Models... Mar 10, 2013 11:00:51 GMT -5
Post by alfakilo on Mar 10, 2013 11:00:51 GMT -5
Gray has drunk from the same cup as the rest of LBH battle students. There is plenty of speculation and assumptions in his model of what happened, and much of it regarding his time-motion sequencing, far off the mark. And what about those primary source references? Which ones are you referring to?
I thought the point of Gray's book was that he was trying not present a 'model' (unlike so many others) but only trying to present the 'facts' Am I incorrect in that? What is Gray 'far off the mark' on? Primary sources? The issue was conjecture. I've gotten the impression from these pages that folks consider primary sources to be relatively conjecture free as compared to secondary sources. Correct?
If you don't wish to take my word for it, you are free to peruse the officer accounts of the battle, which are all posted up here at the forum.
If you are willing to state something, then you should be willing to back that up. Telling me to check a forum whose search engine is less than stellar isn't it.
Well, you took a roundabout way of saying you agree with me that Benteen's actions may well have offended or irritated his brother officers.
I said I didn't know how they felt. Then I went on to say that given the typical military officer mindset, then and now, they may well have been 'miffed' as you put it. At themselves or Benteen? That hasn't been demonstrated.
My experience in understanding basic human nature has Custer removing Benteen from his unfairly acquired advance... Benteen's underhanded actions in securing the advance over his brother officers...
How does your basic understanding of human nature arrive at Custer believing Benteen's action here to be unfair or underhanded? I'm not seeing your reasoning in this. Here is Custer, miles into Indian country, close on the trail of those Indians, with the intent on attacking those Indians, and hopefully making sure that he isn't the one who gets attacked first...wouldn't you imagine that he would expect his subordinate commanders to have their units ready for combat? The surprise here isn't that Benteen spoke up that quickly...no, the real surprise is that the others weren't able to. You come at this situation as if it were a tea party where somebody gets miffed because they weren't served first. Not hardly. These were military professionals...if others weren't able to speak up in the affirmative right then and there, they weren't doing their job.
...and relegating his battalion to that of a reserve whilst protecting the left flank of the regiment on their approach march down to the LBH valley. The move would actually pay off in spades if, for some reason, they discovered that the village had strung itself out several miles to the south from the mouth of Ash Creek, but I think that was a long shot.
You see Benteen's scout as a form of punishment. I see it as Custer obeying Terry's order to secure the left flank.
Benteen was indeed told to hump it back to the main trail once he discovered no presence of Indians in the LBH valley to the south.
Is the issue how quickly Benteen returned to the main trail...or how quickly or not he then moved up that trail?
Yes, I do believe that Custer had a secondary reason for sending Benteen off on his flank march. Some believe he was concerned about finding Indian camps in the valley of the South Fork, whereas others said he was concerned that the main village was strung out southwards from the mouth of Ash Creek. Godfrey felt that was Custer's prime motivation. I view it as secondary. I think, had this been the case, Custer could very well have sent Benteen off on a flank march to the south once they got closer to the river, and only after scouts had been sent out first to confirm any possible camps in that direction.
See previous answer. On one side is Terry's explicit order. On the other is your speculation regarding Custer's pissiness. Folks can decide for themselves.
I doubt there would have been a flank march at that time had Benteen played by the rules and not attempted to promote himself to the front of the line.
What 'rules' did Benteen not play by?
Reenacting is often the very first thing that is attacked on a post that has nothing whatsoever to do with it. It is personal and there is a great deal of animosity and spite attached to it. Others can reach their own conclusions as to why this deep seated resentment exists, but it is there for all to see.
I haven't seen anyone belittling reeacting as an activity. What I have seen...and agree with...is your contention that your time as a reenactor gives your some sort of military experience. Once upon a time, when stationed in Europe, I used to drive a Porsche on European roads. I don't think I ever thought of myself as a Grand Prix driver however.
All those who have slung mud at reenactors tend to be very strong supporters of either Reno and Benteen, both of whom I have been critical of. When these individuals can not refute my ideas or opinions, they reach for the nearest bucket of mud. And that bucket is most often labeled 'Reenactor.'
You miss the point again. It's labeled 'Amateur'. That's not a pejorative...it's just a fact.
But I do disagree with you when you suggest that certain subjects are taboo for discussion simply because you or others feel that it is beyond someone else's expertise.
I didn't say that. Not at all. What I did say was that amateurs are just that when it comes to certain military specifics. Discussion? No problem. Unilateral pronouncements without any underpinning? Whimsy at best.
Nor do I believe one must be a career military officer to have the right to discuss matters of the military.
It helps, bro. I drove that 928S faster than hell...but no way was I going to pontificate on the ins and outs of Le Mans.
I am not claiming to be an expert in anything...
Of course you are. That's the point of all of this. It's silly for you to wax openly about your 35 years of reenacting experience and personal insights into human nature and then make that claim.
You don't challenge or respond to Clair when he says exactly the same thing I do, yet you single me out and view my words as a cheap shot coming from someone who does not have the right to step into your territorial domain.
It's not my territorial domain. It's the domain of those with honest to goodness military experience, Clair being one of those.
I am less concerned with the frathouse mentality and old boy networks that are part and parcel of today's officer corps that claim that no one other than themselves have a right to express an opinion about military matters. That's what its really all about. If Clair says it, its fine. If I say it, you've got a problem.
Is that all you've got? "You pick on me but not Clair"? Clair...if you are reading this, I hope you aren't embarrassed by keogh's bringing you into the conversation. But, be advised, in all congeniality, one trade schooler to another...if you try that infantry vs cavalry argument, I'll call you on it.
My field of study is American History, of which I hold a degree, yet you have never heard me say to you that your opinions on this historical event, "coming from someone without any experience in the field is resented...
FWIW, when I graduated from trade school, I was offered a chance to go to Duke to get a Master's in this discipline, the idea being that I would then return to join the faculty. I turned the offer down to go to pilot training instead. I wanted to fly and not go back to school.