|
Post by Allen Wiener on Jan 18, 2012 9:54:33 GMT -5
I was underwhelmed by the two-hour Custer documentary on PBS's "American Experience" last night, although in all fairness I only saw the last hour, so I'll reserve full judgment until I get home and see it all on the DVR.
The segment on LBH was pretty bad. Among other things, it did not mention the siege of Reno Hill, the casualties there, or the fact they remained under attack for a time while Custer was fighting to the north. Instead, it left the impression that Reno & Benteen arrived together on Reno Hill and then sat around doing nothing while Custer was killed. They do mention the delayed effort to go to Custer that ended at Weir Hill, but it all seemed out of context. Meanwhile, for a program that ran two hours, there was no mention of any details regarding Custer's movements after he left Reno, Medicine Tail Coulee, the location of Calhoun and Keough, Custer's apparent effort to scout the north end of the camp or other details. There is virtually no mention of Indian reactions to the attack, the movements of warriors or mention of key figures, such as Gall, other than Sitting Bull. They even included the weird story from Philbrick's book that Sitting Bull thought Reno's men might consider negotiating. Where the hell did he ever get that one from?
I'd like to know what the first hour was devoted to, or if there was a more detailed account of the Custer Hill portion of the fight earlier in the program.
In general, I think these "American Experience" films have tried to become more like Hollywood drama than real documentaries in recent years.
|
|
|
Post by jmolini on Jan 18, 2012 14:18:56 GMT -5
Couldn't agree more. In fact I turned away from it. The documentary based on "A Terrible Glory" that ran on either the History Channel or the Military Channel was way more interesting and enlightening. As were, if I remember correctly, the bits about Custer's early career, his family, etc.
|
|
|
Post by Allen Wiener on Jan 18, 2012 16:46:02 GMT -5
I was curious as to why PBS omitted Jim Donovan from the talking heads group. At least one or two seemed to bring limited knowledge, at best, to the topic.
|
|
|
Post by TRK on Jan 18, 2012 17:39:05 GMT -5
I was curious as to why PBS omitted Jim Donovan from the talking heads group. At least one or two seemed to bring limited knowledge, at best, to the topic. That's like leaving Kevin Young out of an Alamo documentary
|
|
|
Post by Allen Wiener on Jan 18, 2012 20:13:20 GMT -5
that's what I thought, Tom, but I've now heard that they decided to make this Philbrick's show, and he was the most prominent talking head, and they did take a lot of stuff from his book, hence no Donovan. Not exactly my idea of the best way to do a really factual documentary. I liked Philbrick's book and he's a good writer, but I disagree with some of his conclusions and he's hardly the last word on Custer & the LBH.
|
|
|
Post by tman56 on Jan 18, 2012 23:21:47 GMT -5
I'm glad I'm not the only one who was underwhelmed. On the one hand, I was grateful that there was nothing that made me want to scream and throw things at the TV, but on the other hand, my ultimate reaction was "meh". I realize that this was meant more as an introduction/overview than an in-depth study, but there was so much left out that I'm not sure it was even good at that level.
|
|
|
Post by Chuck T on Jan 19, 2012 13:08:36 GMT -5
My Dad attended the game between the Washington Redskins and the Chicago Bears in either 40 or 41. The Bears beat the Redskins 72- Zip. In later years I would ask my Dad why he stayed to watch such a horrible game. His answer to me "I stayed because I hoped it would get better". That is about the same reaction I had to watching this piece of video tripe. I should have left after the first quarter and turned on a re-run of NCIS, but I had hopes it would get better. It didn't.
This group of clowns, has beens, and never wheres who commented during this program stayed away from the Custer Battalion actions for fear of someone eating their lunch. The Reno/Benteen meeting, and gab fest, was pure fantasy, as the soon to be published recent work of Fred Wagner proves to my satisfaction, and I have only seen Fred's outline, not the complete text.
Donovan makes some minor mistakes and I believe draws an erronious conclusion or two, but still a good overall battle history. Philbrick's book is a walk through the looking glass with Alice.
PS: One additional comment. I did not recognize one piece of that terrain in the flyover shots. Allen, you were there more recently than I, did you?
|
|
|
Post by Allen Wiener on Jan 19, 2012 20:47:15 GMT -5
Chuck, I did recognize a few brief shots of the river and timber area and route of Reno's retreat shot from Reno Hill. Most of the other shots were not familiar to me; they seemed to be pan shots taken from the air and I did not see any of the many markers anywhere. I'm not sure it was all even shot at LBH. Shots at river level where the Reno fight took place were not familiar as visitors are not permitted down there.
I thought Philbrick's book was well written and interesting, but highly speculative, especially in tracking the alleged route of the soldier who lost his horse, got left behind, and worked his way back toward Reno Hill. As i recall, some of his speculations as to what Custer was up to and what happened in the Last Stand Hill portion of the battle were also interesting and at least well thought out, but still speculative. Since Philbrick seemed to b running this show I didn't understand why they didn't inlcude at least some of that in the program.
I agree that Donovan's book is more thorough and better done overall, if not quite as well written. Giving the reins to Philbrick pretty much shut out the chance of Donovan being included.
Among the problems were the extreme reach of some of the comments. I agree that the government in Washington had decided to get rid of the Indians however they could, regardless of treaty obligations or the lack of any real threat from the Indians had they simply been left alone and allowed to continue hunting and living on at least a portion of their traditional lands. But I don't believe that Custer was involved in that, nor do I believe that he harbored any hatred of Indians per se. I think he saw them as his next assignment, mission, objective, or whatever. I think the idea that he had any political ambition is ludicrous and was pretty much discredited long ago. I do believe he might have been thinking about getting back on the lecture circuit as that might pay him some hard money, which he needed. I did not buy the repeated claims that he was after glory, that he thought his chance for glory was passing him by, etc., etc. I think the guy wanted back in the game and a chance for promotion or other income.
The PBS program just took some of these facts and ran them to ridiculous extremes and conclusions, including the also worn out and discredited attempt to place undue blame on Crook.
Allen
|
|
|
Post by Chuck T on Jan 20, 2012 0:14:14 GMT -5
Allen: I think they took cheap shots at both Crook and Terry. Terry's orders to Custer were written in a typical 19th Century style. I believe the intention was to provide flexability not box him (Custer) into a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation. All in all I thought the whole production was presented to the public by the Goldilocks Admiration Society. Point out a few obvious faults yes, but all in all keeping the Buckskin Cavalier from falling completely off his horse into the horse dung of his own making. I have absolutely no use for a man who would recklessly get 210 good men killed while trying to grab the brass ring of glory.
|
|
|
Post by loucapitano on Jan 21, 2012 16:06:11 GMT -5
I join you guys that were underwelmed by Custer on PBS. If it was just supposed to be an "outline" of the Little Big Horn and the Custer myth in general, I suppose it wasn't a bad job. I've seen much better and much worse on the cable history channels over the years. I'd give this one a C+. There just wasn't enough detail for us "armchair historians." Most of the faults are pointed out in the criticisms so well stated above. There was on factor that was expressed fairly well. That was the belief that while the mission may have been to defeat the Indians and force them back to the reservation, the over riding concern of Custer and the other Generals was that they had to prevent their "escape." I believe the only fear Custer had was that the village would pack-up and scatter unless they were surrounded and captured. No one could have been more shocked than Custer when he saw the Indians not only stand and fight but actually counter-attack with overwelming numbers. Perhaps, upon that realization, he wished he had kept his 5 companies together, occupied a hill top and used their combined fire power to hold off the enemy until relieved. [like Reno and Benteen] I think that's what he tried to do, but by the time he could organize such a defense, he only had about 40 men left, and their brief "stand" on Custer Hill became the legend. I was also disappointed that none of the new theories made possible by the recent archaeological digs at LBH were mentioned. I was glad to see some discussion of Custer and Hollywood. That could be the subject of it's own special. Errol Flynn was the perfect Custer only Hollywood could romanticize. Have a good weekend! GO GIANTS!!!
|
|
|
Post by Chuck T on Jan 21, 2012 18:15:13 GMT -5
Lou: You bring up an interesting point, in fact a couple.
Any coimmander that goes into battle armed with preconceived notions of what the enemy WILL do is a fool. You go armed with the knowledge of what they CAN do. None of these guys from Sherman and Sheridan on down thought that the hostiles would do anything but run and scatter. Custer had no knowledge of Crook's action a week earlier where the hostiles staged a pre-emtive attack at the Rosebud. The 76 -77 campaign was a sea change in the hostiles attitude. I think they could see the end of the road coming and were determined to at least put up a good fight before the enevitable.
Defense on the Custer Portion of the Field: There is only one adequate place to defend on that entire field, that being the extension of what is now called Cemetery Ridge as it leads toward the river. That is the only place an extended defense can be conducted both because of favorable terrain and the proximity to water. Trying to stay or join together in the Calhoun Hill area might provide for a fair place to defend, but for the long haul, and "until relieved" would be a long haul, there is no water. In addition the ground is very broken around it offering good cover for the hostiles who can approach within 100 meters without much difficulty.
For Herb: I know how you feel about E and F going north with Georgie. I have over these past months discussed this with several knowledgible friends, and about half agree. Once I would have too. While I still regard it as a fairly strong possability, I am coming around to an alternative view that he was chased there, never crossing Calhoun Hill, never transiting Battle Ridge until the very last. I am begining to see this whole portion of the fight as two completely disjointed actions commencing somewhere down near Butler Ridge.
|
|
|
Post by Herb on Jan 21, 2012 22:47:54 GMT -5
Chuck, not sure which E & F theory you mean, the recon one or the one I won't discuss on an open forum ;D Despite, what may be my reputation, I'm open to new ideas - that make sense. As you well know, the thing that some people forget, is that commanders generally have reasons for their decisions - even the bad ones, and that those decisions aren't made in a vaccum, but against a thinking, rational, enemy out to destroy you. Any theory that fits that prejudice, and the tactical facts, warrants discussion, imo.
I like your line about preconceived notions of what the enemy will do versus what he can do. Sums up a lot of what makes up "Surprise" in combat.
|
|
|
Post by Chuck T on Jan 22, 2012 9:46:25 GMT -5
The recon theory.
|
|
|
Post by Herb on Jan 22, 2012 10:20:39 GMT -5
Ok, got where you are going. If I understand, you're saying Custer was with Yates bn thru the whole thing, and never with Keogh on Nye-Cartwright, etc. Interesting. Doesn't Curly place Custer vic of Calhoun Hill, when Boyeur told him to leave before Custer killed them all?
|
|
|
Post by Allen Wiener on Jan 22, 2012 10:31:22 GMT -5
Well, I saw the first half of the PBS show and it did not change my opinion of it.
I think there's no question that Custer went into the LBH with heavy duty preconceived notions about how things would play out. He may have partially had Washita in mind, but at LBH he believed that he had lost the element of surprise. He and Terry had chastised Reno only days earlier for failing to attack the camp at once when he had found it on his scout. All of his experience told him the Indians would scatter and the problem was preventing that, not facing a furious attack from warriors. He knew nothing of what had happened at the Rosebud (and there's no way he could have known by June 25).
We've gamed this out 100 times (and I hope we never stop), but maybe the whole thing is simpler than we may realize. Custer wanted to demoralize and frighten the camp into confusion and surrender by attacking suddenly in two locations, perhaps take hostages, perhaps separate the Indians from their pony herd, prevent them from running, and bringing a quick surrender. All of this was predicated on the belief, or preconceived notion, that the Indians were not going to fight beyond grabbing a rifle to defend the camp, and then only until they realized it was hopeless and would opt for surrender to protect their families.
Because of this belief, I think Custer felt safe in doing this whole thing by the seat of the pants -- sending in Reno to create initial panic, moving further north to stage a second attack and frighten the Indians even more, and dispatching Benteen to prevent any Indians from escaping in that direction. There was no consideration of the possibility that the warriors would not only fight but attack with a vengence.
Ironically, Custer did achieve at least part of his objective. Initially, during Reno's attack, the camp was thrown into panic and the warriors who drove Reno back were quickly diverted by news that more soldiers were attacking to the north. They quickly broke off from Reno and headed to Custer. Pure speculation here, but a better coordinated attack by these two units might just have brought about the result Custer anticipated. It would have made it more likely anyway. I keep remembering the Park Ranger at LBH telling me that Sitting Bull later said the whole battle was "a near thing" that came much closer to going either way than people later thought.
I don't recall all the details of Philbrick's book, but I do remember finding his speculation about Custer's movements at and around Last Stand Hill to be very persuasive -- the idea that he was looking for a place to attack, then deciding to attack to take hostages as soon as Benteen arrived with reenforcments and ammunition. I found Fox and the discussion of the archeological evidence, Curly's testimony, much of what is in Gray's second book, Indian accounts, as well as Philbrick's speculations to formulate the best guess to date about what might have happened. I don't think it will ever be 100% clear, as with the Alamo battle, but I do think things quickly deteriorated into a chaotic situation that resulted in men ending up in several small groups in the broader Last Stand Hill area (extending all the way to Deep Ravine), fighting and dying in those locations.
I still need to read the book on E Company.
|
|