| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Heavyrunner
Captain
USA
Status: offline |
 Posted - April 22 2005 : 12:17:39 PM
|
Paul,
I was never referring to conflict and warfare between Indians and whites..sheesh. We were discussing conflict between/among tribes.
Can I make this any more clear?: Yes, conflict existed. So did, my friend, peaceful coexistence.
And, D.C., as for Mexico and the Aztecs, I noted that. Never mind that the Aztecs peacefully welcomed Cortez until...surprise, surprise, the Spanish attacked. Of course I'm aware of conquest and human sacrifice--the kinds of things that were going on world-wide. As for sacrificial events, I'm now wondering which fate would be worse: having your heart cut out on a Mayan temple alter or being burned at the stake as a heretic in one of many countries in Europe..
Lewis and Clark? C'mon, Paul. They had some trade goods, but, far more importantly, they came in peace. In fact, their peace medal, featuring Thomas Jefferson's likeness, was their big item. The corps was hardly loaded with trade goods when the Nez Perce found them half-starved and freezing--and defenseless.
As for warrior societies, they existed and they were necessary. However, they certainly weren't paid. Every man capable of defending also had to earn a living and feed his family--just like today.
You are promoting an absolute. It's stereotypical and it's inaccurate. And, Paul, I have the benefit of a very intimate view of Indian Country. In fact, I'm writing to you from a reservation. It's a beautiful place and, as far as violence is concerned, you'd have to agree that it's far, far safer than, say, Sacramento.
RSB
|
Bob Bostwick |
  |
|
|
movingrobewoman
Lt. Colonel
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - April 22 2005 : 12:51:20 PM
|
Now, now, Warlord--
Both my grandfather and great-grandfather served as Navajo Tribal Chairman--and my great aunt was the first woman elected to the Tribal Council. She only slapped another member ONCE (yes, it was a guy) ... hehehe ... talk about peaceful co-existence!
hoka hey! |
movingrobe |
|
|
|
Heavyrunner
Captain
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - April 22 2005 : 1:04:08 PM
|
MRW,
As a former political reporter, among other things. I am of the firm conviction that politicians/elected officials need to be slapped early and often...not the ladies, of course. |
Bob Bostwick |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - April 22 2005 : 3:24:38 PM
|
The Spanish apparently were thought Gods because of their skin color, unbelievably, and their few numbers had both horses and guns. That's why they weren't attacked. Further, it would be relevant to ask the Aztecs' conquered peoples if Aztec culture was violent. Or the Mayans previous, who were no better. I'd rather be a Mohawk than a Frenchman in 1400.
These tribes had ball games, perhaps pick ups after work, where the losers were killed. The Sioux and Cheyenne children played Let's Knee Him in the Face, plus the Sundance and all the masochistic vision routines. Sit in a cold lodge in Fargo country with burning buffalo dung and you'll see visions, all right. I'm having one thinking about it.
I have no proof but would doubt that Indian reservations are less violent than anywhere else on average, especially given the alcohol problem, the gambling, and drug gang issues we periodically read about. The Red Lake school shooting has become quite interesting, with a chief's son arrested and others as well, and drug issues have been raised. It compares with stats from military bases regarding domestic violence, although all are suspect.
Americans like their games and lives tabulated, and hence the myriad pointless baseball statistics and our alleged "high" crime rate, which is often used to make us the most violent nation. Not hardly. We count as a crime domestic violence if (and I'm not advocating it) a husband slaps his wife, because the police, when called, have to arrest someone. In most of the world, a slapped wife means its Tuesday, and isn't considered a stat or a crime. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
joseph wiggs
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - April 22 2005 : 8:31:50 PM
|
LWD, MRW has given you some excellent advice. An argument for either case could be substantially made with "conclusive evidence." One could even substantiate the absolute "truth" that Custer obeyed the "letter" of the Law but, disobeyed the "spirit" of it. Numerous conclusions, in any direction, may be substantiated. The conclusions of this battle are as complex as the battle itself. Welcome to the world of the Battle of the Little Big Horn.
I'll supply you with one hint; General Terry was a very capable lawyer. The ability to barrister is anchored upon one's ability to speak and write the English language in a superior fashion.
Terry certainly possessed the writing capabilities to produce an order as specific or, as ambiguous as he desired. Ask yourself why he selected the latter?
Remain unbiased, read the orders carefully, ascertain if Custer deviated from said order in any way, analyze any deviation as appropriate or non-appropriate, then make a personal decision. |
|
|
|
Heavyrunner
Captain
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - April 25 2005 : 7:56:42 PM
|
Paul,
Please re-read my previous post, particularly the first two paragraphs. Then, tell me what you think...but please don't tell me what I think.
You're thowing in all kinds of subject matter beyond that of which we were writing. As for modern violence, well, my friend, I've been to Sacramento and I've been to the Rez. I'll take the Rez in a heartbeat--and that's nothing against Sacramento.
Bottom line: You want absolutes...I will not give you them. As for Lewis and Clark, they simply would not have survived a 4,000 mile round trip through people as you describe. Moreover, they very possibly wouldn't have survived EXCEPT FOR the hospitality and generosity of tribes along the way, particularly the Nez Perce. You want historical fact? You want research? Well, read up, it's in all the history books.
There existed (and still do) many hundreds of tribal cultures/languages/customs/traditions and ways of life. You argue that violence existed everywhere, all the time and against everyone else. That's not true.
The tragedy in Red Lake is no more an indictment against the Ojibwe than Columbine is against the people of Colorado. But, we were talking, I think, about previous centuries.....
|
Bob Bostwick |
|
|
|
Heavyrunner
Captain
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - April 26 2005 : 11:51:33 AM
|
Paul,
Yes, I reckon we've beaten this one to death, podnuh...
By the way, I've had some great fun in Sacramento--lived in Tahoe years ago and spent time in Sac during the winters--golf at Rancho Murietta mostly (before it became a gated kingdom). |
Bob Bostwick |
|
|
|
movingrobewoman
Lt. Colonel
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - April 26 2005 : 6:04:02 PM
|
Warlord and Bob--
Or in the case of Custeriana, we call it "kicking the dead lion ..."
Hoka hey! |
movingrobe |
|
|
|
movingrobewoman
Lt. Colonel
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - April 27 2005 : 6:24:05 PM
|
Well, Warlord--
Some of us here enjoy kicking that lion a bit more than others ...
Hoka hey! |
movingrobe |
|
|
|
movingrobewoman
Lt. Colonel
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - May 04 2005 : 6:02:56 PM
|
Warlord--
Right now, I'm recuperating from a near-fatal bout of contestia entritus... hope I recover afore I get the m/s I have to judge! If not, I'm not sure there's enough Savignon Blanc in the world to get me through it ...
Funny about kicking that strawberry blond, but balding, lion/LTC who fell into the pieta-esque grip of his loyal brother ... I'm trying to recruit another poster to this board. An honest to goodness "he was just plain nuts" Custerphobe! I'm sure he'll shake things up around these parts--and if not, DC will have a nice playmate ...
Hoka hey! |
movingrobe |
|
|
|
movingrobewoman
Lt. Colonel
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - May 05 2005 : 01:11:11 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Warlord
Trish: DC needs more playmates! And we could use someone to shake things up some more. I am still not buying into this phile phobe thing. Too much of a realist!
My pal is a bit gun shy. He kind of has a bull in a china shop way about him--which is not necessarily bad--and he's a bit hesitant about making enemies at another board. So let's entice him--maybe a week without abuse? Or a week without DC turning whatever thread into a discussion of himself (and he complains about wasting band space?). Essentially, I've got no issues with the Cloud's posts, as long as they STAY ON SUBJECT (I mean, what does Tolkien's elf/Hobbit language have to do with Custer?)...
But Warlord, there really are dyed in the wool Custerphiles--to some he was nothing less than a Christ figure in the West, betrayed and all, almost without sin--certainly not adultery or gambling; they will commonly write off his going AWOL in 1867. There are also Custerphobes who indict and question his every action--from his stint in Texas as a type of military governor (though many under his command considered him a "martinet" or "petty tyrant") in 1865 all the way to his arrest during the LBH march by Terry in 1876. To many of these folks, GAC was a selfish, egotistical jerk. And some of them think he was just plain nuts ... like you, I believe in "reality." I am a fence-sitter. Custer had both good and bad sides to his character--but they weren't defined in black or white. He was a culmination of the various shades of gray--like just about anybody who has spent a lifetime on this planet ... it is kind of a pity that LBC's writings of a perfect spouse and commander so long outlived the real memory of her husband.
Okay, that's my theory ... today!
Yikes! Talk about kicking the dead lion! |
movingrobe |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - May 05 2005 : 09:45:00 AM
|
| Quite simple, MRW, the recognition scenes that Tolkien employs throughout his works from standard high school level English literature are not distant from the recongition scenes journalists utilized right after the battle and scholars since have used to frame the LBH, and because of it distorted history. This is evident when posters here insist on a Last Stand and work back from that. Any and all evidence that doesn't fit has to be twisted and misshapen to fit it. As a result, we now have Custer always on the offensive, directing a line dance of skirmishers around the field to no end, a Custer new to history and departed from common sense. That's why it's relevant and that's why "realist" shouldn't be used as a substitute for "grossly ignorant," as Warlord does. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
movingrobewoman
Lt. Colonel
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - May 05 2005 : 1:42:23 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Cloud
Quite simple, MRW, the recognition scenes that Tolkien employs throughout his works from standard high school level English literature are not distant from the recongition scenes journalists utilized right after the battle and scholars since have used to frame the LBH, and because of it distorted history. This is evident when posters here insist on a Last Stand and work back from that. Any and all evidence that doesn't fit has to be twisted and misshapen to fit it. As a result, we now have Custer always on the offensive, directing a line dance of skirmishers around the field to no end, a Custer new to history and departed from common sense. That's why it's relevant and that's why "realist" shouldn't be used as a substitute for "grossly ignorant," as Warlord does.
I am a big believer in tracing similar iconographies/devices in fiction as well as art. Always have been. But I feel that comparing an event that occured in the nineteenth century to the writings of a clearly twentieth century author is a bit of a stretch. I have a tendency to agree with most of your opines about the heroic Boy General, but in this matter, I'll agree to disagree.
|
movingrobe |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - May 08 2005 : 12:51:05 PM
|
Well, no. First, I'm not comparing the event to this writer or his work. I merely point out that Tolkien, who was not "clearly" a creature of the 20th century but of the previous several in outlook and style, drew upon the same mythic icons and tales as those who patted the Custer tale into shape. World War one ended the 19th century, as far as all the professed values and ideals, writing styles and public mores, never to arise in seriousness again, because 'reading' never had the same influence again across so many classes of people, and never again - till Harry Potter for the kids today, maybe - provided generations with common frames of reference as it did. When the troops came home in 1918, there was radio, and mental landscapes shifted. (For reference, when people speak of the "60's", they generally mean from Kennedy's death in 63 to when the troops came home from Vietnam. The music, the tone, the society of 1962 is clearly closer to 1957.)
When the troops left in 1914, virtually all of the British carried the Oxford Book of Literature and/or Pilgrim's Progress, and war correspondence and journalism commonly used metaphor from these books (which themselves referenced older works) - no longer read at all - with no need for explanation to the general public. Everyone knew the story and understood the reference. Everyone knew the Arthurian legends, the Roland romances, the Well at World's Ending, and books of poetry from Houseman, Hardy, others. Officers and men in the trenches discussed literature because there was no radio, music, national sports teams. This is the stuff that all writers, Tolkien and Hemingway included, had as their structure. When things happened they recalled it along the lines of these tales, and the phrasing crept into the writing of the time.
This isn't irrelevant.
I think if you read the descriptions of Custer's corpse, and see the similarities between them and literature well known then (not now), this theory makes more sense. Look how often people, including people here, find solace in paraphrasing other writers in lofty rhetoric as the young woman did with Lincoln here. That urge came unbidden to the pens to people back then: memorized writing offered structure for how to remember things and provided guides to how things should be remembered. Accuracy and responsibility to history didn't rank high. We all do it to greater and lesser extents. The art, poetry, and journalism about this event falls more or less within accepted norms. Once you get a sense of that, what seems now as deception or lying or fraud seems otherwise, at least in some cases. I point to the various descriptions of the corpses as reflective of this. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
prolar
Major
Status: offline |
Posted - May 10 2005 : 03:14:31 AM
|
| Moving robe woman, I couldn't find your post about Comanche just now.But just think what DC could have made of it, if Comanche had been a Custer horse. |
|
|
|
movingrobewoman
Lt. Colonel
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - May 11 2005 : 12:29:50 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by prolar
Moving robe woman, I couldn't find your post about Comanche just now.But just think what DC could have made of it, if Comanche had been a Custer horse.
Comanche could have been Tom Custer's horse--had he been the correct colour. But instead, the mount (bought in 1868 by Tom, acting as agent for the Army) was chosen by Keogh. But had Comanche been TWC's and still had survived LBH--he should have, by rights, gone back to Maria Custer--at least according to Tom's will. Had his Jersey-girl fiancee survived, Tom's estate would have been split 50-50 at his death, but as she died from consumption in 1875 .... perhaps Comanche would've been buried next to Dandy on Nevin's farm, rather than the stuffed display at K U.
As for your comments, I am sure DC would have brought in the multitude of iconographies from literature, art (I am reminded of the British artist George Stubbs, ca. 1815), as well as radio. Come on--how can you not miss the connections between Silver/Trigger/Buttercup and that of the heroic Comanche?
I am one of those who believe Vic probably survived, but most likely went the way of the Native Americans.
Hoka hey!
|
movingrobe |
|
|
|
joseph wiggs
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - May 14 2005 : 9:47:39 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by movingrobewoman
But Warlord, there really are dyed in the wool Custerphiles--to some he was nothing less than a Christ figure in the West, betrayed and all, almost without sin--certainly not adultery or gambling; they will commonly write off his going AWOL in 1867. There are also Custerphobes who indict and question his every action--from his stint in Texas as a type of military governor (though many under his command considered him a "martinet" or "petty tyrant") in 1865 all the way to his arrest during the LBH march by Terry in 1876. To many of these folks, GAC was a selfish, egotistical jerk. And some of them think he was just plain nuts ... like you, I believe in "reality." I am a fence-sitter.
Your succinct edification of the terms "Custerphile" and "Custerphobes" exemplify the essence of their acute, and obvious, implications of extreme negativity. Do individuals of this ilk exist? unfortunately, on a minute scale, yes. However, over a hundred and twenty-five years of education, archaeological findings, and a new perspective on Native American documentation has all but absolved much of such idiotic rumination.
Such terminology was fashionable in a past era wherein individuals went through extreme lengths to cast the mantle of responsibility upon the shoulders of one or two individuals for this tragedy.
Public opinion and military leadership, in its haste to absolve the true culprit of culpability (The U.S. war policy) in this fiasco, pointed fingers at the dead who were unable to respond back.
Today, in the twentieth century, any individual who would take either inordinate position would be deemed bizarre at best, and an idiot at worst. As the General could not be neither a total saint nor a total demon (what human is?), to insist upon utilizing such terminology to describe the opinions of others is ludicrous and crass. In summation, one may think that Custer was not a total idiot and not be a "Custerphile", conversely, one may believe that he blundered terribly at the Little Big Horn and not be a "Custerphobe."
If the reader finds this position to be reasonable, comprehensive, and possible, how then does one explain the continuous and inexplicable usage of such terms to delineate the positions of others? How then, can the user of such terminology insist that these terms are not negative in any fashion and may, therefore, be battered about in such a banal and whimsical manner? I just don't get it!
Trish, this tirade is not aimed at you. Your post, as usual, is insightful, comprehensive, and appreciated. In addition, I have never read of you utilizing such inflammatory rhetoric in an unworthy and futile attempt to depreciate the opinions of others. |
|
|
|
Benteen
Lt. Colonel
Status: offline |
Posted - May 15 2005 : 12:24:11 PM
|
Hi Joseph and others here. I am new and would like to say that I think this is one of the better Custer forums on the net. Please forgive my ignorance of not knowing how to use your quotation method here.
Addressing your comments about Movingrobwoman's statements.
"However, over a hundred and twenty-five years of education, archaeological findings, and a new perspective on Native American documentation has all but absolved much of such idiotic rumination."
For many people this is true, I myself find that much has been learned. But the polarity of this issue tends to draw these divergent factions to the extreme. I have always said the in regards to this subject that:
For every theory of one's positive faith, factually asserted, that there is an equally opposing, negative faith, who factually asserts their theory. Thus further deepening the rift between them.
In this it really doesn't matter whether these findings are new or old. Facts are facts. Where one or more facts may support one, other facts tend to obstruct, confuse and confirm another's opposing views. The "new" findings for these people are just new fodder to feed their old theorys, and for them sadly, they can't see past the myths and legends of old.
In many cases of this neurosis we find a necrosis that sets in. The age old belief, and I do mean almost "faithlike", church going belief, that Custer was a hero, and that - that cannot and should not be forsaken or overtaken by anyone's petty views.
Opposing this are those whose views, that tend to put forth this new evidence in a light that paints Custer into a darker corner. And they prefer not to idolize or cherish someone who quite obviously to them "did something wrong."
Needless to say I have seen, as I am sure you have, the arguments presented at other forums on this subject. I shall not indulge in the labourious task of repeating their tripe here.
The U.S. war policy as you said had alot to do with this fiasco. There are so many if's involved here with this one issue alone, that "if" one would try to discuss them, they in and of themselves would pose a most interesting stand alone forum.
The issue though would never outrightly be settled by this discussion and scapegoats would be or I should say will be forever sought after. Personnally I don't see the darker edges or the softer visions of heroism in this issue. I am saddened to see die hard traditionalist whether phobe or phile argue and argue over this or that issue, and then in the end say of Custer, "He was a Hero." If that's the case, why argue over the semantics, let the man and his men lay at peace? Why indeed argue at all if that's the case? Are they argueing just to show off their intelligence, one over the other, and somewhere near the end of their arguements, agree to disagree, so that they can agree, that he was a hero? Doesn't make any sense to me!
"If the reader finds this position to be reasonable, comprehensive, and possible, how then does one explain the continuous and inexplicable usage of such terms to delineate the positions of others? How then, can the user of such terminology insist that these terms are not negative in any fashion and may, therefore, be battered about in such a banal and whimsical manner?"
The crux of this matter, fiasco, tragedy, is George Armstrong Custer and always will be George Armstrong Custer. The man, the myth and the legend. The who, what, where, and whys will always persist over the myths of this battle. Some blame Benteen, some Reno, some Terry, some the U.S. Government, and yes some Lt. Col. George A. Custer himself. Personally I do believe that Custer was the blame, in no small way. Any commander has to take responsibility for the safety and well being of the men in his charge. The issue for me is whether or not he willfully, gloriously charged into the pages of history in defiance of all that was sane. Perhaps the this issue is best addressed by Little White Dove's question. "Why did he do that?" Indeed why? Those who seek a favourable history for him, paint a rosy picture and give incredible excuses for him. Those who try to find fault in his actions, paint the darker side and say there was no excuse for what he did. Sound like Star Wars? Perhaps you are correct in saying that he was just a man, capable of all human vices. But does that really settle the issue. No, and sadly it never will. The issue is whether we choose to believe it or not, a finite mystery. One that everyone wants to solve, and be the hero for doing so. But until those, on both sides of the issue, who sit upon their lofty knowledge come down to earth, and humble themselves in the fact that they "do not know all there is to know", we may as well be discussing "Star Wars."
Joseph, "Trish, [and other's here] this [analysis] is not aimed at you. Your post, as usual, is insightful, comprehensive, and appreciated. In addition, I have never read of you utilizing such inflammatory rhetoric in an unworthy and futile attempt to depreciate the opinions of others." |
|
|
|
joseph wiggs
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - May 15 2005 : 9:51:37 PM
|
Benteen, welcome to the forum. I appreciate your response and I concur with its fundamental theme. More importantly, I appreciate that it was written with an obvious intent to share genuine thoughts and feelings.
It is true that Custer is the "crux" of this enigma and, always will be. Yes, a commander is always ultimately responsible for the welfare of his troops and, rightfully so.
No one can possible know the minds of each actor in this scenario nor can we surmise the motivation that prompted each participant. However, as I have stated before, to judge historical figures by contemporaneous standards is similar to an insistence that the egg came before the chicken or visa verse; it is unknowable.
It is empathetically true that a commander of today would be judged deranged should he commit his troops as Custer did. This does not automatically translate that a similar, past action, utilized by Custer should be judged in like fashion.
For the sake of debate, let us ask ourselves why would a commander of the the 19th. Century blindly (insufficient military intelligence) attack a village as large as Chicago?
The "Custerphobes" would respond, "Because he was an idiot."
The "Custerphiles" may respond, "He was a dashing and bold Cavalier in Buckskin, what else could he do?"
These unsubstantiated conclusions have nothing to do with reality. Custer's actions may have resulted from a totality of circumstances that existed in his life time that were reasonable, comprehensive and, believable to him, his commanders, and the government that sent him to Montana. Having said that, what does that make me? Or you for that matter. How about "men" who merely wish to seek and find, if at all possible.
What I detest Benteen, is the fact that our search for the unknowable is sometimes demeaned by those who would, so easily and contemptuously,lump investigators of reality into a category that is known to all as an inherent foolish position. To contemptuously dismiss any perspective that may regard the actions of Custer as anything but imbecilic as the rantings of a mere "Custerphile" is the pinnacle of arrogant assumption.
What I detest, is the individual who possesses just enough information and command of the English language to permeate this forum with bogus assumptions and conclusions that appear to substantiate a specific theory; a personal one.
What I am ecstatic about is the opportunity to exchange philosophies with people like you and other members of this wonderful forum. Again, Benteen, welcome aboard and thanks for being here. |
|
|
|
BJMarkland
Colonel
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - May 15 2005 : 10:52:09 PM
|
Something to think about.
I recently started the first few pages of The Old Army In Texas by Thomas T. Smith. At the beginning he breaks down the various actions between the Army and Indians within Texas between 1849-1881 and I found several things relevant to the West as a whole and particularly, I think, to Custer.
Pardon me for quoting too long, but...
P. 30
"In summary, of the types of combat actions conducted by army troops in the Texas Indian wars between 1849 and 1881, the immediate hasty attack was the most common (70 percent of the actions). The dismounted hasty defense was rarer (28 percent), and the deliberate attack was least common (2 percent)."
Note: the above was based upon the author's examining 138 army reports which had enough detail to determine what had happened.
P. 31
"In ninety-one reports of army actions on the Texas frontier during 1849-1881 there is enough detail to determine the relative strengths of the two sides engaged. The ratios were an even 1:1 in 21 percent of the actions, a 2:1 advantage or greater for the army in 41 percent, and an army disadvantage of 1:2 or worse in 38 percent. The interesting fact is that in almost half of the cases where the army was outnumbered, and in three-quarters of the cases where the odds were even, the leader chose to attack, ..."
"However, army leaders who immediately attacked regardless of the odds may also have had an intuitive understanding of the importance of initiative in a combat situation. Seizing the initiative allows one side to dictate the terms of the battle and makes the other side conform to actions not of its choosing. Initiative might be gained by surprise, direction of movment, audacity, or violence of execution. Initiative can be determined in ninety-eight cases of army-Indian combat on the Texas frontier. In eighty-eight of those cases (sixty-five army, twenty-three Indian) the side that made the first move and gained the initiative retained that initiative throughout the battle. In only 10 percent of the battles did one side or the other overcome the initial disadvantage and gain the initiative."
So, on June 25, the "hasty attack" and the effort to gain initiative seems to not have simply been a Custer "me-first" grandstanding move but a coldly-considered effort to put his troops in a position to win, that is, if I am half-way understanding what I have read about Custer and the "standard doctrine" in use by the Army.
Best of wishes,
Billy |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - May 16 2005 : 10:54:04 AM
|
Except on the outermost fringe of Custer haters, has anyone suggested that Custer was stupid and grandstanding for years? Clearly, he was trying to win and knock the Indians off balance. The question is how competently this was carried out. Reno attacks, Custer waves, in an hour is graciously accorded action that is "supporting" of a charge long over, and would have been over had Reno punctured the inner camp in defeat or victory. That and Benteen and the train not really being well missioned.
Further, these reports assume that these "hasty" attacks were made when the soldiers knew the odds. Did they? Or was it something that later became apparent? The conclusions you reach assumes they knowingly attacked bigger odds. They may have, but it doesn't say. Also, in any win or loss the numbers of the enemy can be 'adjusted' sometimes. And have been throughout history.
As for their "intuitive understanding" of initiative, perhaps it could also be framed as cavalry in contact with the enemy has to charge if they can't outrun them. Cavalry can't outrun Indians, as a rule, and can't fight over the shoulder. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
joseph wiggs
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - May 16 2005 : 9:42:52 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by BJMarkland
Something to think about.
"However, army leaders who immediately attacked regardless of the odds may also have had an intuitive understanding of the importance of initiative in a combat situation. Seizing the initiative allows one side to dictate the terms of the battle and makes the other side conform to actions not of its choosing. Initiative might be gained by surprise, direction of movement, audacity, or the "hasty attack" and violence of execution. Initiative can be determined in ninety-eight cases of army-Indian combat on the Texas frontier. In eighty-eight of those cases (sixty-five army, twenty-three Indian) the side that made the first move and gained the initiative retained that initiative throughout the battle. In only 10 percent of the battles did one side or the other overcome the initial disadvantage and gain the initiative."
So, on June 25, the effort to gain initiative seems to not have simply been a Custer "me-first" grandstanding move but a coldly-considered effort to put his troops in a position to win, that is, if I am half-way understanding what I have read about Custer and the "standard doctrine" in use by the Army.
Best of wishes,
Billy
Billy, I am once again indebted to you for your outstanding research capabilities and, your unselfish devotion to sharing that information with everyone. Unencumbered with "Amour Propre", your unbiased threads contain veritable information that may be trusted by everyone who reads it. Non-partisan information is a fundamental key that may enable us to unlock the enigma of this battle.
Your research corroborates my personal thesis wherein I claim that the "mentality" of the nineteenth century command officer (particularly a man like Custer) was fixated upon the all inclusive "Attack" mode of thinking. The "standard doctrine" you referred to was exactly that, an axiom of reality to these men.
That is not to say that every soldier of this era brought into this ideology lock, stock, and barrel. No philosophy is ever accepted by all. However, many troops did support this theme. To understand and accept the reality of a historical mind-set does not make you a "Phile" or a "Phobe", it makes you an historian.
It is true, no one on this forum has every referred to Custer as "Stupid", it would have been "Stupid" to do so. However, to refer to his every action in extremely uncomplimentary and unsubstantiated terms speaks volumes. It has the subtlety of a raging bull in a China shop.
In summation, initiative in combat was a fundamental truism for that era. Regardless of the inherent absurdity of this philosophy (as viewed by the modern man) it was the bread and butter of the U.S. Calvary.
Thanks again Billy. |
|
|
|
whistlingboy
Lieutenant
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - May 17 2005 : 10:37:05 AM
|
Mr. Markland: "In summary, of the types of combat actions conducted by army troops in the Texas Indian wars between 1849 and 1881, the immediate hasty attack was the most common (70 percent of the actions). The dismounted hasty defense was rarer (28 percent), and the deliberate attack was least common (2 percent)."
I want to question a couple of the quotes you supplied from Mr. T.T. Smith's book which you used, apparently, to help you explain and fortify your opinion of General Custer's actions at the LBH. First of all, in my opinion, the author should not have used the word 'conducted' as that immediately taints his conclusions. In most dictionaries, the meaning of conduct usually implies control or 'directs the control of:" In other words, deliberate actions pursued by the army. And yet he states that 'deliberate attacks' were the least common in the 'group' he studied. If the army goes out on a mission that probably means in an 'attack' mode. If not, I'm sure you can find a quote to qualify that.
"In ninety-one reports of army actions on the Texas frontier during 1849-1881 there is enough detail to determine the relative strengths of the two sides engaged.
What detail? This quote is too general. Anytime you write anything, the author must first supply the definitions of the words he is going to continually use....hasty attack, dismounted defense, deliberate attack, etc. Not only this detail but detail like 'relative strengths' of the two sides, i.e. in this battle the indians numbers 12 and the army 52 or vice versa. What does 'battle' mean.....huge numbers or very small numbers which most people would then think to be a 'skirmish.' These are pertinent questions that every author has to address if he is going to put out a valid product.
"Seizing the initiative allows one side to dictate the terms of the battle and makes the other side conform to actions not of its choosing. Initiative might be gained by surprise, direction of movment, audacity, or violence of execution. Initiative can be determined in ninety-eight cases of army-Indian combat on the Texas frontier. In eighty-eight of those cases (sixty-five army, twenty-three Indian) the side that made the first move and gained the initiative retained that initiative throughout the battle. In only 10 percent of the battles did one side or the other overcome the initial disadvantage and gain the initiative."
In all honesty, other factors are so important to consider between indian-army fights in Texas compared to those in Montana. Just to mention a couple, differences in the indian tribes and their degree of hatred of whites, their 'welfare' state, their reasons for fighting, etc. There is no reason to assume all indians were hostile anymore than you could assume all whites hated indians.
And too, gaining the initiative of surprise is just good common sense in any offensive/defensive dichotomy. Of course, I don't think General Custer thought he was surprising anybody.
"...the "hasty attack" and the effort to gain initiative seems to not have simply been a Custer "me-first" grandstanding move but a coldly-considered effort to put his troops in a position to win,..."
I'm not sure, Mr. Markland, how the Smith book quotes satisfy you to make the above quote against the General, although I am familiar with the small-tactics dogma of the day, unless you already thought that of the General and this was more 'confirmation' for your thinking position. In that case, I would understand.
Hope you let us know how the rest of the book might lend hope to understanding personality actions at the LBH. I would be interested in the number of participants in each of those battles Smith uses for his study, however. Because if they are not true battles and merely little 'run-ins' with the indians, I fail to see their significance using the parameters he used.
We could choose sides on the board here, play paint ball and come up with the same, different or better statistics and form conclusions to explain Custer. All things are not equal....a few participants in a fight and the tactics employed cannot be compared or reasonably used to explain the tactics used in a battle where thousands are participating.
In essence, BJ, if you and I are having a snowball fight and you start running toward me with a hand full of snowballs and me with not enough time to stand my ground, I will move somewhere else to find defensive advantage without thinking....without a thought in my mind...I will re-act. It is absurd to assume that every move made by these soldiers in battle were anticipated and deliberate moves and not just 'reactionary' ones. I don't mean to compare a snowball fight with an indian battle but the 'movement without deliberation' are the same in both...re-action to an action is inherent in life at all levels, in all mediums. Did Mr. Smith explain why he chose to write this book? Thanks and let us know if you recommend us reading Smith's book.
|
|
|
|
BJMarkland
Colonel
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - May 17 2005 : 11:02:36 AM
|
WB, just a quick response to one of your thoughtful comments. Actually, Col. Smith (he is a serving Lt. Col. in the Army) provided several pages of descriptions of what he meant. Rather than violate copyright law and transcribe those pages (as well as save my limited typing skills for data-entry on my project), I posted the meat of, to me, the most pertinent results of one of his "stubby pencil on paper" analyses. Most of the terms are used in modern military terminology and should be easily found via a Google search.
I will get back with you later but I have a two hour conference call coming up in 6 minutes in addition to having 125 pages of .tif documents to convert into Adobe.
Best of wishes,
Billy |
|
|
|
BJMarkland
Colonel
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - May 17 2005 : 11:06:32 AM
|
errr...WB, please reread this quote from my original post again and note your reaction:
""...the "hasty attack" and the effort to gain initiative seems to not have simply been a Custer "me-first" grandstanding move but a coldly-considered effort to put his troops in a position to win,..."
I'm not sure, Mr. Markland, how the Smith book quotes satisfy you to make the above quote against the General, although I am familiar with the small-tactics dogma of the day, unless you already thought that of the General and this was more 'confirmation' for your thinking position. In that case, I would understand."
Obviously you missed the word "not" prior to "grand-standing."
Best of wishes,
Billy
|
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Responsibility At Little Bighorn
