convinced that any but Weir made it that far, and here is where I suspect Gray and others have erred. Benteen in his letter to his wife written as they returned from the battle says that he and others only went down a distance that corresponds exactly to Sharpshooter Ridge. From there they watched Weir return 'hastened' by Indians.
At the Reno CI and activity leading up to it, Sharpshooter is missing from the maps, and I suspect Weir became the all purpose 'high ground' in testimony because people were confused, rather unsurprisingly. And Custer's tracks led close to the East of it.
If my theory is correct (I wobble), those issuing from Reno Hill made it to Sharpshooter and, given the shorter distance, the tight time schedule of Gray's at this point is irrelevant and indicative of little. Only in the time after the CI does the high ground become described as solely resembling Weir Point in people's stories. Sharpshooter is only mentioned for the incidents that gave it its name.
This is why I found the shots of Weir Point annoying to my theory, because the rise would be more massive without the road looking north. Still, from Reno Hill Sharpshooter looks the higher and logical and closer point from which to view events north. I think Weir got there but was being driven back when Benteen reached Sharpshooter.
And I think the revelation that they had misstated their location when suddenly the spoken of 'high ground' became two distinct places led to a lot of the activity that is chosen to be seen as coverup in later years. That's me, anyway.
That all said, I think you're correct and that the whole thing ought to be re-enacted. I had wanted to do a three-D computer map of everything from Crow's Nest to the end and do a CGI of the battle, so that you could see where units were at certain times. This would include Sioux and Cheyenne, because all this talk about seeing Custer approach east of the bluffs limits viewing locations.
I suspect a LOT of stuff is wrong and impossible but the field is SO large that it's almost impossible to visualize all the hillocks, ravines, bluffs, and rises that interrupt sight and defeat sound. Further, an appreciation of the exhaustion and state of the participants would be easier and folks might be a lot more realistic and compassionate than they often are.
My long time mantra that those who condemn Reno and Benteen are unreasonable would be on the block, but so would the contentions of others. I am reasonably sure that the movements now supposed to have occured in the last half hour make no sense and would indicate a command at sea and functioning only under company orders from MTC on. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
Wrangler
Lieutenant
Status: offline |
Posted - December 07 2003 : 8:11:04 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Cloud
You're somewhat harsh on Gray, I think.
Guilty as charged…I think. I’ll try and be more scathing next time to remove all doubt.
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Cloud
He calls his chronology for Centennial Campaign 'impossible' which seems somewhat beyond 'wrong.' Further, in his preface he writes that the idea is to set up a framework by which to judge evidence, and his time lines do that and show how future evidence must be considered. I don't find a hint that he is claiming what he has shown thus far is the final truth, but only what current evidence then allowed.
Good point. ‘Impossible’ is a stronger descriptor of his previous work than ‘wrong’. How Gray views his work is irrelevant. How others view his work and base theirs off of his is. If the framework is wrong, than all that follows is based on a false premise.
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Cloud
For smashing the theories that found refuge in the 'no way to tell the exact time' jungle, he should be honored.
A moment of reverent silence. Attention has been paid. Now back to phsics.
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Cloud
It's pretty embarrassing that nobody did that before, testimony to the fact that many people and entities WANTED the battle to remain pliable for current needs.
Blush away…feel better now?
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Cloud
As to the truth of mph for horses at various gaits, this is pretty much guesswork whatever the Army manual says.
You make it sound like “the Army manual” was hatched by some clerk in the basement of the War Department. Cooke was anything but. He was a “Westerner” and cavalryman of many years. His Cavalry Tactics manual was the doctrine used by the USC in the West by the end of the Civil War. After the war, he was the Commander of the Department of the Platte.
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Cloud
Secretariat, or most officer's mounts, trotted at a brisker speed than Fred the plowhorse, and cavalry horses ill fed after miles of travel probably trotted slower than those used by the Army in flat Virginia to ascertain their speeds.
Again, Cooke served in the West not the East. Allusions to Virginia are clever--but incorrect.
If officers’ mounts were truly of Secretariat’s caliber, than we might expect Gray to use planning factors of 12-24-36 mph for walk-trot-gallop vs the 3-6-9 mph he actually used. Given this extremity you suggest, I don’t think it is too much of a quibble on my part to suggest the actual speeds of 3.75-7.5-10 mph be used. In addition, for a cavalry unit to be considered a unit, by definition--it must move together. If that is at the speed of the slowest Fred the Plowhorse, than Gray has erred again by not sharing his plowhorse speeds with us.
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Cloud
Further, Gray sets time both by Godfrey noting the sun's setting on the 25th as well as daybreak, and so his time charts are nailed at both ends. He uses mileage and gait to eliminate impossibilities only. That he found some even with all the wiggle room was telling.
The events between the nails are what is of interest—these he has failed to “nail”.
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Cloud
For example, he rightly suggests the impedimenta did not - could not - 'steeple chase' down to Weir Point to arrive at a certain time. His gaits are plausible, no more.
Plausible is unsatisfactory—especially when we can continue Gray’s work--all by ourselves—by considering the speed and spatial constraints that he did not.
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Cloud
But while I'm here on Weir Point, I'm STILL not convinced that any but Weir made it that far, and here is where I suspect Gray and others have erred. Benteen in his letter to his wife written as they returned from the battle says that he and others only went down a distance that corresponds exactly to Sharpshooter Ridge. From there they watched Weir return 'hastened' by Indians.
I am convinced that Lt. Edgerly moved D Company past Captain Weir furthest advance to the north by between ¼ and ½ mile.
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Cloud
At the Reno CI and activity leading up to it, Sharpshooter is missing from the maps, and I suspect Weir became the all purpose 'high ground' in testimony because people were confused, rather unsurprisingly. And Custer's tracks led close to the East of it.
This is possible.
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Cloud
This is why I found the shots of Weir Point annoying to my theory, because the rise would be more massive without the road looking north. Still, from Reno Hill Sharpshooter looks the higher and logical and closer point from which to view events north. I think Weir got there but was being driven back when Benteen reached Sharpshooter.
Perhaps a re-look at Gray’s data would accommodate/support this theory.
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Cloud
And I think the revelation that they had misstated their location when suddenly the spoken of 'high ground' became two distinct places led to a lot of the activity that is chosen to be seen as cover-up in later years. That's me, anyway.
I’m with you. “Cover-up” is not my default mode when looking at things.
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Cloud
That all said, I think you're correct and that the whole thing ought to be re-enacted. I had wanted to do a three-D computer map of everything from Crow's Nest to the end and do a CGI of the battle, so that you could see where units were at certain times. This would include Sioux and Cheyenne, because all this talk about seeing Custer approach east of the bluffs limits viewing locations.
I’m working on this… #61514;
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Cloud
I suspect a LOT of stuff is wrong and impossible but the field is SO large that it's almost impossible to visualize all the hillocks, ravines, bluffs, and rises that interrupt sight and defeat sound. Further, an appreciation of the exhaustion and state of the participants would be easier and folks might be a lot more realistic and compassionate than they often are.
Amen.
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Cloud
My long time mantra that those who condemn Reno and Benteen are unreasonable would be on the block, but so would the contentions of others. I am reasonably sure that the movements now supposed to have occurred in the last half hour make no sense and would indicate a command at sea and functioning only under company orders from MTC on.
Amen
|
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - December 08 2003 : 1:27:25 PM
|
....and, you know, Gray died before the book came out, I think. His boilerplate summation in the last paragraph reads like a high schooler in a hurry, so I suspect the reaper was rapping on the table as he wrote. I think his efforts and accomplishments, even granting his tone and probable errors, offer more promise than the archaeology.
Cooke was a westerner in the sense he spent lots of time in the west, generally at the behest of superiors who didn't want him near anything important. He seems to have had difficulty wrapping his mind around realities. His military capabilities, aside from being routinely hammered by his son in law during the CW, are probably best described by his correspondence with Carrington at Ft. Phil Kearny, an exchange between military giants.
Mandated mileage for couriers, firing Bridger, sending incompetent troopers with various ammo requirements, including the infantry, retaining primo cavalry for his protection at headquarters in a city not universally feared as a target of Indian attack, I fail to recall anyone at any time crediting the cavalry manual with insight or particular relevance. I doubt Crook or Custer kept it by his bed.
His gaits are significantly faster than Gray's, I guess, but I doubt, by the Vet's analysis of Custer's horses someone posted here, that they are relevant to the actuality of the Custer debacle.
But, as you say, put em to the test. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
Wrangler
Lieutenant
Status: offline |
Posted - December 11 2003 : 8:44:56 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Cloud
His gaits are significantly faster than Gray's, I guess ...
I believe that was my opening argument.
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Cloud
...but I doubt, by the Vet's analysis of Custer's horses someone posted here, that they are relevant to the actuality of the Custer debacle.
Vet who? Analyzed what? Posted Where? Got anything a little more concrete?
With regards to gaits, I never claimed they had anything to do with the "actuality of the Custer debacle". The debacle I speak of is Gray's math of convenience. Use an anchor. It keeps you from driftin'. |
|
|
|
Wrangler
Lieutenant
Status: offline |
Posted - December 11 2003 : 9:10:23 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Cloud
I think his efforts and accomplishments, even granting his tone and probable errors, offer more promise than the archaeology.
”Promise” in regards to what? To be fulfilled by whom? Interpreting possible “interconnections” in the movements of the 7USC up to Medicine Tail Coulee or interpreting events beyond that point? With regards to the former, archaeology has little to offer. With regards to the former, archaeology, anthropology and forensics can only provide a snap shot of a particular place at a particular moment in time on the battlefield. When an artifact is found—be it a coyote bone, a cartridge or a coke can—it is a solid piece of evidence of an event that occurred sometime between the birth of the planet and the time the artifact was discovered and catalogued. Now begins the interpretation. Archaeologists, anthropologists, geologists and historians who try and ascribe meaning to these artifacts and relevance/irrelevance to the BLBH can be right, wrong, or somewhere in between—but the artifacts still remain. Which ones can be eliminated from consideration given various relevant criteria? Which ones cannot? How do you interpret what remains? Gray’s “accomplishments and efforts” with regards to the BLBH are confined to the realm of # of men involved in the battle, Indian migrations in the summer of 1876, a methodology for understanding the timing and sequencing of the battle, and a biased, superficial interpretation of the Campaign of 1876. When considering his work, I think it best to start from scratch. |
|
|
|
Wrangler
Lieutenant
Status: offline |
Posted - December 11 2003 : 10:24:36 PM
|
| Correction: With regards to the latter, archaeology, anthropology and forensics can only provide a snap shot of a particular place at a particular moment in time on the battlefield... |
|
|
|
Wrangler
Lieutenant
Status: offline |
Posted - December 11 2003 : 11:39:58 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Cloud
Cooke was a westerner in the sense he spent lots of time in the west, generally at the behest of superiors who didn't want him near anything important. He seems to have had difficulty wrapping his mind around realities. His military capabilities, aside from being routinely hammered by his son in law during the CW, are probably best described by his correspondence with Carrington at Ft. Phil Kearny, an exchange between military giants.
Sounds like an interesting new thread--but irrelevant to the unsubstantiated gaits of cavalry horses described by Gray. Try harder and bring your anchor.
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Cloud
Mandated mileage for couriers, firing Bridger, sending incompetent troopers with various ammo requirements, including the infantry, retaining primo cavalry for his protection at headquarters in a city not universally feared as a target of Indian attack, I fail to recall anyone at any time crediting the cavalry manual with insight or particular relevance. I doubt Crook or Custer kept it by his bed.
Interesting stuff about Cooke--should make an interesting TV mini-series. But again, irrelevant to the gaits of cavalry horses as imagined by Gray which is what this thread is about.
With regards to your bedside reading comment, let me remove all doubt for you. Custer, Crook, Terry, senior captains and senior lieutenants of the USC would more likely be enjoying the latest novel than studying Cooke's Cavalry Tactics cuz Cooke’s Tactics was a drill manual—not the Maxims of Napoleon. Drill encompasses instructing/learning the formations, movements, and verbal commands necessary to move a group of men and horses from one formation to the next in a coordinated manner--nothing more. With these tools, the cavalry leader can do nothing more than figure out which combination is best for getting his outfit from point A to point B. If you ain't Napoleon already, you won't derive insights on how to stage brilliant victories from this manual. Crook and Custer learned this basic stuff in their junior days. In 1876, these guys had bigger fish to fry (and Crook did so--literally) than to review how to say, "Ten--HUT" in them final moments before nite-nite.
Given this, the evidence that credits the use of Cooke's Tactics is the existence of ten U.S. cavalry regiments during the Indian Wars vs ten groups of dudes ridin’ Fred the Plowhouse wherever, whenever and by whatever method pleased them. "Let's go over yonder a piece at the giddy-up, okeedokie? Gaggle...HOOOO!" If the organization and movements of army unit's in a coherent manner was an easy task, then Cooke's, Casey's or Hardee's Tactics would not have been required and I could be doing something more useful right now like surfin' the web for rare books on sculpturing with paper clips. Seems these books were popular back then for some reason. Cooke’s Cavalry Tactics was the bedside material of new soldiers, new sergeants and new lieutenants of cavalry--not Lee, Stuart, Buford, Pleasonton, Kilpatrick, Forrest, Custer or Crook. But then again, maybe you have a more updated version of the manual than I do. I've only read two versions (1862 & 1872). What's the date on your copy?
|
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - December 12 2003 : 5:55:26 PM
|
Well, starting with the last, I don't have a copy, and haven't read one, and would probably rather undergo a GI series in a WalMart window than do so. I've only read excerpts. I laughed, I cried, they're part of me.
I am under the impression Gray was a westerner,rode and would know gaits. Untrue? Don't know where I picked that up, and could well be wrong as in much else.
As to former/latter archaeology and forensics providing a snapshot, that's the issue. You cannot prove by archaeology - nor is it designed to prove - that an artifact appeared where it did on a certain date, much less within a two hour period. Forensics, with the proper evidence - say a gun pried from the dead hands of a soldier on the field June 28th, 1876)- might - in aggregate with found shell casings from that gun a hundred years later - provide insight as to how the battle was fought by that soldier's movements. We're absent all of that evidence except the casings, and so insights and theories which arise from them are far more guesswork, often bolstered by wishful thinking - considering other plausible theories that are simply ignored - than Gray's timelines. Unless I'm missing something basic, which is also possible and given that I spent the better part of two hours looking for an article of clothing I was wearing today, perhaps probable.
Actually, as it turns out and to my embarrassment, the article someone referenced on Veterinarians with Custer was written by Gray, but it has itself references that are interesting. http://www.kancoll.org/khq/1977/77_3_gray.htm Nonetheless, I didn't recall it was by him, and so it isn't a coldly objective source.
Still, I don't know who else has done much more than this: "Gray’s “accomplishments and efforts” with regards to the BLBH are confined to the realm of # of men involved in the battle, Indian migrations in the summer of 1876, a methodology for understanding the timing and sequencing of the battle, and a biased, superficial interpretation of the Campaign of 1876." I disagree with a bit of Gray, especially his estimations of Benteen and Reno, but he was the first to nail (not suggest) times down which have annoyed many (including me), and his methodology seems sound. I thought his summary of the 1876 campaign was reasonable, and no more 'biased' than, say, Utley's or anyone's and certainly a lot less than some.
Perhaps you might offer up a specific example of a suspected Gray error and how it affects current thinking - as I have about the high points - so that I can appreciate your viewpoint better. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
Wrangler
Lieutenant
Status: offline |
Posted - December 14 2003 : 4:43:59 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Cloud
Well, starting with the last, I don't have a copy, and haven't read one, and would probably rather undergo a GI series in a WalMart window than do so. I've only read excerpts. I laughed, I cried, they're part of me.
Laugh! Not exactly stunning reading. But if you are interested in some late night, bedside reading, the 1862 version in on-line at: http://members.cox.net/ltclee/Cooke.htm The basic difference between the 1862 & 1872 version is...well...more pictures. Gotta know your audience...
Enjoy! |
|
|
|
Wrangler
Lieutenant
Status: offline |
Posted - December 14 2003 : 5:48:09 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Cloud
I am under the impression Gray was a westerner,rode and would know gaits. Untrue? Don't know where I picked that up, and could well be wrong as in much else.
You got me here. I don't know.
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Cloud
As to former/latter archaeology and forensics providing a snapshot, that's the issue. You cannot prove by archaeology - nor is it designed to prove - that an artifact appeared where it did on a certain date, much less within a two hour period. Forensics, with the proper evidence - say a gun pried from the dead hands of a soldier on the field June 28th, 1876)- might - in aggregate with found shell casings from that gun a hundred years later - provide insight as to how the battle was fought by that soldier's movements. We're absent all of that evidence except the casings, and so insights and theories which arise from them are far more guesswork, often bolstered by wishful thinking - considering other plausible theories that are simply ignored - than Gray's timelines.
Concur.
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Cloud
Actually, as it turns out and to my embarrassment, the article someone referenced on Veterinarians with Custer was written by Gray, but it has itself references that are interesting. http://www.kancoll.org/khq/1977/77_3_gray.htm Nonetheless, I didn't recall it was by him, and so it isn't a coldly objective source.
Cool! I'd never seen this! Thanks!
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Cloud
Still, I don't know who else has done much more than this: "Gray’s “accomplishments and efforts” with regards to the BLBH are confined to the realm of # of men involved in the battle, Indian migrations in the summer of 1876, a methodology for understanding the timing and sequencing of the battle, and a biased, superficial interpretation of the Campaign of 1876." I disagree with a bit of Gray, especially his estimations of Benteen and Reno, but he was the first to nail (not suggest) times down which have annoyed many (including me), and his methodology seems sound. I thought his summary of the 1876 campaign was reasonable, and no more 'biased' than, say, Utley's or anyone's and certainly a lot less than some.
Ooooo...a can o' worms. More on this later...
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Cloud
Perhaps you might offer up a specific example of a suspected Gray error and how it affects current thinking - as I have about the high points - so that I can appreciate your viewpoint better.
Okeedoke. Comin' up...
|
|
|
|
Wrangler
Lieutenant
Status: offline |
Posted - December 14 2003 : 6:35:49 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Cloud
Perhaps you might offer up a specific example of a suspected Gray error and how it affects current thinking - as I have about the high points - so that I can appreciate your viewpoint better.
Um-k...we need to take this in bite size pieces. Before we start, some foundational work has to be established. With regards to Centennial Campaign and/or Custer's Last Campaign, Gray’s premises, either stated or implied, are as follows:
1. The 7th Cavalry halted after crossing the divide at 12:05 PM (per Lt. Wallace).
2. The 7th Cavalry continued its march after the division of the command at 12:12 PM (per Lt. Wallace).
3. The 7th Cavalry divided into three battalions (Benteen, Reno, Custer) in seven minutes between 12:05 PM and 12:12 PM (per Lt. Arithmatic).
4. All three battalions of the 7th Cavalry departed at the same moment from Halt No. 2 (the "division" halt at 12:12 PM) from the same point of departure (per Gray's Table 5, Custer's Last Campaign, 251).
I will stipulate that Gray’s premises 1 through 3 are correct for the purpose of discussion of his work. As Gray’s premise 4 is a physical impossibility, it requires further examination for its implications on his time-motion analysis. To analyze Gray's premise 4, I would offer the following foundational premises:
1. That all 12 companies of the 7th Cavalry when halted west of the divide--prior to division--were under the direct command of Lieut. Col. Custer (Battalion and Wing assignments have been dissolved previous to the 25th of June).
2. That the 12 companies of the 7th USC at the “division” halt were in a column of companies, and that each company was in a “column of fours” and were dismounted. I support this premise with the following statements [emphasis mine]:
a. Sgt. Charles A. Windolph, H Co./7USC speaking of the regiment just prior to the halt west of the Divide: “We were riding straight west, with the regiment in column of march, the troopers of each company riding four abreast.” [Hunt, I Fought With Custer, 78].
b. Capt. Benteen, H Co./7USC speaking of the regiment during the halt west of the Divide: “I was called by the adjutant, and was informed by General Custer that I was to mount D, H and K Troops, which were then in column dismounted, and proceed to a line of bluffs about two miles off, at about an angle of 45 degrees…I at once mounted my battalion and set out…[Brininstool, Troopers With Custer, 75].
3. That the lead company of the 7th Cavalry when the command halted west of the divide was Capt. Benteen's H Company.
4. That the trail company of the 7th Cavalry when the command halted west of the divide was Capt. McDougall's B Company, and that Lieut. Mathey's pack train was directly in front of B. Co.
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.]
7. That for the purposes of analyzing Gray, the following factors outlined in Cooke’s Cavalry Tactics are correct:
a. The “pace” = 1 yard
b. The length of a horse = 3 paces
c. The distance between companies in column = One platoon front (i.e. 16 paces)
d. March speeds for cavalry are:
(1) Walk: 3.75 mph
(2) Trot: 7.25 mph
(3) Gallop: 10 mph
d. March speed for the pack train is: 3.00 mph (as per Gray--I have nothing to indicate otherwise).
Before I proceed, what are your questions, comments, and/or rebuttals at this point?
|
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - December 14 2003 : 11:02:24 PM
|
This is an outtake of "The Most Dangerous Game" isn't it? I have the distinct impression that you're welcoming me into a yard of Burmese Tiger Pits, Java Jaw Choppers, and hidden traps. Hm.
So, in full paranoid defensive mode....
No, I won't agree that Gray insists that all three battalions left a square foot of ground at the exact same time. I'd agree they started moving at about the same time. Benteen left the halt by heading left with his three companies across the creek, Custer took his to the right, and Reno to the Center. The train followed Reno's trail. So there were three directions utilized when they started moving, not everyone necessarily even passing the same point.
Nor am I willing to envision a smooth simultaneous mounting and dressage-like fluidity into separate lines of march. Further, if this is going to be an instance of you timing how long so many folks took to pass the point and discount it by pointing to stated gaits and times, insert loud Bronx Cheer here. Or whoopee cushion if you're not old enough to know a Bronx Cheer. Unless you're a Red Sox fan, in which case it's a secret.
First, it isn't possible to maintain one gait over that ground from the divide to LBH. When going downhill, exhausted horses or people take tentative steps, and then gallop to catch up in flats or uphill, but the overall and generally held gait is what is recorded. If you time that gait over a hypothetical stretch of ground, it may come out 'wrong.' There will be variation and the times will vary, but it isn't possible to record every change of gait every fifty feet. We know and they said it was terrible ground on horses. You sometimes, for example, take a horse criss-cross down a hill which increases the distance covered and would screw up timings based on gait and a straight line. You'd surely do that if you knew the horse had to maintain a charge a few hours later.
I don't think Gray was going for that sort of precision, but just showing that some things could have happened as stated and that other things could not have happened.
And no, I don't for a minute believe that they were maintaining Manual distances between units over that ground. Or how they could, or to what purpose.
This is where the CGI would be needed, because it's hard for me to recall the exact ground features. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
Wrangler
Lieutenant
Status: offline |
Posted - December 14 2003 : 11:10:40 PM
|
| Well than I guess we have nothing further to talk about. |
|
|
|
Halmyers
Private
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - December 27 2003 : 11:28:29 PM
|
Wrangler,
It is interesting that you told dark Cloud that you had nothing
futher to talk about. However I must point out that you are the
one that brought the subject up about Gray and his findings. It
is also interesting that you had mention Martin, Kanipe, Benteen
in your post. you seem to go on about about things that did not
have anything to do with the price of bread. Now having did a map
study of Gray's findings I did not find that he was that far off.
Now in going over which all had to say about went on, whch Gray
had to do you can get a little confused. Take this in to account
how many halt's took place. This is from the time the regiment
left Busby. If you read all the account's correctly. You will find
that there was more then one halt. Now then where was Benteen when
Sgt Kanipe reached him, where was Benteen when Martin reached him.
And even when they had reached him would what took place have made
a difference. Not a bit, Reno or Benteen would not have done one
thing different then had taken place, sooner or later you and every
one else will come to realize that the battle of the Little Bighorn
will be a mystery from now till the end of time. You with all your
pace,s, column,s will ever change what took place on that one day
in history. What is most important for us is to find out why? And
when you find out that one question, then what Martin, Kanipe and
Benteen did will become very important. As it stands from the point
of what they did, has nothing to do what Custer did, and what they
did would not have changed history, and that is what most people
are trying to do. Yes there are many question,s that have to be
answered, but simply because a person does not answer a question
does not mean anybody should say we have no more to talk about.
There is a great deal to talk about, But the pace from one horse
to the other has nothing to do with the price of bread. Let us
go from the time of the night march from Busby and see what we
come up with, and by doing a little researh to find how many halts
took place before Custer cross the divide.I mean no offence to any
one person, we are all trying to find a common answer to one thing
"who, What, Where, When and Why, when we answer all of these five
questions we would have answered all the mystery of the Little
Bighorn Battle
|
Thanks
Hal Myers |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - December 28 2003 : 3:09:31 PM
|
I suspect there is substance to Wrangler's caveats about Gray, but I'm unwilling to predicate them on a dogmatic timing of gaits from the divide given that what I recall of the land would suggest a variable speed by units taking the easiest path and gait down to the 'lone teepee.'
I have no doubt there are gotcha's there but, for example, if the regiment is in more or less a line in ranks of four and the orders for the four units were given at 1202, I see no problem with separate companies, especially Benteen's, taking a sharp left to the other side of the gully and accomplishing this within seven minutes easy even if they weren't sequential in line. If they all had to march forward and pass a certain point at a walk, this wouldn't be possible, and I don't think Gray insists on it. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
Wrangler
Lieutenant
Status: offline |
Posted - December 28 2003 : 7:30:05 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Halmyers
It is interesting that you told dark Cloud that you had nothing futher to talk about. However I must point out that you are the one that brought the subject up about Gray and his findings.
Yes, of this I am painfully aware.
quote:
Originally posted by Halmyers
It is also interesting that you had mention Martin, Kanipe, Benteen in your post. you seem to go on about about things that did not have anything to do with the price of bread.
Your are correct. I do go on about things and did fail to discuss bread prices.
quote:
Originally posted by Halmyers
Now having did a map study of Gray's findings I did not find that he was that far off. Now in going over which all had to say about went on, whch Gray had to do you can get a little confused. Take this in to account how many halt's took place. This is from the time the regiment left Busby. If you read all the account's correctly. You will find that there was more then one halt.
This is known to me. I was speaking of the division halt.
quote:
Originally posted by Halmyers
Now then where was Benteen when Sgt Kanipe reached him, where was Benteen when Martin reached him. And even when they had reached him would what took place have made a difference. Not a bit, Reno or Benteen would not have done one thing different then had taken place, sooner or later you and every one else will come to realize that the battle of the Little Bighorn will be a mystery from now till the end of time.
I have never suggested there would be any difference in the outcome of the battle.
quote:
Originally posted by Halmyers
You with all your pace,s, column,s will ever change what took place on that one day in history. What is most important for us is to find out why?
I was thinking that part of the answer to, "why" had to do with cavalry formations. Clearly I was mistaken.
quote:
Originally posted by Halmyers
And when you find out that one question, then what Martin, Kanipe and Benteen did will become very important. As it stands from the point of what they did, has nothing to do what Custer did, and what they did would not have changed history, and that is what most people are trying to do.
Again, I never asserted that there would have been an impact on the battle—only on the historical interpretations of published authors, and especially with regards to motivations ascribed to Lt. Col. Custer based on knowledge gained from Boston Custer.
quote:
Originally posted by Halmyers
Yes there are many question,s that have to be answered, but simply because a person does not answer a question does not mean anybody should say we have no more to talk about. There is a great deal to talk about, But the pace from one horse to the other has nothing to do with the price of bread.
O.K. I won’t talk about in any further.
quote:
Originally posted by Halmyers
Let us go from the time of the night march from Busby and see what we come up with, and by doing a little researh to find how many halts took place before Custer cross the divide.
Sounds good to me. This topic is going no where. I started it. You say I should continue as long as I don’t talk about what I started to talk about cuz I’m supposed to talk about bread prices. Am I trackin’? I will start the new thread on number of halts starting at Busby.
quote:
Originally posted by Halmyers
I mean no offence to any one person, we are all trying to find a common answer to one thing "who, What, Where, When and Why, when we answer all of these five questions we would have answered all the mystery of the Little Bighorn Battle.
"who, What, Where, When” … except with regards to cavalry formations and how fast horsies go. Got it.
|
|
|
|
Wrangler
Lieutenant
Status: offline |
Posted - December 28 2003 : 7:46:28 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Cloud
I suspect there is substance to Wrangler's caveats about Gray, but I'm unwilling to predicate them on a dogmatic timing of gaits from the divide given that what I recall of the land would suggest a variable speed by units taking the easiest path and gait down to the 'lone teepee.'
It is my error if you thought I meant gaits were “dogmatic” or a constant. That would be a false assertion.
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Cloud
I have no doubt there are gotcha's
I’m not interested in gotcha’s.
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Cloud
if the regiment is in more or less a line in ranks of four and the orders for the four units were given at 1202, I see no problem with separate companies, especially Benteen's, taking a sharp left to the other side of the gully and accomplishing this within seven minutes easy even if they weren't sequential in line. If they all had to march forward and pass a certain point at a walk, this wouldn't be possible, and I don't think Gray insists on it.
I would love to discuss this but there is no audience. On to Busby!
|
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
|
|
Anonymous Poster8169
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - December 29 2003 : 11:44:30 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Cloud
You don't know that. There is a lack of participation, true, but that isn't indicative of readers. In any case, I'm interested.
Mumble.
I'm one of the interested readers, but I'm not sure what Wrangler's point is. If he thinks there is reason to believe that Gray's times don't match up with the evidence, then naturally the question to ask is "where, when and what"? Meaning, does Wrangler (for instance) think there is strong reason to believe that Gray screwed up when he placed Benteen's arrival at Reno Hill at such & such time?
Citing one textbook's different recommended gaits can hardly put the substance of Gray's work into question, unless you are also able to show how those incorrect gaits led Gray to place an event at a time that is inconsistent with other known evidence.
One of the impressive things about Gray's work is that it does seem to hold together well with what we know. I welcome efforts to improve his study, but to mount an effective critique of it, I think you need to first follow Gray's lead on page 262 of his book, and point out where his iteneraries create "impossibilities".
R. Larsen
|
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - December 29 2003 : 12:31:14 PM
|
What makes me anxious a bit is based upon some things Wrangler touched upon before, which seemed to be related to our respective glossaries of terminology. For example, when did the train 'arrive' on Reno Hill: when the first mule coughed up the slope? When the majority had arrived? When the last gasping animal muttered in? It took about an hour between the first and last, as I recall.
Similarly, when did Benteen's unit 'arrive' at a certain point? When his outriders did? When Benteen did, for he was generally out front of his main body? Or when his first or last company did? This leaves all sorts of wiggle room if maliciously used. Or enjoyably used to annoy, depending on your mind set. Mine varies.
I understood Gray to mean 'when the lead element arrived.' But...
Take the word 'casualty' which means unavailable either by death, wound, capture, or missing, but is used sometimes for any variable combination of the four. This simple misuse has led to some weird numbers, especially in the Civil War (but also in Iraq today), and the public, and the media, often assumes 'casualty' means 'dead,' and ADDS the numbers of wounded and captured when broken out to that. "Arrive" is another problematic word in these situations for groups.
Anyway, Wrangler has implied a failure in Gray which I have utterly missed, and I'm really interested in what it might be. But, as always, a discussion needs to be held with a common frame of reference, and a definition of terms might be helpful, at least to me. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
Wrangler
Lieutenant
Status: offline |
Posted - December 29 2003 : 10:21:03 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Cloud
This is an outtake of "The Most Dangerous Game" isn't it? I have the distinct impression that you're welcoming me into a yard of Burmese Tiger Pits, Java Jaw Choppers, and hidden traps. Hm.
Can’t help you here. However, I have viewed posting to this forum in a similar light.
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Cloud
No, I won't agree that Gray insists that all three battalions left a square foot of ground at the exact same time. I'd agree they started moving at about the same time. Benteen left the halt by heading left with his three companies across the creek, Custer took his to the right, and Reno to the Center. The train followed Reno's trail. So there were three directions utilized when they started moving, not everyone necessarily even passing the same point.
Pretend you are at a stoplight. There are 13 cars in line. When the light turns green, if all 13 step on the gas simultaneously, they can all be in motion and accelerating at the same speed (a rare event). The first three cars turn—each one has to wait till it gets to the intersection. The 10 following can move forward and proceed straight ahead following those turning left or they can make a lane change to the right so they continue, and potentially make it through the intersection before the last of the three cars turning left. Those 10 cars still have to traverse the space and/or distance originally occupied by the three cars that were in front of them—on the their way to buy a loaf of bread for $1.53.
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Cloud
Nor am I willing to envision a smooth simultaneous mounting and dressage-like fluidity into separate lines of march.
Me neither—I suggest the opposite. I suggest that Benteen’s other two companies moved forward, joined H Co. and then left the main column on their scout to the left.
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Cloud
Further, if this is going to be an instance of you timing how long so many folks took to pass the point and discount it by pointing to stated gaits and times, insert loud Bronx Cheer here. Or whoopee cushion if you're not old enough to know a Bronx Cheer. Unless you're a Red Sox fan, in which case it's a secret.
I don’t understand what this means—and I’m not talking about a Bronx cheer. If pass times are viewed as irrelevant, than I’m certain I cannot convince you otherwise.
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Cloud
First, it isn't possible to maintain one gait over that ground from the divide to LBH.
I know this; or put another way, duh.
Gray’s calculations present a different view on this question. Of the 104 derived mph entries in his tables relating to “connections” relevant to the progress of the regiment on 25 June (tables 4-7,9,11,13,14), 54 entries use his unsubstantiated claim that Army march rates for the walk, trot, gallop were 3, 6, and 9 miles per hour. I cannot duplicate this claim in any of my readings of the Army and Navy Journal, The Cavalry Journal, or the Cavalry Tactics manuals of the period. Yet over 50% of Gray’s calculations use these figures. I apologize to those offended by my questioning this.
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Cloud
Then going downhill, exhausted horses or people take tentative steps, and then gallop to catch up in flats or uphill, but the overall and generally held gait is what is recorded. If you time that gait over a hypothetical stretch of ground, it may come out 'wrong.' There will be variation and the times will vary, but it isn't possible to record every change of gait every fifty feet.
I agree with all except the “exhausted horses” line. The testimony on the condition of horses is contradictory; it ranges from they were fit to they were exhausted. If they were exhausted, and marched at the exhausted rate of 3, 6, & 9 mph, that’s all the better.
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Cloud
We know and they said it was terrible ground on horses. You sometimes, for example, take a horse criss-cross down a hill which increases the distance covered and would screw up timings based on gait and a straight line. You'd surely do that if you knew the horse had to maintain a charge a few hours later.
Not sure who “they” said it was “terrible ground” and which piece of ground “they” were talking about—Reno Creek, The Valley, etc. The quality of ground is as varied as the impacts on gaits. Specifics?
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Cloud
I don't think Gray was going for that sort of precision, but just showing that some things could have happened as stated and that other things could not have happened.
This is clear and there’s the rub.
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Cloud
And no, I don't for a minute believe that they were maintaining Manual distances between units over that ground. Or how they could, or to what purpose.
This requires a book to answer. Suffice it to say the military mind works in a certain way. Formations are created to maximize the capabilities and minimize the limitations of a given unit and the equipment and men that comprise it. “Manual” distances are the ideal. In practice, these ideals are subject to a thousand mistakes of terrain, unit composition, leadership, training, morale, etc. View the “Manual” distances as the mid-point of the extremes created by situation.
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Cloud
This is where the CGI would be needed, because it's hard for me to recall the exact ground features.
To create an animated CGI of the Battle of the Little Big Horn requires an understanding of the formations and movement rates of each individual or unit. The computer does not know these things—they have to be inputted. Degree of slope, “roughness” or “smoothness” of ground, and the fact that “as the crow flies” distances derived from a flat, 2-dimensional map are by their nature—wrong (see Pathagorus Theorem)—all come in to play.
|
|
|
|
frankboddn
Major
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - December 29 2003 : 11:20:21 PM
|
 Wrangler, reading your posting back and forth with blackcloud has been excrutiatingly painful for me. You ask a simple, serious question and get ripped to bits by this individual. I especially laughed till I cried when he asked you about what did when the packtrain arrive mean? Does arrive mean when the first mule came strolling in or when the last one came in? And when did Benteen arrive? Same thing: Benteen at the head of his troops or the last fellow to make it? Please don't ask when Custer arrived at LSH or you'll be required to dissect and define "Custer." Was it him, was it the fellow with his flag? Maybe Custer never arrived because Keough and Calhoun and numerous others never got there; therefore, how could Custer have arrived? And let's not forget the hapless Boston Custer. Of course he wasn't really one of the troops, so maybe his arrival didn't count. And when did Gall arrive? Now, wait! Does that mean Gall or his fellow Native Americans following him? Geeeesh, I'm so confused. Some day you'll realize it's time to maybe form your own forum where serious discussion can be had and you have the ability to keep darkcloud and a couple other clowns out. Until then, just find a tree to bang your head against. It's less painful than the idiotic challenges from him. |
|
|
|
Wrangler
Lieutenant
Status: offline |
Posted - December 30 2003 : 12:52:24 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Anonymous Poster8169
I'm one of the interested readers, but I'm not sure what Wrangler's point is. If he thinks there is reason to believe that Gray's times don't match up with the evidence, then naturally the question to ask is "where, when and what"?
My point is this, “What if new evidence was presented that influenced his [Gray's] time-motion study? 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)?
quote:
Originally posted by Anonymous Poster8169
Meaning, does Wrangler (for instance) think there is strong reason to believe that Gray screwed up when he placed Benteen's arrival at Reno Hill at such & such time?
Wrangler thinks that he is not using Gray anymore in trying to understand the timing of the battle.
quote:
Originally posted by Anonymous Poster8169
Citing one textbook's different recommended gaits can hardly put the substance of Gray's work into question…
True. Let us explore this further:
From Gen. Philip Cooke’s, Cavalry Tactics, or Regulations for the Instruction of the Cavalry of the Army and Volunteers of the United States (Philadelphia: J.B. Lippencott & Co, 1862), pg 39:
“Nothing can be more important to the regularity and order, and often the success, of large bodies of cavalry than uniformity in the gaits. The walk should be at the rate of three and three-fourths miles an hour, the trot seven and a half miles an hour, and the gallop ten miles an hour.”
Note that Cooke's manual does not say, “it is useful to know that the standard cavalry walk covered three miles in an hour, the trot six, and the gallop nine…” as Gray asserts.
From Gen. Emory Upton’s, Cavalry Tactics, United States Army, Assimilated to the Tactics of Infantry and Artillery (New York: D. Appleton and Co., 1874), pg 465:
“1180. The gaits are the walk, the trot, and the gallop. The walk is at the rate of about three and three-quarter miles an hour; the trot at the rate of seven to eight miles an hour; the gallop at the rate of nine to eleven miles an hour.”
Again, Upton's manual does not say, “it is useful to know that the standard cavalry walk covered three miles in an hour, the trot six, and the gallop nine…” as Gray asserts.
From Captain R. Sheldon’s, Lecture No. 6: The Army on the March, (Fort Leavenworth: Department of Military Art, Infantry and Cavalry School, Staff College Press: 1904), pg 13:
“For cavalry, the usual marching gait is the walk. For forces larger than a squadron the rate will be about three and three-fourths miles per hour, while marching…Ordinarily, the marching rate would be, after the first halt, about five miles an hour, alternating the walk and trot, and occasionally dismounting and leading short distances.”
Gray sez, “it is useful to know that the standard cavalry walk covered three miles in an hour, the trot six, and the gallop nine…?” Uh no.
Now for some of those outside the box…
From Captain Fenton S. Jacobs, The Cavalry Journal, Vol. XXXV, No. 145, (Baltimore: US Cavalry Association, Oct 1926):
“The rate of speed of four miles per hour is considered the regulation walk.” p. 538.
“The trot, when at eight miles per hour, is called the square trot or regulation trot.” p. 539.
“The regulation or maneuvering gallop is twelve miles per hour.” p. 540.
And Jacobs in the same article quoting the American Horseman’s Digest:
“The three gaited horses should go plain walk, briskly with speed equal to four miles per hour; trot steady, straight and true: action enough to be attractive, about eight miles per hour; and gallop, well balanced with speed equal to 12 miles per hour.” P. 542.
Maybe you can find in the above Gray’s assertion that, “it is useful to know that the standard cavalry walk covered three miles in an hour, the trot six, and the gallop nine…” Sorry, I can’t.
quote:
Originally posted by Anonymous Poster8169
…unless you are also able to show how those incorrect gaits led Gray to place an event at a time that is inconsistent with other known evidence.
I am not central to the performance of the math involved here.
quote:
Originally posted by Anonymous Poster8169[br ]One of the impressive things about Gray's work is that it does seem to hold together well with what we know. I welcome efforts to improve his study, but to mount an effective critique of it, I think you need to first follow Gray's lead on page 262 of his book, and point out where his iteneraries create "impossibilities".
Gray wrote a book on the subject—which you bought—and it takes a book to rebut it. I ain’t doing it. How 'bout you? Take what I have to say and mess with it—see where it takes you. If not, it hasn’t cost you a dime.
Oh...I think the price of bread just went up. Film at eleven.
|
|
|
|
Wrangler
Lieutenant
Status: offline |
Posted - December 30 2003 : 02:31:33 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Cloud
What makes me anxious a bit is based upon some things Wrangler touched upon before, which seemed to be related to our respective glossaries of terminology. For example, when did the train 'arrive' on Reno Hill: when the first mule coughed up the slope? When the majority had arrived? When the last gasping animal muttered in? It took about an hour between the first and last, as I recall.
Yes, what does Gray mean by “arrive”? When Benteen left the divide he traveled forward of his battalion some distance. This was the case up to the vicinity of the LBHR when he turned north, fronted into line and advanced on Reno’s Hilltop position. His behavior was not unusual. There are at least three instances where Capt. Weir traveled ahead of his company—at the divide, after the morass and in his advance to Weir point. As we know, Capt. Custer was quite prolific in being away from C Company and Capt. Keogh left I Company when he accompanied Cooke in the trail of Reno’s Bn as it crossed the LBHR.
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Cloud
Similarly, when did Benteen's unit 'arrive' at a certain point? When his outriders did? When Benteen did, for he was generally out front of his main body? Or when his first or last company did?
Gray did not address these issues. When Benteen “arrived” at Reno Creek (table 5), how far behind him was his battalion? If it were 500 yards, it would take about 5.5 minutes at Gray’s “standard” 3 mph walk for the lead set of fours of H Co. to arrive at Benteen’s location at the creek. It would take about 1 minute, 45 seconds for the trail set of fours of K Co. to close on this position—if the formation of Benteen’s battalion was at regulation intervals—if not, it might take as long as two minutes, 12 seconds if “strung out”. In this example, Gray records an “arrive” time for Benteen’s Battalion of 2:32. To make his numbers work, he scampers the horsies a little faster – 3.32 mph. This means the lead of H Co. will take about 5 minutes to arrive at the creek and about 1 minute and a half to 2 minutes for K Co. to close. In these scenarios, Benteen arrives at 2:32, H Co lead arrives at 2:37 and K Co. closes at the creek not later than 2:39. Whittle the numbers however you like to find your special sweet spot. Find another connection and whittle the numbers--things won't look so rosey once you get under the hood.
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Cloud
This leaves all sorts of wiggle room if maliciously used. Or enjoyably used to annoy, depending on your mind set. Mine varies.
I’ve noticed this.
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Cloud
I understood Gray to mean 'when the lead element arrived.' But...
Yes, but.
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Cloud
Take the word 'casualty' which means unavailable either by death, wound, capture, or missing, but is used sometimes for any variable combination of the four. This simple misuse has led to some weird numbers, especially in the Civil War (but also in Iraq today), and the public, and the media, often assumes 'casualty' means 'dead,' and ADDS the numbers of wounded and captured when broken out to that. "Arrive" is another problematic word in these situations for groups.
"Lead, trail or individual arrived at...departed from..." works for me.
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Cloud
Anyway, Wrangler has implied a failure in Gray which I have utterly missed, and I'm really interested in what it might be. But, as always, a discussion needs to be held with a common frame of reference, and a definition of terms might be helpful, at least to me.
Maybe you need a book wiff pit-chures in it.
|
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
John Gray: The Tail That WagsThe Dog--Still
