| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Heavyrunner
Captain
USA
Status: offline |
 Posted - September 16 2004 : 2:19:49 PM
|
I don't really buy in to the tactical awareness the tribes may have had regarding the Washeetaw history. I saw it as some food for thought and possibly for discussion. As for Gall, Crazy Horse and others, I realize that they led by example, rather than having command.
I'm probably of the habit to refer to them by name, essentially representing the body of Indian fighters.
Movingrobewoman's point is well taken. Of course, George wasn't standing up there on the ridge with a bullhorn, saying, "I'm baaaaack."
Custer's responsibility, to me, fails when he didn't wait for Gibbon. One wonders whether he would have proceeded with the attack had he known the numbers he would be facing. At the very least, with such knowledge, would he have split his force into three columns? Would he, could he have backed off and waited until the 26th? |
Bob Bostwick |
  |
|
|
movingrobewoman
Lt. Colonel
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - September 16 2004 : 4:50:13 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Heavyrunner
Movingrobewoman's point is well taken. Of course, George wasn't standing up there on the ridge with a bullhorn, saying, "I'm baaaaack."
Custer's responsibility, to me, fails when he didn't wait for Gibbon. One wonders whether he would have proceeded with the attack had he known the numbers he would be facing. At the very least, with such knowledge, would he have split his force into three columns? Would he, could he have backed off and waited until the 26th?
Part one: even if Custer screamed "I'm baaaack," he sure didn't look the Longhair of blessed memory. Balding, short-haired, bearded and dirty (ugh). The Indians described, as I believe Wiggs has pointed out in the "From the Indian Side" threads, that when some Indian witnesses were disussing one of the bravest man on the hill (I believe the other one, the true "bravest" soldier was Lonesome Charlie, who was not on the hill), a man with blond hair (complete with horse with three stockings), I think it's been "proven" that due to his location on the hill, it was Yates ... and not GAC.
Wasn't Gibbon's responsibility to keep to the north bank of the Yellowstone--to ensure there would be no fleeing "hostiles" to Canada and the likes? I thought Custer didn't wait for Terry. But I am probably wrong--as usual.
As for the rest of that paragraph, Custer, at LBH, followed Army tactical procedure to the letter. This is why I believe that it was the Army who was the ultimate contributor to the defeat (ba-da-bing)--the manuals hadn't updated for the guerilla warfare often encounted with the Native Americans--despite the ACW experiences with Mosby and Quantrill. Both Custer and Benteen dealt with these factions--but the lessons learned in Kansas, Missouri, Arkansas and the Shenandoah did not seem to make it in the 1874 edition of the Tactical Manual.
Regards, |
movingrobe |
Edited by - movingrobewoman on September 16 2004 5:04:12 PM |
|
|
|
movingrobewoman
Lt. Colonel
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - September 16 2004 : 4:58:59 PM
|
Smcf--
There we go again--the curse of that durned MTC. I didn't think it was an onslaught there--just a relatively few Indians trying to cross the river and meeting Smith instead. I am one of those believers that don't agree that Crazy Horse was leading an army of hundreds (gads, some historians seem to think he had braves bussed in from every state in the Union) in his attack on Battle Ridge. His actions in dividing the companies (L and C--and to some extent, I) from the rest of the troops to their north, were enough--for the companies who lost their commanding officers to break the back of the rest of Custer's battalion (HQ, E and F). But I believe that in Michno, this is the really the only time CH's importance (or lack of it to the United Village's other soldiers) is stated in "Lakota Noon." |
movingrobe |
Edited by - movingrobewoman on September 16 2004 5:05:41 PM |
|
|
|
Anonymous Poster8169
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - September 16 2004 : 5:10:41 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Smcf
In that case, Crazy Horse's actions prevented escape to the North, where Reno and Benteen thought they'd gone.
What evidence is there that Crazy Horse did, or was even capable of doing, such a thing?
To me, playing up the roles of Crazy Horse, Gall, Lame White Man, etc., is just a modern echo of 19th century Bison manias. They were good fighters. They were not, in any lucid sense, commanders. A famous warrior may have had a gang of hangers-on and wannabes, but I doubt any retinue could have matched one of Custer's companies in numbers, or have given one warrior much influence over the course of action. Crazy Horse's most famous exploit, from what I've read, was killing that soldier whose marker is far to the east of Battle Ridge, so if true it's not like he was in the thick of the action.
Pick up a copy of Camp's interviews and read the soldier accounts. Custer, Reno, and Benteen are mentioned everywhere, doing this or doing that. Now read through the Indian interviews and see how often the names of Sitting Bull and Crazy Horse come up. It's no comparison. The Indians didn't win because they had good leaders and good tactical decision makers. They just had more fighters, and the luck to fight on ground that gave an outnumbered party little chance.
R. Larsen
|
|
|
|
Smcf
Captain
Status: offline |
Posted - September 17 2004 : 04:53:21 AM
|
quote:
What evidence is there that Crazy Horse did, or was even capable of doing, such a thing?
Am I missing something here? - is it not now accepted that a mass of Oglala and Cheyenne swung round to the North away from the fight and attacked from the North-east, and is it only assumption that Crazy Horse led the move? Only asking. I may be mis-remembering a quote of a Cheyenne ,who stated in effect that during the battle Crazy Horse was leading from the front. I know that Ambrose got some Indain names confused and seemed to think that Hump had been killed long before LBH when he was alive and well - but he did refer to a "mass" of info on Crazy Horse's movements during the battle. |
Edited by - Smcf on September 17 2004 05:20:00 AM |
|
|
|
Anonymous Poster8169
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - September 17 2004 : 4:41:21 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Smcf
[brAm I missing something here? - is it not now accepted that a mass of Oglala and Cheyenne swung round to the North away from the fight and attacked from the North-east, and is it only assumption that Crazy Horse led the move? Only asking. I may be mis-remembering a quote of a Cheyenne ,who stated in effect that during the battle Crazy Horse was leading from the front. I know that Ambrose got some Indain names confused and seemed to think that Hump had been killed long before LBH when he was alive and well - but he did refer to a "mass" of info on Crazy Horse's movements during the battle.
I wouldn't stake your claims on Ambrose; he was a lazy researcher who used derivative accounts, to the point of plagiarism, so egregiously that he got nailed for it before his death.
Indians were everywhere. Exactly what are you talking about when you say a group "swung round"? What kind of maneuver is this? Are you saying that someone --- Crazy Horse --- actually led it and directed it? How many Indians were in this group? And how does anyone know that they, or rather their organizer Crazy Horse, kept the soldiers from going to the north? How does anyone know this was even the soldiers' desire?
R. Larsen
|
|
|
|
joseph wiggs
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - September 17 2004 : 5:19:51 PM
|
Gall told D. F. Barry that,"Crazy Horse and Crow King feared the soldiers would move north and attack the Indian encampment." These two warriors, and their followers, immediately rode north to counter the suspected move. It is believed that Crow King left Crazy Horse at MTC and crept into the Calhoun Coulee environs.
Meanwhile, Crazy Horse proceeded a little farther north then, according to Flying Hawk, "followed up the gulch to a place in the rear of the soldiers making a stand." This may have been the south branch of Deep Ravine. This branch ends at Custer Ridge. The stand that Flying Hawk referred to must have been Calhoun Hill. Thus we have Crow King stationed to the right flank of Calhoun's position while Crazy Horse may have tranversed Custer's Ridge and arrived at Calhoun's Left flank(rear). In the meantime, Gall's forces were station at the foot of Calhoun Hill.
While it is true that the Indians did not command squads, platoons, companies,etc., they were trained to be hunters from infancy. This would include the hunting of men as well as animals. On a particular day in June, 1876, it was enough. |
|
|
|
Anonymous Poster8169
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - September 17 2004 : 6:02:59 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by joseph wiggs
Gall told D. F. Barry that,"Crazy Horse and Crow King feared the soldiers would move north and attack the Indian encampment." These two warriors, and their followers, immediately rode north to counter the suspected move. It is believed that Crow King left Crazy Horse at MTC and crept into the Calhoun Coulee environs.
The issue is not where Crazy Horse fought, or what he was worried might happen, but what he was personally able to accomplish. Not just him --- what ANY single Indian had the power to do. Are those Indians north of Custer something that Crazy Horse made happen, or are they just something that happened?
quote:
Meanwhile, Crazy Horse proceeded a little farther north then, according to Flying Hawk, "followed up the gulch to a place in the rear of the soldiers making a stand." This may have been the south branch of Deep Ravine. This branch ends at Custer Ridge. The stand that Flying Hawk referred to must have been Calhoun Hill. Thus we have Crow King stationed to the right flank of Calhoun's position while Crazy Horse may have tranversed Custer's Ridge and arrived at Calhoun's Left flank(rear). In the meantime, Gall's forces were station at the foot of Calhoun Hill.
This is not the north, and even if he wanted to, Crazy Horse could not have "countered" a northward movement by fighting here. What are you talking about when you say "Gall's forces"? The three Indians he says were with him in Graham, pg. 90?
R. Larsen
|
|
|
|
joseph wiggs
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - September 18 2004 : 2:37:35 PM
|
When I referred to the decision of Crazy horse to proceed NORTH, he and the other warriors, were in hot pursuit of Reno's forces which were "charging" towards Reno's crossing. This flight flowed SOUTH of the village for approximately a mile. As the troopers are being slaughtered on the west bank and in the river of the Big Horn, two events occurred simultaneously.
First, Benteen's battalion was sighted by the Indians approaching their right flank. Secondly, Custer's battalion was spotted on Custer Ridge, moving in a NORTHERLY direction (toward the village). These two events are what saved Reno's command from being annihilated. In order to intercept the threat to the village, Crazy Horse had to move NORTH.
Regarding your last statment, I must assume that you are not so uninformed of this portion of the battle to make such a callow statement honestly. Your'er just being facetious. (smile) |
Edited by - joseph wiggs on September 18 2004 2:48:30 PM |
|
|
|
Anonymous Poster8169
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - September 18 2004 : 6:26:26 PM
|
Wiggs, I'm not sure you've been paying attention to the thread. We had posters claiming that Crazy Horse led an attack on Custer from the north, thus preventing him from advancing (or retreating) in that direction. What was being debated was whether Crazy Horse had such power to make such things happen.
So what was your point? To disagree with Smcf about the direction of Crazy Horse's attack? Then you should say so. When you blunder in incoherently (saying, for example, that the Indians did not command squads, a sentence after you had already spoken of "Gall's forces") it's a mystery what your point is.
But since we're on the topic, let's dig.
quote:
When I referred to the decision of Crazy horse to proceed NORTH, he and the other warriors, were in hot pursuit of Reno's forces which were "charging" towards Reno's crossing.
Really. So Crazy Horse decided to peel away from the retreating soldiers before they even reached the river, in order to fight Custer, whom he had somehow seen while clubbing heads in the valley. How do you know this? Flying Hawk, who claimed to be with Crazy Horse in this fight, said Crazy Horse and he only broke off from the attack after they had chased the soldiers up the hill on the east bank --- not the west bank as you assert.
quote:
In order to intercept the threat to the village, Crazy Horse had to move NORTH.
Flying Hawk says they went north because they had some wounded in their party and they wished to drop them off in the village --- and he is explicit in saying that they made this decision to break off before they knew of any soldiers in the north, threatening the village or otherwise. As he explained, "the Indians did not know that Custer was coming; but they had retired with their wounded, and when they passed the creek they saw Custer on the second ridge". That's in Hardorff, Lakota Rec, pg. 53. Another Flying Hawk account I've also used is in "Indian Views". So what's your source for your very detailed story about Crazy Horse's decision making in the valley fight? If Gall, Gall wasn't there, and his story conflicts with someone who was. What are you basing this stuff on?
quote:
Regarding your last statment, I must assume that you are not
so uninformed of this portion of the battle to make such a callow statement honestly. Your'er just being facetious. (smile)
I had to check what you refer to. My "last statment [sic]" which Wiggs speaks of was this: "What are you talking about when you say 'Gall's forces'? The three Indians he says were with him in Graham, pg. 90?"
I repeat the question. What the hell are you talking about? "Gall's forces" indeed.
R. Larsen
|
|
|
|
alfuso
Corporal
Status: offline |
Posted - September 18 2004 : 11:57:33 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Heavyrunner
...Custer's responsibility, to me, fails when he didn't wait for Gibbon. One wonders whether he would have proceeded with the attack had he known the numbers he would be facing. At the very least, with such knowledge, would he have split his force into three columns? Would he, could he have backed off and waited until the 26th?
There was nothing in Custer's orders about waiting for anyone. And even had there been, Terry was a day late.
Read the last sentence of Custer's orders.
|
Deny Everything
Prepare to Panic |
|
|
|
joseph wiggs
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - September 19 2004 : 3:26:34 PM
|
Larsen, there are many, many points in dispute concerning this battle as evident by the responses of this forum. On a few points, however, there seems to be a general concensus regarding some events. One of these factors is that Reno's command was virtually saved due to the sudden withdrawal of the pursuing warriors. They did not depart because of the sudden appearance of a UFO.
As I was not there to discover nor verify this withdrawal I, like most of us, read resource books to obtain the information. It appears that this incident appears to be a mystery only to you. |
|
|
|
Anonymous Poster8169
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - September 19 2004 : 5:29:35 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by joseph wiggs
Larsen, there are many, many points in dispute concerning this battle as evident by the responses of this forum.
Among them your recent assertions about Crazy Horse. What do you base them on? Particularly the claims that Crazy Horse decided to go protect the village before Reno's men had crossed the river, that Crazy Horse did not cross the river, and that what drove him to break off from fighting Reno's men was the sighting of Custer's soldiers. Flying Hawk gives a no to all these things. What source are you using to reject him?
quote:
On a few points, however, there seems to be a general concensus regarding some events. One of these factors is that Reno's command was virtually saved due to the sudden withdrawal of the pursuing warriors. They did not depart because of the sudden appearance of a UFO.
Nobody claims they did. But we weren't talking about "Indians". We were talking about Crazy Horse.
quote:
As I was not there to discover nor verify this withdrawal I, like most of us, read resource books to obtain the information. It appears that this incident appears to be a mystery only to you.
Apparently Smcf, you, and myself all have different versions of what we consider happened. I'm happy to defend mine and show everyone what it's based on. That same courtesy is expected of you. I want to know what resources you based those claims of yours on. The quality of the source (and its existence) is kind of important when it comes to credibility.
R. Larsen
|
|
|
|
Smcf
Captain
Status: offline |
Posted - September 20 2004 : 05:02:16 AM
|
Apologies to Ambrose, in case he's looking down on us. I just discovered the source of the Hump death passage. It came from an interview with Red Feather at Pine Ridge in 1930. However, I've seen a photo purporting to be of Hump taken in 1890.
quote:
I want to know what resources you based those claims of yours on.
You'd make a good lawyer. I ask a simple question and the tenor of your previous post plants the implication that I may be both lacking in credibility and discourteous. Only joking. I haven't made any claims. I was simply asking a question of you, based on what little I have read. As I stated before elsewhere, I've read only 2 books - Ambrose and Brown, apart from various bits and bobs obtained from the internet. Ambrose and Brown made the claims, not I. As you know, Ambrose based his short chapter on LBH mainly, but not exclusively on Graham and Stewart. I've read neither, nor have I read any of the Garnett or Hinman interviews with Indians which Ambrose used. As for both Ambrose and Brown, they state categorically that Crazy Horse led a flanking move to the north. Any maps I've seen, following links from this site, and which refer to troops and Indian movements all show this northern manoever and not in dotted line format as the guessed movements of Custer. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to look at maps showing an arced northern manoever, read two books stating Crazy Horse led a flanking manoever to the north, and tie both together.
Perhaps if I read two more books which state categorically that Crazy Horse did not lead a flanking manoever to the north then I'd have to give up the idea. As I asked before, can you furnish this info?
|
Edited by - Smcf on September 20 2004 05:35:27 AM |
|
|
|
Smcf
Captain
Status: offline |
Posted - September 20 2004 : 07:33:26 AM
|
Sorry Anonymous - I misread your last paragraph. You'll find me at the back of the class, along with the American Ryder Cup team. |
Edited by - Smcf on September 20 2004 07:53:45 AM |
|
|
|
Smcf
Captain
Status: offline |
Posted - September 20 2004 : 12:07:45 PM
|
Me again. With reference to Flying Hawk, there is an account "The True Story of Custer's Last Fight As told by CHIEF FLYING HAWK to M. I. McCREIGHT (Tchanta Tanka), Alliance Press, Publishers, New York" in 1936. In it, apart from Crazy Horse taking a leading role in smashing the heads of Reno's men, he (accompanied by Flying Hawk) took off to the North and got east the troops on Battle ridge. There, while Flying Hawk held Crazy Horse's pony, the soldiers fell off their horses as fast as Crazy Horse could shoot. He then harried the beleagured troops along the ridge and killed a lot more in the ravine (this would be Keogh's men, I take it) while the survivors raced to Custer. After Custer was dealt with (the two heroes were joined by some other Indians at this point), Crazy Horse went after a soldier trying to escape to the east and promptly dispatched him too.
What a man. I'm even more impressed now. |
|
|
|
Anonymous Poster8169
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - September 20 2004 : 6:18:34 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Smcf
You'd make a good lawyer.
I ought to, since it's my chosen profession.
Apparently there's been some misunderstanding. I never alleged, implied, or thought that you lacked credibility or courtesy. I don't think I did for Wiggs either; however, since he probably won't reply, that silence will answer for him. Wiggs has a history (too tedious for anyone to want to read) of lying, obfuscation, using his imagination in place of facts. He simply makes things up.
As far as I know no one else on this board has that problem. I understand that you're basing your knowledge of this thing on what Ambrose said, not on something you pulled out of your ass. I just have to ask what Ambrose bases HIS claims on. How good are his sources anyway, and how much of this "flanking movement" is in the sources themselves, or how much of it is in the historians' interpretation? I base my interpretation of what Crazy Horse was doing in the valley on the interviews with Flying Hawk, who seems by far the best source. As for what Crazy Horse did against Custer, I think Wiggs's garbled reconstruction is closer to reality than Ambrose/Brown's. Wiggs obviously pillaged his version of events from Michno's "Lakota Noon," though he failed to give proper credit.
R. Larsen
|
|
|
|
movingrobewoman
Lt. Colonel
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - September 20 2004 : 8:07:30 PM
|
SCMF--
Instead of relying on Ambrose (a book I bought my father so he could try and understand my Custer, rather than Native, fascination--but knew it would be lacking), I would look at Graham (any footnotes), both Indian "memory" books by Richard G. Hardorff, and to get a timeline for these narratives, then look at Michno's "Lakota Noon." There were aplenty of Indians about that June 25 ... but as for a cohesive, well-ordered force, that is a figment of our Anglo-influenced, soldier-like imaginations. "Bravery runs"--which happened to find a lucky break in the line on Battle Ridge, were exactly that--even when run by Crazy Horse and his friends.
Lucky.
As lucky as Custer was unlucky.
Regards, |
movingrobe |
|
|
|
Smcf
Captain
Status: offline |
Posted - September 21 2004 : 04:36:13 AM
|
Folks - I understand what you're saying, but the basic point is that Ambrose did not initiate the claim on Crazy Horse's movements, he simply reported that they were "authenticated" and that there was "abundant documentation" to support them (proper use of quotes this time). Further, Brown refers to the same CH manoever in his book. Ambrose made no bones about his lack of expertise in his short LBH chapter and referred the reader firstly to Graham and Stewart, and only then to the more specialised material. He stated flatly that his interpretation on the battle was only a guess, apart from Crazy Horse's movements. As regards his primary Indian sources, the Eleanor Hinman and Billy Garnett interviews figure largely.
I posted an ironic missive above concerning Flying Hawk. I got the source off the internet - read it for yourselves and judge:
http://community-2.webtv.net/Wimz/CHIEFFLYINGHAWKS/
|
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - September 21 2004 : 10:38:02 AM
|
I admit to disliking Ambrose intensely both as a bad/sloppy/dishonest historian who pandered to audience elements and as a publicity hungry 'authority,' and my feelings started with his book on CH and Custer. I think you are too easy on him.
His thesis was a literary conceit that CH and Custer were doppelgangers and that they reflected each other. Born about the same time, war leaders, lucky, odd within their own communities, etc. He concludes in his book that CH out generalled Custer, which is ludicrous, CH having, among other problems, no command powers whatsoever. But to keep his theory operating to the end, Ambrose had to install that concept of CH being the Napoleon against Custer.
The Flying Hawk story sounds like an old man reconfiguring his role as pivotal to the main Sioux hero's success. In any case, as you noted SMCF, CH simply could not have fought Reno to the end (and we now have the pack train already atop the hill)and zooted around to catch Keogh from the East in any time frame worthy of the name or pony known to man. This sort of tale is often dignified as 'first hand' Indian testimony, by the way. We have no way to know if he was even there, knew CH, did what he said, or that sixty years later he had the slightest clue who he was or what he'd done even granting good intentions. At the least, serious event conflations and time issues. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
Edited by - Dark Cloud on September 21 2004 11:58:18 AM |
|
|
|
Smcf
Captain
Status: offline |
Posted - September 21 2004 : 11:39:30 AM
|
| Ok - time for some more reading. Thanks for the book recommendations folks. I take it the much vaunted Gray book should be included also. |
|
|
|
joseph wiggs
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - September 21 2004 : 9:21:00 PM
|
Whenever we peruse, analyze, and critique events of the past we find ourselves in an unresolvable dilemma that needs to be addressed. We weren't there so we must depend upon the efforts of those who were and/or were recipients of adequately, documented information pertaining to the past event.
As Dark Cloud inferred we then choose, as carefully as possible, the most credible sources available.
My prior thread concerning a portion of Crazy Horse's movements were based on these documented accounts. I did not feel an overwhelming desire to List these references at the request of a single individual who insisted that I do so.
This is dedicated to Larsen. Recently a bus toppled off a bridge in a blinding, wind storm. Everyone died. There was good news and bad news. The good news was the bus was carrying a group of lawyers to a sleaze convention. The bad news is that there was one empty seat. |
|
|
|
Anonymous Poster8169
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - September 24 2004 : 07:41:05 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Smcf
but the basic point is that Ambrose did not initiate the claim on Crazy Horse's movements, he simply reported that they were "authenticated" and that there was "abundant documentation" to support them (proper use of quotes this time).
Authenticated with what? That's really my point. Where is this stuff coming from? Ambrose is not a source, Brown is not a source; they're saying so means nothing. Who are their alleged witnesses, and how have they interpreted these witnesses?
Read more, definitely. I think you're off on the wrong foot with Ambrose and (Dee, I presume?) Brown. Hack historians, who were able to pump out a book every year because their "research" consisted only of rearranging the words of somebody else's. Brown less so ("Fort Phil Kearny" is solid enough), but they were basically retailing others' opinions, and since popular history abhors ambiguity and disputes over interpretation, and loves the newspaper reporter's pretence to omnipotence, what were speculations in a more scholarly book tend to become "facts" in theirs.
R. Larsen
|
|
|
|
Anonymous Poster8169
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - September 24 2004 : 07:52:27 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by joseph wiggs
My prior thread concerning a portion of Crazy Horse's movements were based on these documented accounts. I did not feel an overwhelming desire to List these references at the request of a single individual who insisted that I do so.
That's not the way it works. If you base your story on documented accounts, then you tell others what those accounts are. That way they can change their opinion if those accounts are more compelling than what they otherwise have, or they can change yours if you've misinterpreted them. That's how history, as opposed to historical fiction, works.
If you don't list sources, then the assumption is you have none. If you claim to have sources, but refuse to name them, then it isn't even an assumption anymore --- you're just a liar.
R. Larsen |
|
|
|
joseph wiggs
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - September 24 2004 : 9:45:51 PM
|
"The Flying Hawk story sounds like an old man reconfiguring his role as pivotal to the main Sioux hero's success."
You spend an disproportioned amount of time demanding that I submit source materials to substantiate my threads. Ironically, these demands are even manifested during discussions that are, generally, common knowledge to other forum members,except you. Unable to fathom that the childlike demeanor of your fatuous remarks prevent me from responding, you then proclaim that "Wiggs is a Liar" followed by the gashing of teeth and a sanctimonius screech of a self proclaimed, "I told you so!"
Where then, Larsen, is your substantiation of your un-substantial remark? There is none. No source exist that will confirm what you say. It is merely your own valueless opinion that has no merit at all.
How quaint, anytime an actual witness to the battle reports a version that condradicts you point of view, he is labeled an "Old Man", suggesting that his statements were the result of dementia.
I await the sources for you statement. If you can not find any, its okay to resort to your usual, childish, tantrum, laced responses. After all, this is the Larsen we have grown to love. |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Responsibility At Little Bighorn
