Post by quincannon on Apr 13, 2019 13:51:26 GMT
Ian: I do not believe Cartwright had sufficient evidence in his find to make any determination about the size of the engaging force. As I understand it his cartridge recovery in groups of threes would indicate the presence of a skirmish line, but he also looked at the length of that line, covering quite some distance along the ridge tops, and made the conclusion that there were four companies at one time, when there well could have been one company four times. The Indians were at range precluding the use of the revolver, and were moving parallel to the engaging column, as we see in the JSIT map. Instead of the four companies, one company could have dismounted fired several times at the W, mounted again, moved northward, dismounted again fired a few times each, remounted and continued the process until they again met up with Custer and the main body. That is consistent with dragoon technique when called upon to engage targets at range.
I think it is not only your place, but your obligation to bring forward anything a published author has to say, that you wish to refute, or further discuss.
Let's go back a bit in LBH authorship. When I was a wee lad, I read my dad's copy of Van de Water's "Glory Hunter". It was decent as far as it went, but with the exception of a real neat photo of some sort of reenactment of Custer's last moments, which I referred back to many times over the years, it was not a work that would set your hair on fire with delight. Along comes Stewart in the early 1950's and he tells a straight story, one that would not even be looked at or considered for publication today. The facts were mostly right, at least the portion we can verify from other sources, but the book is still a rather bland telling of the story.
Since that time publication values have changed. They no longer consider a retelling of same old same old, but today require a hook in which to reel in the reader. It must be different. It must be the "untold story" the "now it can be told expose", the "newly found data sheds new light". You get the idea. If your work does not have these aspects, your chance of getting it published goes from already low, except for Custer and the Battle of Gettysburg, down to zilch. Gray realized that and his "hook" was the time lines. Wagner realized that and his hook was better timelines. Both were manufactured for purposes of selling books. Donahue tempts the market with Keogh's boot, and Donovan, and Philbrick both used similar ploys to reel in both publisher and reader. None of the Latter Day Saints of Big Horn Heaven had the temerity to stray from Stewart's basic story. They are neither historians or very accomplished authors, and they sure as hell don't have an original bone their bodies. They are like me in one respect. I am building my fifth Bismarck, and each time I tell myself I am going to paint it more accurately, when what I really mean is I am going to paint it more attractively with more color, so it will show better. If I painted it more accurately is would be dull and drab, and not attract the attention of a Billy Goat.
So the bottom line is that you may feel free to question or be critical of anyone that is so foolish as to publish what they write about Little Big Horn. All of them are phonies, all of them try to gild the lily of the story Van de Water and Stewart both told quite adequately in ages past, and they all feel they need some hook to reel you in and line their pockets. The only one who broke new ground, and was pilloried for both his book and opinions was Gordon Harper.
I may seem to be too hard on the likes of Gray, Wagner, Philbrick, Donovan, Donahue and perhaps others. I may seem to others that my comments on them appear to be personal attacks, for my own petty grievance. Neither are true. I am used to the rigid standards of the professional historian, the Army way of reporting, then using history, by men like McDonald, Cole, Wilson, Pogue, Appleman, and others I have known or known about over these many years. People like my old and dear friend Bob "Dog Breath" Wright who has forgotten more about the War of Independence then most ever knew. None of these former people would have gotten by the vetting process these latter underwent, by their peers, the other professionals, that reviewed their work before publication. They would be laughed at and told to either get their act together or get the hell out.
Steve: I would love to see these various groups activities depicted in map graphics, and the numbers involved with each party. A hunting party for instance may range from two or three, ideal for scouting and observing, to fifty or more, again ideal but for distracting and delaying.. I would imagine the Indian Police Tom mentioned would be in fairly small groups. Saying someone was in such and such a place alone does not cut the mustard. You must determine size and activity before it has any value. You do remember the key word SALUTE don't you. It applies equally to the historian as it does to the gathering of intelligence on and about the battle space.
Again what in the hell does McGuire's map have to do with what is presently under discussion. NOTHING, he was not there, and he drew his conclusions based upon body locations shortly after the fact. In that sense he was just as speculative as you are by insisting the river travel corridor was used based upon six markers placed later and of unknown origin. That's not history. That is speculation based upon imperfect observation. This thread revolves around two things, a possible but still speculative engage and flank operation and how it ties in (good or bad) with the JSIT narrative, who was also not there, but told to him by Wolf Tooth who was. Any historian worth his salt would take the latter (JSIT/Wolf Tooth) over someone who was drawing after the fact conclusions (McGuire).
I think it is not only your place, but your obligation to bring forward anything a published author has to say, that you wish to refute, or further discuss.
Let's go back a bit in LBH authorship. When I was a wee lad, I read my dad's copy of Van de Water's "Glory Hunter". It was decent as far as it went, but with the exception of a real neat photo of some sort of reenactment of Custer's last moments, which I referred back to many times over the years, it was not a work that would set your hair on fire with delight. Along comes Stewart in the early 1950's and he tells a straight story, one that would not even be looked at or considered for publication today. The facts were mostly right, at least the portion we can verify from other sources, but the book is still a rather bland telling of the story.
Since that time publication values have changed. They no longer consider a retelling of same old same old, but today require a hook in which to reel in the reader. It must be different. It must be the "untold story" the "now it can be told expose", the "newly found data sheds new light". You get the idea. If your work does not have these aspects, your chance of getting it published goes from already low, except for Custer and the Battle of Gettysburg, down to zilch. Gray realized that and his "hook" was the time lines. Wagner realized that and his hook was better timelines. Both were manufactured for purposes of selling books. Donahue tempts the market with Keogh's boot, and Donovan, and Philbrick both used similar ploys to reel in both publisher and reader. None of the Latter Day Saints of Big Horn Heaven had the temerity to stray from Stewart's basic story. They are neither historians or very accomplished authors, and they sure as hell don't have an original bone their bodies. They are like me in one respect. I am building my fifth Bismarck, and each time I tell myself I am going to paint it more accurately, when what I really mean is I am going to paint it more attractively with more color, so it will show better. If I painted it more accurately is would be dull and drab, and not attract the attention of a Billy Goat.
So the bottom line is that you may feel free to question or be critical of anyone that is so foolish as to publish what they write about Little Big Horn. All of them are phonies, all of them try to gild the lily of the story Van de Water and Stewart both told quite adequately in ages past, and they all feel they need some hook to reel you in and line their pockets. The only one who broke new ground, and was pilloried for both his book and opinions was Gordon Harper.
I may seem to be too hard on the likes of Gray, Wagner, Philbrick, Donovan, Donahue and perhaps others. I may seem to others that my comments on them appear to be personal attacks, for my own petty grievance. Neither are true. I am used to the rigid standards of the professional historian, the Army way of reporting, then using history, by men like McDonald, Cole, Wilson, Pogue, Appleman, and others I have known or known about over these many years. People like my old and dear friend Bob "Dog Breath" Wright who has forgotten more about the War of Independence then most ever knew. None of these former people would have gotten by the vetting process these latter underwent, by their peers, the other professionals, that reviewed their work before publication. They would be laughed at and told to either get their act together or get the hell out.
Steve: I would love to see these various groups activities depicted in map graphics, and the numbers involved with each party. A hunting party for instance may range from two or three, ideal for scouting and observing, to fifty or more, again ideal but for distracting and delaying.. I would imagine the Indian Police Tom mentioned would be in fairly small groups. Saying someone was in such and such a place alone does not cut the mustard. You must determine size and activity before it has any value. You do remember the key word SALUTE don't you. It applies equally to the historian as it does to the gathering of intelligence on and about the battle space.
Again what in the hell does McGuire's map have to do with what is presently under discussion. NOTHING, he was not there, and he drew his conclusions based upon body locations shortly after the fact. In that sense he was just as speculative as you are by insisting the river travel corridor was used based upon six markers placed later and of unknown origin. That's not history. That is speculation based upon imperfect observation. This thread revolves around two things, a possible but still speculative engage and flank operation and how it ties in (good or bad) with the JSIT narrative, who was also not there, but told to him by Wolf Tooth who was. Any historian worth his salt would take the latter (JSIT/Wolf Tooth) over someone who was drawing after the fact conclusions (McGuire).