|
Post by yanmacca on Aug 9, 2017 16:28:33 GMT
Balderdash Benteen. Everything he said was either incomplete, out of context of the whole, or not at all in accordance with the testimony of the people he points to. Yes that's me, full of sh*t as usual
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Aug 9, 2017 16:57:15 GMT
If I thought you were full of shit I would say so.
You "liked" my post of 7 August at 12:11 PM MDT which in effect pointed out to you why I thought you previous post was incomplete, out of context with the whole, and not in accordance with the testimony of the people you point to (Cheyenne). Now were you full of shit with that "like" or perhaps you did not "like" it at all, and hit the "like" button by mistake. There are only two answers.
The bottom line here Ian is that you cannot be in both camps. You must either believe that Custer went north with five companies, or believe that Custer went north with only two. There is no middle ground. You must either believe the JSIT narrative of Wolf Tooth/Lame White Man supported by most of the other Cheyenne testimony, or you don't.
You cannot have a Ford B and a Ford D. They are mutually exclusive. Believe Ford B, then there is no possibility of those same forces reaching Ford D. There is evidence that Ford D was reached, but none that anyone went to Ford B.
It is tactical insanity to leave three companies behind in the Calhoun area to watch a place (Ford B) that cannot be seen from the Calhoun area.
It is tactical insanity for two under strength companies to try and duke it out with the Cheyenne nation.
It is gross prejudice on the part of Montrose to suggest that those three companies were left in the Calhoun area by an idiot Custer. The prejudice on his part arises in that Montrose uses that as the basis of labeling Custer as an idiot. He was an idiot, but he was not that much of an idiot.
Benteen chooses the middle ground of non-committal. He does not know what he thinks. He tries to adopt a middle ground, not realizing that both ends of that middle ground are impossible.
SO, there were either five companies up north, or there were not. You cannot have it both ways. If there were five companies up there events played out in somewhat of a similar manner to that has been laid out on this board. If you do not believe in the five company theory, then you can't believe JSIT and the other Cheyenne narratives. It is just that simple. What you may not do though is pick and choose between the two.
|
|
|
Post by yanmacca on Aug 9, 2017 17:10:20 GMT
Chuck, that comment was said in jest, the same as my answer to Dan. I did like your post on the 7th August at 12:11 PM MDT Aug but not the one made on 7, 2017 at 2:52 PM. I would only change one part of my post and that would be the the part about the stones. Lets face it it got two likes, both off ex-military men and one of them a Colonel, in fact that must my one and only like of Montroes.
|
|
benteen
First Lieutenant
"Once An Eagle
Posts: 406
|
Post by benteen on Aug 9, 2017 17:17:02 GMT
Hi Dan, how they hanging my old chum, nice to see you posting. Ian, Hi my old friend. At my age I have to watch out that I dont step on them You know computers and I dont get along, I was lost after the rotary phone went out. Had some problems with the computer and had to wait until Maria could fix them. Hope all is well with you and Susan and family. Be Well Mate Dan
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Aug 9, 2017 17:49:22 GMT
Montrose is a brilliant guy Ian, but he lets his intense hatred of Custer go much too far. He is a Lieutenant Colonel, and believe it or not Lieutenant Colonels do disagree.
SO, regardless of what Lieutenant Colonels say you are still faced with the same choice. You either believe the JSIT driven theory of five companies up north or you don't. You must take it all or none of it. You cannot pick and choose. There is no middle ground or Ala carte choices on the menu
I don't do jest well.
|
|
|
Post by yanmacca on Aug 9, 2017 19:25:56 GMT
Chuck, I have been pushing the JSIT for years and still do, but the way I wrote that post was from the Indians view, many of who probably didn't know about what Wolftooth did and probably some never even saw the Crazy Horse charge or LWMs charge, similar to the Suicide boys, how many who fought against Calhoun, actually saw this charge.
What you explained in that map I posted was excellent, it really opened my eyes, but that was from a military stand point and what those men on LSH would have saw.
To your every day Indian fighter they only saw soldiers stop on a hill and fire at them before being shoved off that landmark and ending up on LSH.
Chuck if I can't jest with you then who the hell can I jest with.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Aug 9, 2017 20:53:54 GMT
The fact that you have been pushing JSIT for years is exactly why I was taken aback by your comment that centered on Cemetery Ridge. The way you posted suggested to me that you felt it happened as a stand alone event.
The JSIT account and Cemetery Ridge being stand alone events are mutually exclusive.
No to the every day Indian warrior they saw a lot of things, but more than likely the two high points were scattering those horses and thereby displacing Company E, and the other high point of whacking all those people on LSH. Those are the medley of the Cheyennes greatest hits. Sort of like Heartbreak Hotel and Hound Dog being the high points and forgetting Love Me Tender came in between.
|
|
|
Post by Beth on Aug 9, 2017 20:55:22 GMT
I am always up for a good joke, jest not now.
|
|
mac
Brigadier General
Posts: 1,790
|
Post by mac on Aug 9, 2017 22:06:30 GMT
I have no doubt the event referred to as a "Buffalo hunt" is the pursuit (mainly by Sioux warriors) of soldiers back along Battle Ridge towards LSH from the Calhoun action. No one got that far.
To return to the withdrawal from Ford D. I loved Colt's explanation of his tactical solution. I suspect though there are many solutions possible. My thought is there are two principles required. Sustained fire or threat of fire and simultaneously releasing troops. Consequently the perimeter of the Custer line must reduce as companies leave and the remaining troops must be placed to create the required fire. I see this as Company F on LSH and Company E elsewhere and the evidence suggests they are on Cemetery Ridge or possibly the minor ridge QC references to the south. Just an amateur running this through my head...comments? Cheers
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 9, 2017 22:37:57 GMT
Intense hatred? I have no more feelings for LTC Custer than I do for Old Barnum.
I approach this as an analyst, I still follow the Center For Military History battle analysis format, which they were putting out in the 1980s.
LTC Custer is a scoundrel, but many scoundrels are successful in battle. LTC Custer made a series of tactical errors that changed the outcome of this battle from a Rosebud indecisive skirmish to a total fiasco. Those decisions are his, and his alone.
In addition, he was a very poor regimental commander. He spent little time training himself, his officers or his men. Company and above training was nonexistent. The 7th was less ready for combat than the other regiments in that campaign and in that era.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Aug 9, 2017 23:15:36 GMT
The point of contention here is my belief that you, as evidenced by the totality of your posts, think that Custer was so inept that he could not do anything right, or did not do anything right.
I on the other hand believe that he was all those things you say he was and attribute to him. Where we differ is in my belief that even stupid people do not always act stupidly.
You do not accept the alternative JSIT driven theory of this battle. I do, and I used the same methods you do.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Aug 9, 2017 23:19:00 GMT
I believe they were at both places Mac, first CR, and then down on the SSL, just the same as I believe all of the other four companies were either on CR or BRE before they were along another line that tied in with Company E's final position.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 10, 2017 0:22:58 GMT
Chuck,
I am fully aware we do not agree. That is fine, your arguments are based on facts, and the skill, knowledge and abilities of a trained professional in the art of war.
But arguments on LBH are heavily influenced by raw amateurs. Nothing wrong with amateurs with open minds. But LBH attracts a highly emotional corps of fans, who put emotion before reason.
LTC Custer had a superior performance in the Civil War. I would call it similar to Jim Gavin in WW2. His performance in the Indian Wars is very poor. One more time: he was convicted by court martial for gross incompetence as a war fighter. How many other field grade officers had that on the records? (A few, by the way). How many held command again? (Zero).
I understand you and several other posters believe all 5 companies were on the north end of Battle Ridge at some point in time. Using probability theory, I see this as having zero probability. Archeology, body locations, every single testimony, empiricism. It does not make sense. I have held of from the discussion because you take alternate views personally, and attack the poster; not the post.
Let us agree to disagree, in a civil manner. I was taught a long time ago to treat everyone like a Lady or a Gentleman, until their behavior proves otherwise.
Respectfully,
William
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Aug 10, 2017 0:39:56 GMT
Defend your Zero probability. Lay it out. Stand and deliver, or allow myself and others to go the way the evidence leads us. If you have something let's hear it, that is why the theory was put out in public in the first place, to be tested. You have commented on your disagreement several times but you have never backed it up with anything
The theory is not based on five companies being at the northern portion of Battle Ridge. The theory is that all or most of those five companies went to Ford D which is a mile or so further on than the north end of Battle Ridge, and in the course of battle were driven back first to Cemetery Ridge - Battle Ridge Extension then further back to the Cemetery Ravine Basin-Last Stand Hill, and from that point the Custer battalion was broken up partially as a planned or deliberate move and later by having two companies overrun.
I do not believe you are up to speed. I argue points with vigor, and if anyone takes what I say personally or as a personal attack, that is not my department. It is their problem.
|
|
mac
Brigadier General
Posts: 1,790
|
Post by mac on Aug 10, 2017 2:47:21 GMT
Montrose I know reading is a difficulty for you but if you go to page 65 in the thread about 5 companies to Ford D you will find a map Ian posted of archaeological finds. You will see virtually none at Ford B. The finds do however stretch from Calhoun Hill area all the way back to the Highway to include the area known as Ford D. My point is that the archaeology explicitly supports the contention that a major action was fought at Ford D rather than Ford B and that the scale of that action far exceeds what would be expected of a force of HQ and 2 companies.
Ironically it was a statement by you some years ago on a board far far away that started me looking at this idea. You said that if you were Custer you would never come to the river at Ford B, but would stay hidden as far east as you could.
Cheers
|
|