| Author |
 Topic  |
|
matthew_ridgeway
Private
Status: offline |
 Posted - January 16 2004 : 11:10:51 AM
|
I visited the battlefield back in 1976. I drove there from Iowa with my two brothers. All three of us were jammed into a small Honda Civic. These vehicles were quite tiny back in 1976. The size of the vehicle combined with the weight of three guys and all of our gear likely slowed our march rate to the Little Big Horn battlefield. I was only a teen at the time, but had been studying military history for some time even at that age.
I recall while tramping around Reno hill – and there were still impressions in the ground from rifle pits dug 100-years before – that the southwest side of the hill seemed very defensible. The slopes on this side of Reno’s position were relatively steep and toed out into the river. Seemed like it would be tough to attack from this side of the position. However the northern, and northeastern side of the position was relatively flat and open. The slope along this side of the position was very gentle. Open fields of fire no doubt – but I didn’t feel like I was on a hilltop position when looking north or northeast.
As far as reading Gray -- it's still in the mail. I ordered a copy a week or so back after stumbling upon this forum and this thread. It got the juices flowing, and may entail conviencing the older brothers that a second expedition to the battlefield is required this summer. Transportation this time should of course consist of a large SUV or Van.
|
Edited by - matthew_ridgeway on January 16 2004 11:15:40 AM |
  |
|
|
Wrangler
Lieutenant
Status: offline |
Posted - January 16 2004 : 5:22:59 PM
|
As long as we are traveling down memory lane, here are my thoughts on the subject. The idea for this thread hatched from a culmination of many years trying to figure out what happened at the Battle of the Little Bighorn. There was no effort on my part to comprehend any more than what an author put forward about the fight. I read Kulhman’s book so long ago it hurts to remember when. Ah! So this is what happened!
Then there were Custer’s Fall and Keep the Last Bullet for Yourself. Hmmm. I wonder what really happened? This doesn’t square with Kuhlman’s account. Then Fox published his book, Archaeology, History, Custer’s Battle. Ah-ha! This is what happened! He reconciles Army and Indian testimony with artifacts, battlefield behavior and the Army’s tactical manual—Upton’s Cavalry Tactics. He even projects a second attempt of crossing the LBH by Custer further north than the battlefield. Sounds well-researched and plausible--guess there’s nothing more that can be said about how it went down.
Many moons passed. A year ago, I picked up a copy of Sklenar’s, To Hell With Honor. I almost passed it by but the second attempted river crossing was missing from his map and his account. What’s up with that? I bought it. Read it. Hmmm.
I wonder what else has been written since Fox? A search of Amazon brought up some interesting titles, one of which was Michno’s Lakota Noon. Bought it. Read it. The second attempted river crossing is now just F Co and a whole lot shorter a trip than Fox’s. Is this Goldilocks and the Three Bears? Which one of these interpretations is “just right”? Michno mentions he got his idea for his book from a cat named Gray—Custer’s Last Campaign. Bought it. Read it.
When I put it down, I got the idea that between Michno and Gray, I finally had the best representation of the battle. Being somewhat adept at animated PowerPoint, I thought it would be cool to plot all their projected movements of individual and groups so I could “see” the battle evolve and thus get a better appreciation of what was going on and when. I got a map, embedded it as a background in PowerPoint and whipped up some symbols for cavalry companies. Hmmm. These symbols are too big. Wonder how big they should be on this map scale? Fox mentioned Upton’s Cavalry Tactics; let’s get those and see what it sez. I typed in “cavalry drill and tactics” at the CARL
http://carlpac.leavenworth.army.mil/ipac20/ipac.jsp?profile=carlcgsc&reloadxsl=true#focus
And soon I had more tactics then you could shake a stick at. After much study of the various materials and other period documents, I resolved in my mind that it was Cooke’s Tactics—not Upton’s—that the decision makers on 25 June had cut their teeth on as junior cavalry officers. Armed with this, I commenced to make my little cavalry company blocks for my animated PowerPoint project.
Now—let’s get started! 12:12 is a good place to start cuz it’s the last time Lt. Wallace enters an "official time" in his journal on the 25th. Now we whip out Custer’s Last Campaign cuz Gray’s The Man. Benteen’s guys go here…Reno’s guys go here…Custer’s guys go here…the trains and McDougal. Um-k so we’ll animate these guys to go here…hey, wait a second! The battalions are all leaving the same point at the same time! What’s up with that? Got a time and space prolem here. Re-read Gray. Where did these speeds come from? Bought Centennial Campaign. Read it. Found this, “it is useful to know that the standard cavalry walk covered three miles in an hour, the trot six, and the gallop nine…”. I did the footnote and bibliography hunt knowing that I would find the source of this observation given the general view of historian’s that the validity of historical interpretations rest on their ability to be replicated by others viewing the same source material. Alas, no joy with Gray. In fact, the set of sources outside his footnotes and bibliography indicated that the standard was otherwise. And thus the birthing of this thread.
Mr. PowerPoint still blinks at me for data input and I have yet to “see the battle” as I had originally hoped to do. Using Gray is a non-starter as I can’t even get out of the 12:12 starting gate—using his times and speeds—without running into a time-space problem.
Gray observes in his preface, “A key to both reliability and validity was found in a simple principle: anything that actually happened had to be possible. An essential element of time-motion is speed of motion, which provides a feasibility check that exposes impossibilities.” So what speed of motion should I use for my PowerPoint portrayal?
If you want to fix Gray for cavalry formation depths and speed--a speed that will potentially change locations and times of interconnections—what adjustment of your giddy-ups and whoa boys are you comfortable with? Can you justify them? Can others replicate your work?
Any work based upon Gray—to include my little exploration through PowerPoint—is and will remain suspect given the underlying data upon which it is based. If you want to fix Gray for cavalry formation depth but do not want to change any location or specific time connections, just adjust your giddy-ups and whoa boys and you will accomplish this. No new interpretation is required. You will be satisfied that 3-6-9 is close enough; that the locations and times derived from them are accurate enough for your purposes.
Few here seem interested in resolving that basic issue. If you are comfortable with Gray—the more power to you. I believe it cannot be resolved if the intent on this thread is to leap to the conclusion that something stunning and new must emerge from the endeavor—and if not—shut-up. Nor is it correct to assume that my intentions in pursuing this little nit-noid detail is to defend or attack the actions of any of the participants in the battle.
I reiterate--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”.
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. |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - January 16 2004 : 10:35:04 PM
|
Wrangler,
PowerPoint, the application under suspicion for, among other things, tunnelling NASA decision making before Columbia fell because of its limitations, probably isn't the best thing for LBH. There's several places on the web that discuss this in detail, and mention in a recent Atlantic magazine article on the Columbia.
You need a detailed and high resolution 3D cgi map of the field to start with, from the area of the square mile LSH area broadly south to include the area east of Luce and Sharpshooter to the river and then angling back to the Crow's Nest. Build Weir back up, add height to grass, maybe.
You'd need even a bigger swath to show Benteen's scout and what could be seen of his northern comrads and when the packtrain appeared to him. This is a technical horrendoplasty, but only then, when people can interact and see what Benteen could see before he turned to the north, what Custer could see from Sharpshooter or Weir, what the Sioux could see at all till they crossed over, what Reno could see of the village, will a shared visualization be possible. And that's necessary; 2D presentations deceive greatly on this field.
I think the field is so big and impossible to commit to memory that everyone's impressions of what places looked like are an issue in and of themselves. I have to look at my own videos to recall just how far apart everything is.
Then and only then - I'd think - with proportionate visualizations from numerous points on horseback, could anyone have a clue what's too fast or slow or silly or what could be seen when. I've lost Peter Jackson's phone number.....but that's the quality needed.
I remain comfy that a general dispersal by 12:12 into the three immediate groups and the train slapped together behind renders your time/space concerns of no import, something that would be clear when the ground is there before us. And that further, regardless of manual, they did in fact as they did in dress, which was what seemed right and logical, and taking halts when needed rather than by prescribed break time, especially in pursuit of a close enemy fueled by the supposition they were going to rest on the 25th and attack the next day. If they weren't tired, by the by, why would Custer think they needed a day's rest before the attack, increasing the liklihood of discovery? He certainly wasn't waiting for anyone......
And, unlike any here, I still think Gray's gait speeds, when considered as your rates for extended periods, are pretty much dead on and offer small room for critique. Unless you weld those times as absolute.
Further, your observation that Gray was soft on Reno and Benteen I suppose is possible, but I find nothing but contempt for Reno and much of Benteen in Gray. Which makes me suspicious of your claims of a pure science attitude to merely finding the 'truth.' In aggregate with your hope to get the train west faster, it has whiff of agenda. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
Wrangler
Lieutenant
Status: offline |
Posted - January 16 2004 : 11:06:15 PM
|
By the above representation of your "savvy" about geo-spatial terrain representation--you reveal to me that you truly are as much a rookie in these matters as you are in the Battle of the Little Bighorn. Thanks for sharing your ignorance though—most “informative” to be sure. With regards to agenda ascribed to me, believe as you will. You have made yourself irrelevant to this conversation.
|
|
|
|
El Crab
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - January 17 2004 : 12:43:48 AM
|
Its not clear, at least to my recollection, that the wait was to rest the horses and men. This, of course, would be an added benefit, but its my belief the wait was to allow them to attack at dawn, which is an advantage for the attacking force. But don't quote me on that, or do.
My first trip will also involve a Honda Civic, but oh how times have changed. I won't have any problems with speed, regardless of what cargo I'm packing. The girlfriend will probably be going with, but even if I had 3 other people in my car, she'd still pull all the hills and mountains in 5th gear with power to spare. And the Civic has grown in its 30 years, and us crazy kids have decided more power was necessary than is available from the factory. So she got a heart transplant. About a 200 horse heart transplant, which is practically my own battalion under the hood. But these horses are fresh and ready. Should be fun. |
I came. I saw. I took 300 pictures. |
Edited by - El Crab on January 17 2004 12:50:45 AM |
|
|
|
El Crab
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - January 17 2004 : 12:49:55 AM
|
And I look forward to even a 2D representation of each of the theories in books and your own. No, it won't tell us everything everyone saw or could have seen, but it will be a start.
I also believe Michno is closest to what really happened, his only agenda seemed to be to discount some of Fox's findings (whose agenda was to prove there was no Last Stand on Custer Hill, which wasn't mentioned in his first book at all), and he does a good job of that.
Didn't Gray's theory in his book have a retrograde, clockwise movement? As in many of Custer's soldiers were killed moving back to the south? Don't answer me if that's going to spoil it. But I've read reviews and comments on his book, and I think I remember his theory being a bit odd. |
I came. I saw. I took 300 pictures. |
Edited by - El Crab on January 17 2004 12:51:38 AM |
|
|
|
Wrangler
Lieutenant
Status: offline |
Posted - January 17 2004 : 12:57:11 AM
|
The groundwork must be laid before we can proceed—else we will return time and again to the 3-6-9 speeds; all led by the royal, non-finger lifting “We” of this forum. Those interested in a break from the harumphing displeasure of forum members “in long standing” must hold firm in their minds that the speeds 3-6-9 for cavalry have no historical basis. None. Zippity-do-dah. The new-thinkers must hold firm in their minds, that, for all times and locations postulated in Custer’s Last Campaign, the hinge pin is a constant speed for the trains that has no historical basis. None. Null. Empty set. The tail still wags the dog.
Where did the 3-mph for the cavalry and trains come from? I’ve searched for justification of this data point—more than any who has posted to this thread—all to no avail. If you can justify 3-mph, please point me to the appropriate testimony or evidence that maintains this position solidly in your mind. I will readily and happily concede whatever, if any, data point you might discover that Gray could have used to jusitfy his “standard”.
However, be forewarned. At this point, even if you are able to show from whence Gray got his fundamental set of 3-6-9 speeds—the very underpinnings of his Custer’s Last Campaign analysis—the overwhelming body of evidence collected thus far would indicate that he was wrong in hanging his hat on these particular data points--whatever their source. It is now statistically unsupportable to use the set of speeds 3-6-9.
If the speed of the trains at 3-mph cannot be replicated from historical documents, I have to question Gray and Darling’s conclusions on time and speed with regards to Benteen’s Scout-to-the-Left; especially given the testimony of the participants. Lt. Godfrey, Co. K, Benteen’s Battalion, sez the off-trail scout was, “between 12 and 15 miles” (Nichols, 479). Lt. Edgerly, Co. H, Benteen’s Battalion, sez it was, “Probably 14 miles” (Nichols, 441).
Only Gray and Darling, through their unsubstantiated speed of 3-mph for the pack train, are able to exclude this testimony as “impossible”—they say it was but 7 ¾ miles. Gee…what to do…? How about some advice from the greybeards…
“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.”
Okeedoke. Given historical accounts, in your humble opinion, is it 12, 14 or 15 miles that we should consider as the distance for Benteen’s Scout-to-the-Left? Or should we look at all three to be sure in our time-motion analysis? Or is 7 3/4 miles close 'nuff to historical accounts?
|
|
|
|
frankboddn
Major
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - January 17 2004 : 02:55:57 AM
|
 Wrangler, your assessment of Dark Cloud's "savvy" and his truly being a rookie in the study of the LBH was one of the more intelligent posts I've ever seen on this forum. Dark Cloud's use of words of three syllables or more and speaking in circles does not make him an expert. He seems to confuse issues more than clarify them. Keep up the good work. |
|
|
|
El Crab
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - January 17 2004 : 03:33:03 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by frankboddn
Wrangler, your assessment of Dark Cloud's "savvy" and his truly being a rookie in the study of the LBH was one of the more intelligent posts I've ever seen on this forum. Dark Cloud's use of words of three syllables or more and speaking in circles does not make him an expert. He seems to confuse issues more than clarify them. Keep up the good work.
I was just thinking "where the hell has frankboddn been lately? And there he is... |
I came. I saw. I took 300 pictures. |
|
|
|
pjsolla
Major
Status: offline |
Posted - January 17 2004 : 03:43:29 AM
|
Boddn, I bet you say that to all the guys!!!
On a more serious note, I am in touch with Fox on a pretty regular basis. While compiling his works (Fox) and upon completion, he talked with Gray on an ongoing basis. Gray was pretty well in tune with Fox's works. And their conversations pretty much lay to rest any of the questions that are being discussed. Fox was in touch with Gray until he passed away, but I know they went over all Fox's findings and compared notes. |
|
|
|
El Crab
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - January 17 2004 : 04:35:57 AM
|
Lay to rest how? What do they explain? Can you elaborate, pjsolla?
And where the hell have you been? Same place as Frank?
And if you're in touch with Fox, it'd be kinda cool if you could get him to post on here, even if we don't all agree with him. Or Michno. I'd prefer Michno, actually. ;) |
I came. I saw. I took 300 pictures. |
|
|
|
pjsolla
Major
Status: offline |
Posted - January 17 2004 : 07:33:09 AM
|
El Crab: Fox doesn't post on these sites. I have discussed this with him several times and what happens is the questions very quickly turn into "personal" attacks. Thus while he does discuss his works head to head, he has given up on forums.
I did contact Michno however and gave him the site. It's up to him if he would like to "show up".
Regards, PJS |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - January 17 2004 : 12:18:17 PM
|
While its still amusing to watch people holding their digits damp to the thermals trying hard to appear both furrowed brow knowledgeable and on the winning side, they're still blissfully clueless to the stakes, here. As is already happening with the terminology (unadmitted), you'll find yourselves dealing with the previously offered caveats sooner than later.
And, for those taking pleasure in deflating my claims of expertise, such claims never existed, and like my supposed teaching of physics, you'd be hard pressed to offer a single example. Metaphor alert.
In any case, when Wrangler eventually puts all his contentions to record, we'll see. Straw dogs, thus far. For example:
In your opinion, do the mileages given for Benteen's scout by the various parties refer to the same things? Gibbons advance? Benteen himself? Both? Or the body of three companies somewhat behind? Edgerly's guess of Gibbon's advance? From leaving the divide or crossing the stream or Custer's sight to what, precisely? To where the three companies turned north? Where they joined Reno or Custer's trail? Are you suggesting that the entire Benteen battalion passed through one point of furthest advance in line just like they supposedly passed through that point near the divide? In short what is the definition of the start and finish of the Scout?
And Frank, it's discomforting to see a grown man alternately yap and cower between someone else's feet, even on a forum. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
Wrangler
Lieutenant
Status: offline |
Posted - January 17 2004 : 12:19:00 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by El Crab
And I look forward to even a 2D representation of each of the theories in books and your own. No, it won't tell us everything everyone saw or could have seen, but it will be a start.
Indeed. Building a 3D terrain model of the battle area is problematic without $25-30K of expendable income in your wallet and access to high-resolution digital terrain elevation data (DTED Level 2), and the software to manipulate it, skin it, and add verticle entities like trees and such. However, the public only has access to DTED Level 0. For a battlefield that ranges in elevation from 3,160 ft on the valley floor opposite the Custer Battlefield to the 3,416 ft at Weir Point--that's a difference of 256 feet of elevation. I believe DTED Level 0 measures terrain elevation at intervals of 30 meters or approximately 90 feet. Soooo...the battle area would be represented in about 3-4 contour intervals using DTED Level 0. Not exactly high-res for our purposes. And there's the rub.
In a similar vein, an Air Force officer did a project with the NPS on the Custer Battlefield sometime in 2000. He was attempting to show how 3D terrain could be used to analyze artifacts found by Fox, et. al. He used the 1891 USGS topo map of the battlefield which had a contour interval of 25 feet. You can view an article on the project and see how "blocky" the terrain looked using that interval at the following link:
http://gis.esri.com/library/userconf/proc00/professional/papers/PAP338/p338.htm
For the budget-minded Battle Buff, TopoUSA is prolly as close you can get to "3D" without mortgaging the house. This uses USGS topo data at a contour interval of 20 feet. In addition, fer a few dollars more, you can "skin" your 3D representations with satelite imagery of the battlefield.
quote:
Originally posted by El Crab
Didn't Gray's theory in his book have a retrograde, clockwise movement? As in many of Custer's soldiers were killed moving back to the south? Don't answer me if that's going to spoil it. But I've read reviews and comments on his book, and I think I remember his theory being a bit odd.
He postulated three movements and then tested them against the evidence. His scenarios for exploration were a clock-wise, counter-clockwise and a combo flow of the fight. And I'll leave it at that so's you'll be in suspense till the very last cartridge.  |
|
|
|
Wrangler
Lieutenant
Status: offline |
Posted - January 17 2004 : 12:22:33 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Cloud
And, for those taking pleasure in deflating my claims of expertise, such claims never existed, and like my supposed teaching of physics, you'd be hard pressed to offer a single example. Metaphor alert.
Speaking of metaphors, when are you going to take your football and go home? |
|
|
|
matthew_ridgeway
Private
Status: offline |
Posted - January 17 2004 : 1:16:40 PM
|
“DC: they're still blissfully clueless to the stakes, here.”
“the timpani sounds portentously” ;o) I love it…
What stakes might you be referring to?
“DC: trying hard to appear both furrowed brow knowledgeable and on the winning side”
Winning side of what?
|
|
|
|
Anonymous Poster8169
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - January 17 2004 : 1:20:16 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Wrangler
I have to question Gray and Darling’s conclusions on time and speed with regards to Benteen’s Scout-to-the-Left; especially given the testimony of the participants. Lt. Godfrey, Co. K, Benteen’s Battalion, sez the off-trail scout was, “between 12 and 15 miles” (Nichols, 479). Lt. Edgerly, Co. H, Benteen’s Battalion, sez it was, “Probably 14 miles” (Nichols, 441).
Only Gray and Darling, through their unsubstantiated speed of 3-mph for the pack train, are able to exclude this testimony as “impossible”—they say it was but 7 ¾ miles. Gee…what to do…? How about some advice from the greybeards…
“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.”
Okeedoke. Given historical accounts, in your humble opinion, is it 12, 14 or 15 miles that we should consider as the distance for Benteen’s Scout-to-the-Left? Or should we look at all three to be sure in our time-motion analysis? Or is 7 3/4 miles close 'nuff to historical accounts?
If the distance was 15 miles, then one has to ask where you think Benteen went. Godfrey himself conceded, after giving his best guess, that "it was impossible to gauge it" (the distance) because of the irregular gaits they took. Their track had involved a lot of climbing up and down, jading the horses. Do you think the pack train went faster? If so, and you think Benteen traveled 15 miles, how fast do you think he went? That's why I was asking you for *your* chronology. I want to know how you think all these variables go together. If the pack train was going faster, then it would give Benteen even less time to complete his scout, since their mutual encounter on the trail is one of those things that a time/motion study has to reconcile. And if Benteen traveled an extra 5-7 miles, it adds something else to deal with. Darling and Gray concluded, based on the bluffs that Gibson went to, the terrain, the pack train, that Benteen's scout encompassed only about 8 miles. I don't see any strong reason yet to think they are wrong, considering how easy it is to show that participants in the battle often mis-estimated distances between even known landmarks. Edgerly, anyway, seems to have been a little disoriented upon emerging from the scout, since he thought his battalion met Trumpeter Martin *before* reaching the lone tepee.
R. Larsen
|
Edited by - Anonymous Poster8169 on January 17 2004 1:45:45 PM |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - January 17 2004 : 1:28:41 PM
|
Why never, Wrangler. For the laughs alone, I'd stay, but for the coming train wreck - priceless -it's a must. Well, it'll likely fizzle out rather than explode, and always the possibility you could be right, but we'll just have to wait. Thus far: nada. Zip.
Go long........hike!
Old Windbag |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
Anonymous Poster8169
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - January 17 2004 : 2:00:00 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by pjsolla
El Crab: Fox doesn't post on these sites. I have discussed this with him several times and what happens is the questions very quickly turn into "personal" attacks. Thus while he does discuss his works head to head, he has given up on forums.
Looking at the howling knuckleheads who have swarmed en masse onto this page, I'm not surprised.
R. Larsen
|
|
|
|
El Crab
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - January 17 2004 : 4:44:49 PM
|
| pjsolla: Could you give me the contact info for Fox and Michno? If you would be so kind, you can PM me on this board, send me a message on AIM (Dragcrabdotcom) or email me at webmaster@dragcrab.com Thanks. |
I came. I saw. I took 300 pictures. |
Edited by - El Crab on January 17 2004 4:45:53 PM |
|
|
|
pjsolla
Major
Status: offline |
Posted - January 17 2004 : 4:49:29 PM
|
El Crab: I would like to accomodate you. However, they have always asked that I not give out their emails. I will pass along your request. If they do not have a problem, I will forward to you.
Regards, PJS |
|
|
|
Wrangler
Lieutenant
Status: offline |
Posted - January 17 2004 : 6:46:59 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Anonymous Poster8169
If the distance was 15 miles, then one has to ask where you think Benteen went. Godfrey himself conceded, after giving his best guess, that "it was impossible to gauge it" (the distance) because of the irregular gaits they took. Their track had involved a lot of climbing up and down, jading the horses. Do you think the pack train went faster? If so, and you think Benteen traveled 15 miles, how fast do you think he went? That's why I was asking you for *your* chronology. I want to know how you think all these variables go together. If the pack train was going faster, then it would give Benteen even less time to complete his scout, since their mutual encounter on the trail is one of those things that a time/motion study has to reconcile. And if Benteen traveled an extra 5-7 miles, it adds something else to deal with. Darling and Gray concluded, based on the bluffs that Gibson went to, the terrain, the pack train, that Benteen's scout encompassed only about 8 miles. I don't see any strong reason yet to think they are wrong, considering how easy it is to show that participants in the battle often mis-estimated distances between even known landmarks. Edgerly, anyway, seems to have been a little disoriented upon emerging from the scout, since he thought his battalion met Trumpeter Martin *before* reaching the lone tepee.
Larsen,
You suggested, “I have to remind you guys that our limits on plausibility are not old textbooks or what have you, but what is left in the historical accounts themselves.” I provided you a reminder of what the historical accounts say, and I do understand that the validity of old textbooks must be confirmed or denied based on what is actually seen on the ground and in the testimony.
In your post, you present an interesting scenario to be explored with regards to an off-scout distance of 15 miles. I look forward to your assessment of it. However, until then, I believe Darling is correct in describing the off-trail scout path and distance for Benteen's Battalion. Until someone can walk the ground, fly the plane over the area, and screen the testimony as he did--and provide a better explanation, I'll stick with Darling.
However, I disagree with his using an unsubstantiated 3-mph as the speed for the trains. Especially given his analysis:
”The rate-of-march takes into account the actual terrain traversed as well as the facts known about the battalion's pace at the time. We know, for example, that Benteen was ordered to "ride rapidly," and the scout participants tell us a trot was maintained most of the time. This would have Benteen moving along faster than the regulation walk of four miles per hour. But not in this terrain, under the orders Benteen received from Custer. An adjustment is therefore made which places Benteen's rate at something faster than the pack train walk (3 miles per hour), but slower than the cavalry walk. The figure used is 3.4 miles per hour." (Darling, Benteen's Scout-to-the-Left, 12)
This explanation is not sufficient for me. Where did his 3-mph for the trains come from? If in anyone's mind the trains traveled faster or slower, than each interconnection and associated time has a high potential to change. Evidence previously excluded now has to be reconsidered and reconciled. If you believe the trains moved slower, you would find sympathy in Godfrey’s “…or 30 minutes” testimony about the length of the halt at the morass. If you believe the trains moved faster, you would find sympathy with Benteen’s “not 15 minutes” testimony. If you believe Gray and Darling’s 3-mph for the trains, you would find sympathy in Godfrey’s “20…minutes” and getting some additional speed out of Benteen and the boys to compensate for the location of the trains at the end of the column at the divide halt (and the time it takes for them to get to the 12:12 start point). Given an individual's sympathies with the testimony, questions folks should ask themselves is, Where is the morass? Where is Lone Tepee? Where and/or when did BC, Kanipe, Martin meet on the trail?
If in answering these questions for yourself, you find something dramatic that warrants a new historical interpretation that busts the doors off all previous theories--knock yourself out and write a book. I'll buy it. Just 'splain it clear so's I can make a PowerPoint presentation out of it.
v/r
Wrangler |
Edited by - Wrangler on January 17 2004 7:26:21 PM |
|
|
|
Wrangler
Lieutenant
Status: offline |
Posted - January 17 2004 : 6:50:11 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Cloud
Why never, Wrangler. For the laughs alone, I'd stay, but for the coming train wreck - priceless -it's a must. Well, it'll likely fizzle out rather than explode, and always the possibility you could be right, but we'll just have to wait. Thus far: nada. Zip.
Go long........hike!
Old Windbag
"It's discomforting to see a grown man alternately yap and cower between someone else's feet, even on a forum." (OWBDC, 6) |
|
|
|
BJMarkland
Colonel
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - January 17 2004 : 7:19:15 PM
|
<expletive deleted> multiple times!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Freaking forum ate my posts twice today.
To make it short as I am <expletive deleted> tired of typing.
I copied pgs. 55-102 of the Reno inquiry from microfilm today. I will attempt to get them scanned. If you don't like the quality of the freaking images, complain to the admin who maybe can retrieve my lengthy explanation of why they are as they are.
Bad humor???
You betcha!!!!!!!!!
Nothing personal guys..
Billy |
|
|
|
Rocky76
Corporal
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - January 17 2004 : 7:24:34 PM
|
| Lt. Wrangler.....my hat is off to you and if you listen closely you will hear the sound of my applause...now I need to go back and study closely the problems you are professing lay within the Gray zone. Col. Steele of the eighth Cav. once told Cartwright that the rate of march was a standard 15 min. walk, 15 trot, 15 gallop and then 15 grazing....or something like that, at least the totals added up to an hour....I thought it was odd, but the man was a part of the longest cavalry march recorded. |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
John Gray: The Tail That WagsThe Dog--Still
