| Author |
 Topic  |
|
El Crab
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
 Posted - January 13 2004 : 01:27:21 AM
|
| I do what I can. :D |
I came. I saw. I took 300 pictures. |
  |
|
|
matthew_ridgeway
Private
Status: offline |
Posted - January 13 2004 : 10:28:51 AM
|
| Thanks Wrangler. Great information. I will have to ponder it a bit. |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - January 13 2004 : 11:10:20 AM
|
You're being silly. Like Ridgeway you don't read well either. Medicine Woman isn't my offering to the conversation, but Crab's, any more than I said I taught physics, which he kept reading.
Gray gives gaits of 3, 6, 9 mph. Which of your offered evidences disputes this?
Actually, your evidence supports me again. If Reno got two pounds of grain (unknown type) for the scout, what conclusions are we to draw? That this was correct? That this explains a speed faster than Custer? What?
YOU'RE the one who is casting doubt on Gray because of his gaits. You say his gaits are too slow. Offer up an example with gait and distance and time that threatens his criteria. "Rode" doesn't mean anthing and doesn't indicate a gait, nor indicates halts, if any.
Crook knew what he was doing with the packs and could keep them with the horses' speed. Nobody else apparently did. They followed the manual, probably. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
Wrangler
Lieutenant
Status: offline |
Posted - January 13 2004 : 2:16:26 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Cloud
You're being silly. Like Ridgeway you don't read well either. Medicine Woman isn't my offering to the conversation, but Crab's, any more than I said I taught physics, which he kept reading.
I read quite well actually, but thank-you for your concern. The appellation of “Medicine Woman” to “Dr. Gray” was my doing. If credit is due, you may footnote me.
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Cloud
Gray gives gaits of 3, 6, 9 mph. Which of your offered evidences disputes this?
You stated:
“…we switch books altogether to argue about themes in a tome the author himself has said included impossibilities and, in any case, isn't what we're discussing.
I stated in the post initiating this thread:
“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).
Before we proceed, please reconcile for me, as you have done for yourself, how it is that you are able to discern the facts from the fiction contained in the same book?
|
|
|
|
Wrangler
Lieutenant
Status: offline |
Posted - January 14 2004 : 12:52:32 AM
|
| Courage. |
|
|
|
matthew_ridgeway
Private
Status: offline |
Posted - January 14 2004 : 01:32:33 AM
|
DC:
I read well enough when I think there is something there worth reading. I tend to skim through the flotsam. I did slow down long enough to catch your bit about futzy officers and their pocket watches. Or maybe it was fuzzy officers with socket wrenches…I don’t recall now. Anyway, realizing there was little substance there I pressed onto to more interesting pastures. Sorry. But than you must realize that your style can’t be expected to hold everyone’s attention. |
|
|
|
matthew_ridgeway
Private
Status: offline |
Posted - January 14 2004 : 01:39:00 AM
|
Pressing right along…I have another question of Wrangler:
In reviewing the times and distances you posted from Dr. DeWolf’s Journal for Reno’s Scout, it does seem like there is something missing there. In your post on page 4 of this thread there seems to be start times, end times and miles marched. For example: 11-Jun, 1876, march starts at: 5:00AM, march ends at: 1:30PM. Miles covered 26. So the assumption is straight through marching between 5AM and 1:30PM? 8.5-hour. This yields an average speed of 3.06-mph.
However – and I am no expert (as I suspect Dark Cloud will be more than happy to point out in his next post ;o) ) -- just a wee bit of research on Cavalry movements suggests to me that routine rest halts are typical of these sorts of marches. Edward G. Longacre in “Mounted Raids of the Civil War” indicates that routine halts of 10-minutes occurred about every hour or two during marches – pee breaks – watering horses, etc. Daily marches invariably had a mid-march halt for preparing and eating lunch or supper, watering horses etc. Are these intermittent breaks accounted for by DeWolf? If the answer is no, than the average speed determined by the above methodology could be off a fair bit. For example in the 11-Jun example above, if there is say 30-minutes worth of short breaks during the days march, and an hour halt for supper, our actual moving time may only be 7-hours at a walk. 26-miles/7-hrs = an average speed of say 3.7-mph. How were routine halts accounted for in the DeWolf data?
|
|
|
|
Wrangler
Lieutenant
Status: offline |
Posted - January 14 2004 : 09:46:42 AM
|
Ridgeway,
You have captured the essence of the problem with DeWolf's March Table and the fallacy of substituting march rate for march speed. To illustrate the difference between the two, I include the definitions of these concepts from the glossary of the Army’s FM 21-18, Foot Marches.
Rate of March. The average number of miles or kilometers to be traveled in a given period to include all ordered halts. It is expressed in miles or kilometers traveled each hour.
Speed. The actual rate of the forward movement of a vehicle at a given moment as shown on the speedometer (in kph or mph).
http://www.adtdl.army.mil/cgi-bin/atdl.dll/fm/21-18/fm2118.htm
In our case, take out vehicle and put in horsie. As far as the speedometer, I think it’s located somewhere in the vicinity of the horses exhaust port.
Because routine halts (as opposed to "breaks") are short in length, then I postulate that they were generally not recorded events because they really weren't "news-worthy".
"9:50 - Halted for 10 minutes. Took a dump. Smoked a cheroot.
10:50 - Halted for 10 minutes. Took a leak. Smoked a cheroot.
11:50 - Halted for 1 hour and 10 minutes. Ate lunch. It was crackers, bacon and coffee...just like yesterday, and the day before yesterday...and the day before that... Smoked a cheroot. Slept 30 minutes..."
Real eye opener ain't it? Or as you said, "a hearty read". :-)
Sooooo...if we assume the routine cuz that's what officers of the period said was the proper way to conduct a march, and you have no journal entries that say,
"This is b******t! We never get none of our usual halts. I peed my pants and had to take a dump from the saddle—‘twas a real acrobatic feat I tell ya! Wiped my behind with my horsies tail! Din't get no smokes neither cuz ya cain't roll no cheroot with that dang horsie marchin' at a constant speed o' 3 mile an hour..."
Then, you estimate what the halts might have been (10-minutes for every hour and an 30-minutes to an hour for lunch) and subtract it from the march rate. This gives you a speed.
Now we are on the battlefield on 25 June. From 12:12 to Medicine Tail Coulee we know most, if not all, the halts and/or "breaks". Therefore, when we move our little horsies around to figure the timing of the battle, we use speed--not rate (which includes halts).
v/r
Wrangler
|
|
|
|
Wrangler
Lieutenant
Status: offline |
Posted - January 14 2004 : 10:03:42 AM
|
P.S. I'll see if I can lay my mitts on a copy of DeWolf's Journal so we can peruse it unfiltered through Gray eyes. Apparently it was published in the North Dakota History Journal in 1958:
Luce, Edward S., ed. “Diary and Letters of Dr. James DeWolf.” No. Dak. Hist. 25 (April-July 1958). |
|
|
|
matthew_ridgeway
Private
Status: offline |
Posted - January 14 2004 : 10:34:02 AM
|
| ach to lieber augustin! -- and the clouds part. I figure I can feel your pain now, and understand where the hell you have been coming from. |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - January 14 2004 : 11:05:55 AM
|
Easy, and previously mentioned, several times. It's obvious Gray didn't use rate and speed as you do. When he says speed, he means rate; at least often.
But then, he was sticking to plausibility, so what you make seem a Perry Mason moment for those who've missed it, isn't at all. Gray was trying to see if testimony was plausible. You're trying to nail him for - horrors! - not using the same Glossary of Terminology.
And you're about to enter the same area yourself. You've found it okay to use the first unit as the defining issue. Pretty soon you'll discover the first people aren't the ones described as arriving, and it will fall apart - for you, not Gray. Plausibility is all that can be re-enacted, and you're kidding yourself to think otherwise. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
Wrangler
Lieutenant
Status: offline |
Posted - January 14 2004 : 12:08:33 PM
|
| Thank-you for the advice. I'll be sure to give full consideration to your unsubstantive and unsubstantiated contributions as I begin this perilous journey. |
|
|
|
Wrangler
Lieutenant
Status: offline |
Posted - January 14 2004 : 3:15:13 PM
|
Let us proceed with your next point.quote:
Originally posted by Dark Cloud
Gray gives gaits of 3, 6, 9 mph. Which of your offered evidences disputes this?
You have reintroduced the subject of the “exhausted” horses. You’ve asked us to rely upon Gray's judgment as a Doctor and equestrian, and thus his assessment of the horses on 25 June. I provided Gray’s rebuttal to your argument from Centennial Campaign. Previously, you introduced Gray’s article, Veterinary Service on Custer's Last Campaign, http://www.kancoll.org/khq/1977/77_3_gray.htm
to this thread. From this article, Gray says:
We cannot accept the conclusion that the condition of the horses significantly affected the outcome of the Custer battle. Reno's attack with 129 troopers, and Custer's with 193, were widely separated in space and time, because of terrain features. Alone, each struck a hornet's nest of fired-up warriors, who dealt them a classic defeat in detail. The rest of the regiment with Benteen and the pack train arrived too late to join any attack. How the horses, even if in superb condition, could have neutralized such odds, especially when practically all the fighting was done on foot, is not apparent.
I would surmise that you will again disagree with your proffered expert witness. It would seem to me that the only thing you will readily agree to from Gray is:
“it is useful to know that the standard cavalry walk covered three miles in an hour, the trot six, and the gallop nine…”
If the horses are “exhausted” as you contend, then shouldn’t they move more slowly? As you argue that the horses were exhausted, it would seem logical that you should disagree with Gray’s “standard cavalry” speeds. Gray failed, in your opinion, to acknowledge that exhaustion was a factor in the battle. In what way, given his thoughts on the subject, do you suppose he compensated for the alleged exhaustion in his “standard cavalry” figures?
Please reconcile for me, as you have done for yourself, how do you conclude 3-6-9 are the correct figures given the evidence and argument previously offered by...well...you?
|
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - January 14 2004 : 6:02:53 PM
|
Your quote doesn't support your point. Gray says exhausted horses didn't affect the outcome of the battle. Agreed. He doesn't say they weren't tired. He doesn't say this didn't affect how it was fought, or what the cavalry did. Once Custer engaged, he was toast anyway, and the horses didn't affect the outcome.
We are, unfortunately, talking about earlier in the day (you recall?) and you trying to prove the 3mph of the mule train - which I believe Gray meant as rate - is incorrect. This, because so much adheres to it for time verification.
You've apparently found another horse manual with breaks for lunch and toilet efforts. Whew! In the laughable circumstance of it being strictly followed, it would be hard to see this affecting much.
And for the fourth/fifth time and counting, Gray's 'speeds' are pretty obviously your 'rates' and would include tea, pee, and other short breaks, and ultimately unimportant. You're going to claim that this misuse of 'speed' is important - as I predicted when stating that the glossary of terminology needed to be made and adhered to in order to figure out what everyone was saying (the part one poster laughed at). And here we are.
When you get to the battlefield, where we don't know for sure where anyone went, you're going to insist that the speeds are important, but without known starts and finishes, it's vapor anyway.
When the 7th was walking, it seemed to make roughly 3mph as its rate. That's evidence on the ground. With what is it contested? And so, the 3mph for the mule train - while somwhat fast for the train rate - is hardly implausible and quite likely.
Ol' Windbag |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
matthew_ridgeway
Private
Status: offline |
Posted - January 14 2004 : 7:54:15 PM
|
| Sounds like hand waving to me. Perhaps you could simply answer the question put to you. If 3/6/9 represents walking, trotting, and galloping speeds for fresh horses under normal conditions, what are the gait speeds for the critters when their tongues are dragging on the ground. |
|
|
|
Wrangler
Lieutenant
Status: offline |
Posted - January 14 2004 : 8:49:22 PM
|
DC – Was this a Perry Mason moment? If so, I believe I missed something. Real Perry Mason moments are like this…
Mason: Now Mr. Dark Cloud, please read this statement posted January 10 2004 : 2:20:17 PM on the Against All Odds Forum. Is it yours?
DC: (mumble)
Mason: I didn’t hear you.
DC: Yes it is.
Mason: Now please read it so the jury can hear you.
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Cloud
In any case, I'll go out on a limb and heroically contend, as maybe others could as well, that animals ridden hard for weeks, off their normal feed and with insufficient and bad water, will move slower than under refreshed conditions, especially on extremely hot days over rugged ground. It could be the liquor talking, but I'm a damn hero, I am. The seventh was on 1/6th grain rations to its horses, apparently. Army horses didn't thrive like ponies on the grass.
Mason: Thank-you. Now when you said, “that animals ridden hard for weeks, off their normal feed and with insufficient and bad water, will move slower than under refreshed conditions, especially on extremely hot days over rugged ground,” you meant that, correct?
DC: (mumble)
Msaon: I’m sorry, I didn’t catch that?
DC: Yes.
Mason: Thank-you. Now please read this statement posted January 14 2004 : 6:02:53 PM PM on the Against All Odds Forum. Is it yours?
DC: (mumble-mumble)
Mason: I’m sorry Mr. Cloud, you must speak louder.
DC: Yes. It is.
Mason: Good. Please read it so the jury can hear you.
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Cloud
When the 7th was walking, it seemed to make roughly 3mph as its rate. That's evidence on the ground. With what is it contested?
Mason: Thank-you. Now Mr. Dark Cloud, it seems as though you are in a contest with yourself. Could you be a hero once again and explain to the jury how you reconcile--for yourself--your conclusion--that 3-6-9 are in fact the correct figures given the evidence and argument previously offered by...well...you?
DC:
|
|
|
|
matthew_ridgeway
Private
Status: offline |
Posted - January 14 2004 : 9:43:08 PM
|
Regarding Perry Mason, I believe you (DC that is) had indicated that breaks had already been excluded from the DeWolf Data. I asked this question on page 3 or 4 of this thread to which you replied:
“The times are exclusive of breaks.”
It appears now that times taken for breaks and such are included in the Dewolf data. The time you indicated of “seventy nine and one half hours of effort” does not appear to be “exclusive of breaks”. This brings into question the 3.03-mph you were tossing about earlier in the thread. This was a bit of a eureka -- at least for me -- since it was my assumption that what you were saying earlier was correct.
In addition, since we are talking about what might be believable gait speeds for horses/mules on the final day of Custer, it brings up my question again about the slowest element within a column and how it likely defines average speed of the column. During Reno's scout he is shackled with an ungainly Gatling gun. I came across this snippet derived originally from J. Willert’s, “Little Big Horn Diary” regarding Reno’s fun with the Gatling Gun:
“Reno was also handicapped with the Gatling gun in tow. Horses and mules were played out, men exhausted having to assist in pushing and pulling the Gatling gun through gullies and ravines”.
The above sounds like it was slowing down marching speeds -- at least to me. By how much -- hmmm. Dunno.
Questions for whomever:
1) Did Gray develop his 3-mph walking speed for Mule trains and cavalry from DeWolf's records of the Reno Scout?
2) Custer didn’t drag the Gatlings along to Little Big Horn. Why was that?
3) I read somewhere that the Gatling guns were not pulled by mules, but were actually pulled by “condemned” cavalry horses. Does this sound familiar to anyone?
|
|
|
|
El Crab
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - January 14 2004 : 10:58:21 PM
|
1) I think that's what we're trying to figure out. If that's the case, then its possible they are a bit slow. And again, I have to say it: Custer's regiment, no matter how tired the horses and men were, was moving at a faster rate than a normal march. They had located a possible village, and were moving as fast as possible (at least in the cases of the Reno and Custer battalions) to strike it. A 3mph march rate or speed or whatever you want to call it is probably not accurate. It could be, but the point of this thread was to explore the possibility that its not.
2) I'll let Custer answer that one, in his own words: "they'd only impede my march."
3) I believe it was Son of the Morning Star that stated they were generally pulled by condemned cavalry horses, and were prone to tipping over. |
I came. I saw. I took 300 pictures. |
|
|
|
Wrangler
Lieutenant
Status: offline |
Posted - January 15 2004 : 01:59:59 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by matthew_ridgeway
1) Did Gray develop his 3-mph walking speed for Mule trains and cavalry from DeWolf's records of the Reno Scout?
We could reasonably assume he did this--but the exact origins (or even ball park origins) of Gray’s 3-mph for the mule trains and cavalry are unknown. He may have been a grand Doctor and equestrian extraordinaire (evidence still pending from the source of this information), but as a member of the historical profession he was a rank amateur. His footnoting is an abomination of the first order—high school level at best. If he were competent, we wouldn't find it so difficult to discover the very foundation of his work. What has been found is in direct opposition to it.
quote:
Originally posted by matthew_ridgeway
2) Custer didn’t drag the Gatlings along to Little Big Horn. Why was that?
El Crab nailed it in quoting Custer’s own words. In addition, another example of the “agility” of the Gatlings is this:
From that point, Terry dispatched Major Reno and six companies of the Seventh Cavalry on June 10 to determine if there were any Indians located on that stream or Tongue River. Reno’s detachment included one section of the battery under Lieutenant Kinzie. That officer was also detailed to keep the itinerary of the march, but Kinzie “was too occupied in keeping the gun with the cavalry to take any bearings”. The column passed over “very rough ground”, in the words of one soldier who went on the scout—an obstacle which required Kinzie’s men to unhitch the horses, unlimber the gun and hand carry the piece over ravines. (C. L. Noyes, The Guns “Long Hair” Left Behind, 5)
quote:
Originally posted by matthew_ridgeway
3) I read somewhere that the Gatling guns were not pulled by mules, but were actually pulled by “condemned” cavalry horses. Does this sound familiar to anyone?
Again, according to Noyes (who is quoting Godfrey’s Custer’s Last Battle):
Five days later, the “Dakota Column” left Fort Lincoln…When it did, the battery marched with Terry’s escort at the head of the wagon train, with an effective strength of two officers and 24 enlisted men. Four condemned cavalry horse pulled each of the three .50 calibre [sic] Gatling guns. (Noyes, 5)
|
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - January 15 2004 : 12:22:51 PM
|
Even Tragg could laugh through that.
You're trying to nail Gray's 3/6/9 mph as absolute assertion, and that Gray says it's absolute. He doesn't say that, so you want me to say it. I won't. It's plausible and it fits. You say it isn't and doesn't? Prove it. The level of your argument now is over me and trying to prove me wrong. As I've said, I'm often wrong, and no slapped foreheads greet that announcement.
Again, if there is evidence that cavalry travel at the time and under those circumstances has major difference with Gray's times, produce it. Show the conflict. Finding another manual of wishful thinking (their speeds would be exactly the same if manuals reflected 'fact')doesn't do it. There is nothing on the times we have from cavalry in the field that threatens its probability. Nor is there anything in the 7th officers' writings that indicate major error by Gray. If so, what is it? |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
matthew_ridgeway
Private
Status: offline |
Posted - January 15 2004 : 12:29:46 PM
|
El Crab & Wrangler:
Thanks for your replies to my questions.
|
|
|
|
Anonymous Poster8169
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - January 15 2004 : 1:03:14 PM
|
Wrangler--- have you prepared an alternate chronology yet based on the historical data and your tactical manuals? I realize that might take a while, but I don't see this discussion going anywhere until serious attempts are made to anchor it onto what is actually known about the battle --- i.e. reported times, sightings, movements. Gray's version of events, in spite of some attempts to dispute it, remains as plausible as ever; but I am interested in seeing how much another timescale, that is reasonably consistent with the other evidence, could differ from Gray's.
It would also allow ways to test your manuals in the real world. If, following St. George's numbers, the results create massive inconsistencies among the records, then it is probable that Gray's figures are closer to what was actually done in practice.
If the new rates for walk, trot, etc., create no such problem, then we would have found something important that would certainly add to our understanding of the battle. I don't know whether it will, nor am I sure how much of a difference in time we're really talking about; none of the units, obviously, traveled at a constant speed, so there are many variables at work. Gray, I think, did a wonderful job of working through them.
Burmese mules, Perry Mason, etc. is just a lot of white noise in my view. Knowing little about the state of Custer's animals, and what specifically they were capable of on that day, we can for the sake of argument give a lot of latitude in what we accept as *possible* in terms of their mph and stamina. What I want to know is: can we apply those gaits to the battle, and get out something that makes as good or better sense than Gray's findings? 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.
And El Crab and Matthew, read the dang book! I was surprised, especially, to hear that you (El Crab) hadn't yet read it --- you're clearly one of the two or three most knowledgeable posters on the board.
R. Larsen
|
|
|
|
Anonymous Poster8169
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - January 15 2004 : 1:27:59 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Wrangler
He may have been a grand Doctor and equestrian extraordinaire (evidence still pending from the source of this information), but as a member of the historical profession he was a rank amateur. His footnoting is an abomination of the first order—high school level at best. If he were competent, we wouldn't find it so difficult to discover the very foundation of his work. What has been found is in direct opposition to it.
Gray's sourcing in "Custer's Last Campaign" is actually quite good. It's generally pretty easy to find what he was referring to. Nobody's perfect, though; oversights will occur in all works, as in Gray's case with the gaits. But to call it "high school level at best" is silly, and to call Gray incompetent absurd. Nor are the gaits the "foundation" of Gray's work; Gray used them as guides, but the foundation of his work was always what was in the historical record, and his only goal was to eliminate impossibilities and piece it together in a plausible way.
R. Larsen
|
|
|
|
El Crab
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - January 16 2004 : 06:44:30 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Anonymous Poster8169
And El Crab and Matthew, read the dang book! I was surprised, especially, to hear that you (El Crab) hadn't yet read it --- you're clearly one of the two or three most knowledgeable posters on the board.
Well, send me a copy and I'll read it. I'm too poor right now to buy it. I did splurge this summer on books, picked up They Died With Custer, To Hell With Honor, both of Fox's books and the 1984 field analysis or whatever its called. I did ask for Gray's time-motion book and Michno's E company book for Christmas, but alas, I didn't get either. But I can't complain, I got a bunch of other cool stuff that I asked for.
I kind of puffed up a bit from your comment, Mr. Larsen. I even showed the girlfriend, who nodded and went back to doing girlie things or buying EVERYTHING IN SIGHT on eBay. Kind of put me in my place as well, kept the head from swelling too much. I pride myself on how much I can recall on the subject. And yet you pointed out my weakness, there are several books I haven't read. Hell, when I started here, I hadn't read anything of the archaeology, outside of the Nat'l Geographic. But my brain is a sponge, and I've read the books I do own many times. And once I read the other books I've yet to, plus visit the actual battlefield, I'll be unstoppable! *insert maniacal laughter here*
"Wag the Dog" is a pretty good film, by the way.
While I'm kind of off the subject at hand and rambling, I do have some good news: This spring, I will be driving to Boise, Idaho to check out a possible business venture. I was planning my first trip to LBH this spring or summer, and it looks like I'll just drive on from Boise when I've finished that endeavour up. I'm pretty excited, and it should make the trip there a bit easier to make. Its 400 or so miles to Boise, then another 700 or so to LBH from there. I was going to drive the whole way in one day, which is about the same total miles. Anyhow...
Enough about me, let's continue...
|
I came. I saw. I took 300 pictures. |
|
|
|
Anonymous Poster8169
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - January 16 2004 : 10:22:07 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by El Crab
[quote]Originally posted by Anonymous Poster8169
Well, send me a copy and I'll read it. I'm too poor right now to buy it. I did splurge this summer on books, picked up They Died With Custer, To Hell With Honor, both of Fox's books and the 1984 field analysis or whatever its called. I did ask for Gray's time-motion book and Michno's E company book for Christmas, but alas, I didn't get either. But I can't complain, I got a bunch of other cool stuff that I asked for.
You could probably try interlibrary loan, if your local library doesn't have a copy. And if you're out of luck there, some college libraries (if there are any around you) might contain one. "Custer's Last Campaign" is really two books, in one. The first section is a biography of Mitch Bouyer, which is interesting but nonessential; it's the second section with Gray's time/motion study that makes it so important.
I've only visited the battlefield once myself, for two days, and at a time when I knew a lot less than I do today. I'd love to go back there now, but I live on the West Coast, and my work schedule and obligations here don't really allow it. Maybe in three or four years. If I were to go back, the area I'd be most interested in seeing would be the land between the Custer and Reno Hill battlefields. I only had limited time when I was there, and spent most of it on the Park Service grounds, so I kind of neglected that part.
R. Larsen
|
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
John Gray: The Tail That WagsThe Dog--Still
