arcane montana query
 

On Thu, 28 Jun 2007 19:44:28 -0700, "
wrote:


All that said....Custer died for your sins.

no, bud, custer died because he was an arrogant yankee dumbass.

wayno

Um, well, maybe, but to many military minds, Custer died because, well,
he didn't win the battle that particular day.

FWIW, there is lots of stuff all over the board as to who did what,
when, and how, but a number of (rational) military strategists are of
the opinion that Custer performed pretty well under the
circumstances...obviously, so did the "Indians"...and neither team had
any particular moral superiority...

Hey, any given Sunday....,
R

arcane montana query
 

I'm afraid Wayne missed the point on the Custer quip. I didn't just
make that one up...the phrase has been around longer than us.

Custer was killed taking land.....oh nevermind.

arcane montana query
 

wrote in message
...
On Thu, 28 Jun 2007 19:44:28 -0700, "
wrote:


All that said....Custer died for your sins.

no, bud, custer died because he was an arrogant yankee dumbass.

wayno

Um, well, maybe, but to many military minds, Custer died because, well,
he didn't win the battle that particular day.

See, that's precisely the sort of profundity we have all come to expect of
you, and which lies at the root of the degree of respect in which you are
held here.

FWIW, there is lots of stuff all over the board as to who did what,
when, and how, but a number of (rational) military strategists are of
the opinion that Custer performed pretty well under the
circumstances...obviously, so did the "Indians"...and neither team had
any particular moral superiority...

Hey, any given Sunday....,

I suppose that whether or not you actually have something to say will
forever remain a mystery......and that's o.k. The only thing that saves you
from being entirely uninteresting (and, barely, at that) is that you ALWAYS
go to such great lengths to say nothing......and then pretend to believe
that no one will ever notice......and THAT is funny. :)

Wolfgang

Wolfgang

arcane montana query
 

On Thu, 28 Jun 2007 22:11:21 -0600, (Dave S) wrote:

I'm afraid Wayne missed the point on the Custer quip. I didn't just
make that one up...the phrase has been around longer than us.

Custer was killed taking land.....oh nevermind.

Um, OK. FWIW, I don't consider Custer or the "Battle of Little Big
Horn" (or whatever one wishes to call it) to be particularly significant
from a objective military or "historic" perspective - a coupla
hundred-plus US troopers and, depending on who one cites, 30 or 40 to a
coupla hundred "Indians" were killed in what was, from a military
perspective, a cluster****. The importance of it is, IMO, a created
myth.

Generally speaking, while Custer made what hindsight proved to be some
pre-campaign/battle mistakes (refusing Gatlings and light artillery,
etc. - likely somewhat due to arrogance, but not completely so), he
performed pretty well - he just got out"gunned," overrun by numbers, and
depending on who one chooses to believe, had a couple of iffy
subordinates who didn't perform too well.

And the weapons used came into play. The troopers had single-shots and
sidearms, while the "Indians" had a fair number of repeating rifles, and
by happenstance, the "Indian" bows turned out to be at least as useful
as the guns (you can arch arrows into the enemy - rifles of any kind
don't make very good mortars).

IAC, I'm still of the opinion, "On any given Sunday..."

TC,
R

arcane montana query
 

On Jun 29, 6:00 am, "Wolfgang" wrote:
wrote in message

...

On Thu, 28 Jun 2007 19:44:28 -0700, "
wrote:

All that said....Custer died for your sins.

no, bud, custer died because he was an arrogant yankee dumbass.

wayno

Um, well, maybe, but to many military minds, Custer died because, well,
he didn't win the battle that particular day.

See, that's precisely the sort of profundity we have all come to expect of
you, and which lies at the root of the degree of respect in which you are
held here.

FWIW, there is lots of stuff all over the board as to who did what,
when, and how, but a number of (rational) military strategists are of
the opinion that Custer performed pretty well under the
circumstances...obviously, so did the "Indians"...and neither team had
any particular moral superiority...

Hey, any given Sunday....,

I suppose that whether or not you actually have something to say will
forever remain a mystery......and that's o.k. The only thing that saves you
from being entirely uninteresting (and, barely, at that) is that you ALWAYS
go to such great lengths to say nothing......and then pretend to believe
that no one will ever notice......and THAT is funny. :)

Wolfgang

Wolfgang

As one of our more articulate members you must know a term that
defines ignorance in quanatative terms. Something like a MH ( a Milli-
Helen - the amount of beauty required to launch one ship).
Maby a MCB ( Milli- CrowBar). A thousand MCBs mean your as ignorant
as a three year old crow bar.
I know I am semi-literate but were I as ignorant as some people I
would hang myself or run for office.

arcane montana query
 

"BJ Conner" wrote in message
oups.com...

...you must know a term that
defines ignorance in quanatative terms.

Nope, as far as I know, none yet exists. Odd. The need is certainly there.

Something like a MH ( a Milli-
Helen - the amount of beauty required to launch one ship).
Maby a MCB ( Milli- CrowBar). A thousand MCBs mean your as ignorant
as a three year old crow bar.

Yeah, I like that! :)

I know I am semi-literate but were I as ignorant as some people I
would hang myself or run for office.

The former would likely end in failure. The latter, if history is any
guide, eventually leads to "Elder Statesman" status.

Wolfgang

arcane montana query
 

wrote in message And the weapons used came into
play. The troopers had single-shots and
sidearms, while the "Indians" had a fair number of repeating rifles, and
by happenstance, the "Indian" bows turned out to be at least as useful
as the guns (you can arch arrows into the enemy - rifles of any kind
don't make very good mortars).

Indian Joe asks ---saw arched arrows killing Scots in "braveheart" but
have never read of indian attack from behind a hill-- would enjoy knowing
where you read of this.Once at a pow-wow saw a drunk blind old squaw send
her arrow after the moon--but she missed

arcane montana query
 

On Fri, 29 Jun 2007 17:20:55 -0400, "Joe McIntosh"
wrote:


wrote in message And the weapons used came into
play. The troopers had single-shots and
sidearms, while the "Indians" had a fair number of repeating rifles, and
by happenstance, the "Indian" bows turned out to be at least as useful
as the guns (you can arch arrows into the enemy - rifles of any kind
don't make very good mortars).

Indian Joe asks ---saw arched arrows killing Scots in "braveheart" but
have never read of indian attack from behind a hill-- would enjoy knowing
where you read of this.Once at a pow-wow saw a drunk blind old squaw send
her arrow after the moon--but she missed

It really isn't "attack from behind a hill" situation. It's more of a
rifle being pretty much line-of-sight and an arrow being able to arc
over trees, ridges, etc. Obviously, I wasn't at the battle, but I've
read source material that relates that the "Indians" said they sent a
fair number of arrows into the columns as they traveled the ridges and
ravines as well as into the tree groves the troopers were attempting to
use as cover, and more at the "last stand" area, where rifle fire would
have been much less effective. There is evidence of such, but it is
somewhat tainted by no clear picture of when or from where the arrows
were fired. Some were obviously close-range "coup de grace"-type wounds,
but others were not, bolstering the "volley" statements.

IAC, accounts are all over the board - remember that a fair number of
the troopers with Reno and Benteen survived (those not with Custer's
columns) and the Crow scouts that Custer released gave their accounts as
well as the "Indian" accounts. None are really all-encompassing (and
really, they could not be) and there is quite a bit of conflicting
information. Add that to the after-the-battle accounts of the troopers
and what they state they found, and it's pretty hard to get a definitive
picture. The battle was not simply a "last stand" on a hilltop ala some
depictions, it was a fight spread out over several miles involving
several columns under three (sub)commands and over 1000 "Indians" of
various groups.

You might wish to reference some of the "Indian" accounts of the battle,
as well as the various reports from the US sources.

TC,
R