| Author |
 Topic  |
|
bhist
Lt. Colonel
Status: offline |
 Posted - May 31 2004 : 1:25:30 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Cloud
Crab, you really, really need to get Gray's book and read it. I promise you, as the other lonely fan of Connell here, it will re-orient your conception of the battle. You can skip the Boyeur bio, but the second part is mandatory. Until you hack through it, you won't really understand what Michno and others copied in concept, and why Slnar (?) and others just ignore it,and why there is such effort being made to disprove it.
Because, until Gray is wobbled, the conspiracy nuts and the number of 'what if's' drop like a rock, and it hamstrings many theories that people want to lay over the LBH battle to argue (just about all trying to prove Benteen evil...), generally for reasons having nothing to do with the LBH battle. I tried myself, a decade ago, and you have no clue how frustrating it is or have an appreciation of the fussy detail Gray integrated to get his charts and graphs. I don't agree with the conclusions he drew from his work, but I can't budge his time lines enough to change anything. We're stuck with them absent compelling evidence of error. Or, more likely, a misinterpretation he made early on is the best potential candidate for revision. But thus far? Solid as a rock.
D.C. -- Well, I liked Connell’s book, too – not for its historical inaccuracy, but for its read. Connell’s book is like “They Died With Their Boots On” and John Wayne’s “The Alamo” in that it captured the minds of a new generation and latched on to a whole new group of LBH students. Connell continues to expound on long, worn-out myths of Custer or the LBH, but if one can overlook that, one will have one heck of a great read.
You’re very correct about Gray’s “Custer’s Last Campaign.” I did not agree with all of his conclusions either, but the unmitigated originality of his research and timeline will last nearly forever in the annals of LBH research.
I can’t imagine any “serious student” of this battle not having a copy of Gray's book for their library. Seriously, “Against All Odds – Custer’s Last Stand” posters – if you refuse to read Gray’s book, then you SHOULD NOT be posting here. If you haven’t read it, YET, for any unknown reasons, then you’re excused – for now. However, you cannot call yourself a student of this battle if you refuse to read it.
|
Warmest Regards,
Bob
www.vonsworks.com
www.friendslittlebighorn.com
www.friendsnezpercebattlefields.org |
Edited by - bhist on May 31 2004 1:28:48 PM |
  |
|
|
El Crab
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - May 31 2004 : 5:27:10 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Cloud
Crab, you really, really need to get Gray's book and read it. I promise you, as the other lonely fan of Connell here, it will re-orient your conception of the battle. You can skip the Boyeur bio, but the second part is mandatory. Until you hack through it, you won't really understand what Michno and others copied in concept, and why Slnar (?) and others just ignore it,and why there is such effort being made to disprove it.
I got it, and read it, months ago... |
I came. I saw. I took 300 pictures. |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
|
|
El Crab
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - May 31 2004 : 11:11:30 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Cloud
So....what do you think?
It was good. I enjoyed the Bouyer part, and the time-motion is very impressive. It definitely changes the way you look at things. The way I see it, its like a prototype for all other interpretations.
Its kind of like a dinosaur skeleton. Let's say this skeleton shows this particular dinosaur stood around 20 feet high and had a 10 ft tail. You could surmise that other dinosaurs of the same species could vary somewhat in height and their tails could be slightly longer or shorter, but the parameters have been set for all other researchers of this particular dinosaur. More bones may be found, more things may be discovered about this dinosaur, but chances are they won't deviate much in terms of its size. The precedent has been set.
Gray set the timeline, Michno took this timeline and set the battle to it. Gray's work definitely is not to be ignored. On the contrary, it is the standard by which all other works should work from.
He also uses Curley's statements, which I had read, here and there, before. But he shows that his statements didn't necessarily change, that he is a reliable witness and his accounts line up with what we know, what we can deduce from archaeology and Sioux/Cheyenne accounts.
Both Michno and Gray covered the stuff I wondered about when I first started reading about LBH. I always thought there should be a book that pieces together the battle based on Sioux/Cheyenne accounts, and Michno brought us that. And I often thought you could reduce the possibilities of certain things by "mapping" the times out. While its not possible to know EXACTLY what time everything happened, you can remove what's not possible. Horses can only travel so fast, the terrain is known, the approximate route is known. So you can redo Gray's work, with slight changes, but he has set the timeframe to work from. |
I came. I saw. I took 300 pictures. |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Weir" Testimony
