Richard Fox's book on LBH Archaeology Dec 6, 2013 7:20:39 GMT -5
Post by historybuff on Dec 6, 2013 7:20:39 GMT -5
It seems to me from my reading that there are few "facts" on LSH except that everyone in Custer's command was killed. I've noticed a tendency of authors/commentators/ and students to focus on a particular element or possibility and then describe the result as a logical outcome. IMO, this is what fuels the -phobe/-phile debate. It is a value-laden judgement There were a myriad of factors that got GAC's command destroyed, many of which have been mentioned in this thread. I'd like to offer up the role of surprise. By all accounts, Reno surprised the village. IMO, Custer was surprised by the size of the village (and therefore the number of warriors ),and their willingness to attack and the rapidity with which they accomplished it. Martin's note can be read in that light. I've read that a surprised enemy is half-defeated. Add terrain, dust, black powder smoke (the "fog of war"), and the illogical but nevertheless truism that strange things do really occur, and I find it impossible to come up with anything but contributory, not causal factors. It creates a lot of mental confusion for me, which is why I'm always asking what is the consensus opinion. I've discovered there isn't one. I'm a relatively naive battle student compared to the posters here, and am always learning, or at least trying to learn more. BR facts are scant. We have the markers (with the associated problems) and artifacts (or lack thereof). How do you construct an entire theory with the paucity of information available? IMO, we can understand this portion of the battle, but we'll never be able to explain it, and it will remain controversial.