|
|
Post by quincannon on Jul 18, 2015 15:35:08 GMT
by John G. Bourke, Captain, 3rd Cavalry, USA, University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln, NB, 1971 a reprint of the 1891 edition. Bourke was General Crook's aide and the book will lead you from Arizona to the Northern Plains, and contains a view of Crook through Bourke's eyes as well as accounts of Bourke's own participation. Of particular note is the detailed portrayal of the Centennial Campaign. Excellent, highly recommended.
|
|
|
|
Post by royalwelsh on Jul 18, 2015 15:43:48 GMT
QC,
An excellent book. I always remember thinking how passive Crook was about linking up with GAC. No attempt to warn of the Rosebud setback.
RW
|
|
mac
Brigadier General
Posts: 1,790
|
Post by mac on Jul 19, 2015 12:43:30 GMT
I do not undrestand why there was no attempt by Crook to inform others of his situation.
Cheers
|
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Jul 19, 2015 13:55:31 GMT
To answer that question Mac, I think we must first ask two questions. Why? How?
The why stems from a late conclusion of mine that Crook felt he was running his own independent campaign, an assumption not true, but if Crook assumes it is true, then it becomes truth for him.
As to the how, how does he do it, by what means, and where does he find those with which he should communicate?
It may have been something as simple as I don't know where they are.
|
|
|
|
Post by yanmacca on Jul 19, 2015 14:58:19 GMT
Yes I agree, it does appear that Crook was acting independently of the other two, and he didn't have the larger force, because I don't think the Gibbon could achieve much with his small command and needed to be used in tandem with Terry.
Wyoming Column (Crook): 1.051 + 260 Indians
Dakota Column (Terry): 1.208 (military, Indians and civilians)
Montana Column (Gibbon): 377
Yan.
|
|
|
|
Post by Beth on Jul 19, 2015 21:13:00 GMT
Sounds like a great discussion to move up to the Battle thread.
|
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Jul 19, 2015 22:37:21 GMT
Blessings and salutations be upon you wise one. You are probably the only one that knows how at this point. I agree, the thread has become more battle related than book centric.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin1 on Jul 19, 2015 22:55:53 GMT
Ask and ye shall receive.
|
|
|
|
Post by deadwoodgultch on Jul 10, 2016 21:27:17 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by deadwoodgultch on Jul 10, 2016 21:28:32 GMT
So little time so many hero's.
|
|
|
|
Post by yanmacca on Jul 11, 2016 11:01:54 GMT
I admit that I need to read up more on the battle of the rosebud, with the BLBH I know every officer and his role in the battle and quite a few of the enlisted men too, but with the rosebud I would struggle to name but a few of those who took part.
|
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Jul 11, 2016 14:25:37 GMT
Tom: Henry's son GVH Jr. had a career almost as remarkable as his father. He was an Army thinker and commanded the 7th Cavalry Brigade in the 1930's which was transformed into the 1st Armored Division. Reading (and it is poorly written with 3rd grade editing but still valuable) "Through Mobility We Conquer" you see just what an impact he had.
The gate to Fort Myer on Arlington Boulevard is Henry Gate named after the son, but may in fact be named after both father and son, as they both commanded the 3rd Cavalry (Brave Rifles). The 3rd Cavalry was the resident ceremonial unit at Myer until the start of WWII, After the war those duties were assumed by the 3rd Infantry (The Old Guard)
|
|
|
|
Post by yanmacca on Jul 12, 2016 12:18:42 GMT
Does anyone have any data on the Model 1857 12 pounder cannon (crewed by twelve men from company C 7th infantry) that the Montana column had?
Some reports say that this column had two Gatling guns, whilst some say three, so I wonder if the detachment had two Gatling’s and one cannon (which was nick named Napoleon).
One last thing, which column had the Gatling's was it the Dakota or Montana, because I have seen them mention in both columns, maybe Lt. Low had one group and Lt. Kinzie had the other.
If they were in the Montana column then how come they offered the Gatling's to Custer, as he was with the Dakota column.
|
|
|
|
Post by yanmacca on Jul 12, 2016 13:26:26 GMT
Was the Gibbon column supposed to be an independent fighting force, or was it supposed to be joined at some point by Terry’s column. Gibbon had around 160 cavalry plus 230 infantry, which gave him a total of 390 not counting his Gatling and field guns plus scouts and headquarters staff.
Terry had three infantry companies left in his column which gave him around 140 foot soldiers, add these to the 230 infantry in Gibbons column and it gave them 370 rifle men plus the 160 troopers of the 2nd cavalry and they had a force of 530 cavalry and infantry, which never really fired a shot.
|
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Jul 12, 2016 15:52:01 GMT
Ian: The individual gun was not "nicknamed" Napoleon. The 12 pounder was named Napoleon just as the M-1 Tank is named the Abrams. All 12 pounders of that model were called Napoleons.
|
|
