you are currently viewing: Discussion Forum
 
 

 
 

The Rorke's Drift VC Discussion Forum
(View Discussion Rules)

** IMPORTANT MESSAGE TO ALL USERS **

PLEASE NOTE: This forum is now inactive and is provided for reference purposes only. The live forum is available at www.rorkesdriftvc.com/forum


(Back To Topic List)

DateOriginal Topic
31st August 2003Timewatch.
By Trevor
Watched a programme in the week about General Custer and his "Last Stand!!!" A bunch of AmateurYank Archaeologist/Historians. Did a very professional job on surveying and collecting data on the area of the Little Big Horn. The way that they put all of the information together to come up with a very accurate picture of how that battle went. Could well be used on the site of Isandlwana. To give you an example of their technique. Any spent rounds they found had there own unique data fingerprint on them. Each rifle fired, left its own individule signiture. The firing pins of each rifle left their individule imprint on the spent case! This meant that if you new who owned the rifle. You could place that person on the battlefild by the spent cases he left as he fired! Full marks to the yanks that carried out their survey. Becuase what they came up with went totally against the American Myth of Custers last stand! I would love to see what they came up with at Isandlwana.
DateReplies
31st August 2003Melvin Hunt
I also saw the programme. I totaly agree it was terrific stuff and based on hundreds of recent finds on the battlefield. As I watched the programme it struck me that no one would be able to do such a similar good job at Isandlwana as there is, apparently, probably less than one percent of original battle debris left to find.
31st August 2003Trevor
Disagree Melvin!
These 2 battles were fought about the same time. Both battle sites have been pawed over for the last 100+ years by locals and visitors alike.
I am sure you'll agree. The yanks who did the the Little Big Horn survey were very thorough. If the materials out there. They would find it!!!
31st August 2003Steven Sass
I believe the program you mentioned appeared in the US via the Discovery Channel on a show called 'Unsolved History.' While their argument is compelling enough based on the evidence they chose to bring forth, my thoughts are that this is a classic example of presenting only certain data so as to not muck up their neatly tied little hypothesis. This program set out from the beginning to bust the "myth" of any sort of heroic resistance by Custer and his men. To belive some of the rhetoric in this show, one would have to imagine the troopers throwing down their arms in fear and scattering, tears in their eyes, without any regard to discipline. The narrator repeatedly demands that the viewer, based on thier findings of course, must now replace their long cherished politically incorrect beliefs, with this new acceptable account of the battle. Much of the show's premise is based on the lack of shell casings found on and in the vicinity of Last Stand Hill. What is never mentioned is that this area was the prime target of souvenir hunters for 50-75years. These so called "researchers" didn't even bother to factor in any allowances for error within their sample. While much is made of Custer's Command being wiped out to the man, the viewer is left with the impression that the troopers did not inflict a single casualty on the enemy. Also not mentioned are the accounts from the Indians themselves, well documented (see 'Military Classics Illustrated' Summer 2002 "Death Rode Many Ponies that Day,"-The Plains Warriors who Defeated Custer, by Dan Gagliasso, for a good summary) stories that the fight was indeed a good one with the soldiers "selling their lives as dearly as possible" while they stood back to back. According to the narratives which come from many of the warriors, the Indian strategy was militarily very intelligent and pragmatic, with the Indians creeping up the hill, taking shelter by "lying down in gullies and behing sage brush hillocks (Cheyenne Warrior Wooden Leg)." Most of the Indians were unwilling to charge the groupings of troopers until the ammunition was expended. Of course this was probably the safest and smartest way to bring the battle to its inevitable conclusion but a far cry from the tale of the screaming terror-overcome bluecoats running away in all directions to be cut down. I find it hard to ignore the actual words of the victorious combatants and replace it with a conclusion based on an archaeologic sample that has in reality been "tampered" with by over 125 years of weather, predators and scavenging souvenir hunters.

My guess is that some overseas viewers may not be as attuned to the propoganda undertones put forward. I would ask that those that have seen the show watch it again but view it from the perspective of a truly scientific analysis, considering all the data, not just their neat little slice. Be glad that these amateur Yanks have not reinterpreted the events of Isandhlwana. Gone would be the stories of the Noble 24th, replaced with visions of Lt. Younghusband curled up, lying in the fetal position, tears in his eyes and a hand raised in supplication. Can't wait to see the "long lost" painting "recently discovered" and telling the "real truth," done of course by an "enlightened" C. Fripp.

Thanks for listening,

Steven Sass
31st August 2003Miguel
I tend to agree with Steven. Apparently no one has taken into consideration the avid souvenir-seeking usual in every major battlefield, or the weather, which would make invalid this kind of 'forensic' researchs.

In the case of Isandhlwana, if one were to imagine the battle considering only the place empty cases or tin buttons were found, disregarding accounts made by people who were there, a very different and unrealistic story would be told.

I believe something on this matter has been said already in this site.

Of course, the last word in this subject belongs to J. Young and the other learned experts in this forum.

Miguel
Canary Islands

1st September 2003James Garland
I must say I find many of these modern battlefield excavations depressing. It seems that no one is ever content with conducting an excavation that confirms what is already known. There always has to be "astonishing new facts!!!!" revealed. Or the discovery of data which invites us to "reassess long held beleifs!!". It seems that every new excavation has to turn history on its head. I think this is perhaps because it makes better television. however it makes for bad science.
It also seems that the data revealed in many digs is used selectively to prove a hypothesis. Then people fall into two or more groups either rubbishing the research or using it to support their own historical viewpoints.
In the end we just have a lot of dead soldiers or warriors graves turned over for entertainment or pseudo science.
1st September 2003Steven Sass
Sorry, we all know Younghusband was a Captain at the time of Isandhlwana. Yes, I was horrified to see my mistake in print too!

Mea culpa,

Steven
1st September 2003Neil Aspinshaw
I did cough a bit when they said The Little Big Horn is the "only" battlefield of its type in the world, where the course of the action can be found by the graves of the participants. They obviously hadn't been to Isandlwana!.
Re-writing history is an emotive subject, sometimes the truth does hurt.
Take Isandlwana & Rorkes Drift, Nearly all written and oral history has been and would have been based upon "the authority" of the time, i.e The washing of the spears and the "offical histories". I have just finished (for the third time!), The excellent books Zulu Victory and The Hill of the Sphinx. Both books have their own interpretations about particular incidents/causes. i.e the ammunition question.
Most of the recent archeological evidence has removed those grey areas, I believe that history and science do have an enormous part to play in all of this. I would rather be given hard facts and make my own conclusion.James does over-react, There is and will always be "astonishing new facts", Did anyone see the programme on the "Ice sailors",who died on Franklins ill fated North West passage expedition. buried in the permafrost, the remains showed they did not of cold, but of Lead poisoning from faulty tinned food cans.
There was elements of television on the Custer programme which was "for entertainment", it has to... if not 50% of the viewers would simply not carry on watching if it was merely specific historical data. Long live this type of programme, beats all these dreary, "slit your wrist" soap operas that the wife classes as valid entertainment!.

Neil
1st September 2003Trevor
Read your reply Steven Sass, and have to say I am a bit confused buy some of your points relating to the programme I saw!
You mention they used only "certain data" in making up their minds? What data do you think they left out in coming to their conclusions?
It was mentioned in the programme that over 50 Indians where killed in the engagement!
1st September 2003Trevor
Sorry!!!! I just caught the "Add Reply Key"
Account was taken of Indian transcripts of warriors who fought there!
I saw no propoganda value for these enthusiasts bringing forward a conclusion that smashes one of their own countrys myths!
These weren't anochists. They were honest men/women trying to find the truth, using new technology and hard work.
I really think Steven. You were viewing a different programme?
But thanks very much for the feed back mate.
Trev
1st September 2003Mike McCabe
It seemed to me that the presenters had used an 'all sources' approach to research the narrative sequence of the battle, and then simply indicated where the remaining archaeological finds tended to reinforce the most likely sequence of events. What was not clear is how human remains were being trated. Had there been some recent initiative to rebury those on the battlefield, and trail? Lastly, 'facts are neutral', as long as they can indeed be deemed factual and in an intelligible context.
1st September 2003Steven Sass
Trevor,

Perhaps there was a different version editied for American TV but I honestly can't remember that point being made. My major complaint was, the entire body of accounts describing the battle from the recorded Indian point of view, which just happens to contradict the majority of the shows points, was not alluded too. The fact that the show made no effort to explain mitigating factors which may have altered the archaeological record shows a lack of proper scientific method. I also feel that the tone was further slanted to disparage the reputation of the soldiers by hardly mentioning Reno's retreat, considered a tactical victory, as an overwhelming ammount of attackers were unable to drive Reno and Benteen's shattered force from the field.

Within minutes of the program opening I was aware of what the conclusion was destined to be and the show followed a narrow course to that end. As I said before the main flaw in their methods was devining a comprehensive conclusion based almost entirely on their survery findings and ignoring the accounts of the victors, who would gain little propoganda benefit from exaggerating the courage of the vanquished. As individual accomplishment in battle was paramount to the Indian's sense of honor, if a warrior was thought to be lying about overcoming a brave foe in combat, that warrior would surely have been disgraced by his fellows. Adding greater credibility to the Indian accounts is that even though they were recorded by different interviewers over a wide span of time, they all attest to a well fought battle by a courageous foe. (See testimony from Brave Bear-Cheyenne, Wooden Leg-Cheyenne, Little Bear-Hunkpapa, Elk Nation-Hunkpapa and White Bear-Minneconjou who gave some of the most vivid description of desperate hand to hand combat, purportedly with Custer himself; as well as many others)

Hopefully we are talking about the same show. I admit it's been awhile since I've seen it, so I may have forgotten a few of the minor points. However, I still stand by my assertion that this show was done to prove a certain point and only evidence supporting that point was brought forth. Just my opinion but I hardly believe it was "fair and balanced."

Steven
3rd September 2003Trevor
Steven.
Think we'll have to agree to disagree on this one mate.
But thanks for taking the time to input!
Trevor.
3rd September 2003Steven Sass
Trevor,

I'm just glad a forum exists in which I can have intelligent discussion with people who have like interests. I truly enjoyed the debate. Who knows, next time we may be on the same side of the issue. Thanks as well!

Steven
8th September 2003Matt
Captain Benteen, walking the field two days after the battle noted the lack of spent cartridge cases in Custer's final position and declared that the fight was a "rout". Now I know Benteen is traditionally regarded as being scornful towards Custer but the archeological findings do support his statements and at the very least should be noted.
11th September 2003Dan Gagliasso
Steven,

Thanks for the mention of my "Military Classics Illustrated" Custer article. By shear circumstance I am now working as a writer/director/producer on the same Unsolved History series for Discovery Channel you are all talking of. I didn't work on that particular show, but am finishing up a Donner Party wagon train show as I write. Any time I can find my name favorably mentioned on a web site called roke's drift VC - that a real treat - Long Live the 24th and the Men of Harlkech.

My best,

Dan Gagliasso
12th September 2003Steven Sass
Hi Dan,

It was my pleasure to cite your 'MCI' article. It is truly one of the most informative, well written and yet concise articles I have read on the subject. My well worn copy of the magazine is testament to that.

Congratulations on your position with Unsolved History. I have no doubt the program you are creating will be of exceptional quality. If you have any plans for books or articles in the future would you please drop a line to me and let me know where I can procure them?

Best of luck in your career,

Steven Sass
17th September 2003dan gagliasso
Steven,

Again my thanks for the praise. I'm a long time Zulu War buff due to the movies, I sold my very first magazine article on the making of "Zulu Dawn" back in 1981 to the American "Military Modeling" magazine, it had Melvile & Coghill on the cover with the Queen's Color from the film. Right now the Donner party show, an American Wagon Train that became stranded in the Sierra mountains, is my Unsolved history project. Fighting an uphill battle against executive producers who don't like history, just want to jazz it up, without ryhme or reason. I will have a book out in the next 2 years on "The Celluloid Custer" the films of Custer' Last Stand, am changing publishers from te University of Nebraska Press to University of Oklahoma press. Unfortunately "Military Cassics" is now defunct, the publishers had no idea of what to do with it. Last issue had a 95th rifles bloke on the cover probably 7 or 8 month ago. This rorkesdriftvc site is a great site. Glad I ran into it.

Dan Gagliasso
9th April 2004steve
hi.......
anyone read ian knights book on isandlewana and rourkes drift?
i also watched the programme he presented on discovery from the battlefield.
the book is riveting,but alas the guys gone native.
the battle was the sum of its parts i.e
ammunition,troop disposition,over confidence
(re the xhsosa campaign earlier)and the pathetic attempts at leadership by crealock,
and chelmsford.
as usual the red coats stood shoulder to shoulder back to back,and paid the ultimate price in an army that was still a gentlemans
club with purchased commisions.
i am with garnet wolsely,chelmsford was a disgrace,pity he died playing billiards instead of the slopes of isandlewana.
9th April 2004steve
hi.......
anyone read ian knights book on isandlewana and rourkes drift?
i also watched the programme he presented on discovery from the battlefield.
the book is riveting,but alas the guys gone native.
the battle was the sum of its parts i.e
ammunition,troop disposition,over confidence
(re the xhsosa campaign earlier)and the pathetic attempts at leadership by crealock,
and chelmsford.
as usual the red coats stood shoulder to shoulder back to back,and paid the ultimate price in an army that was still a gentlemans
club with purchased commisions.
i am with garnet wolsely,chelmsford was a disgrace,pity he died playing billiards instead of the slopes of isandlewana.
19th December 2004dennis
hi folks,

This post comes late in the discussion, but as an american I do indeed see some of us out to change our historical record with "findings" that show heroic stories from our past to be "myths". With regard to Custer, please remember he was fearless in the Civil War, was in the front line of any number of engagements and was repeatedly praised for personal bravery under fire. Additionaly the troopers of the 7th were a tough lot, Irish immigrants, dock workers, former civil war veterans, men who did not scare easy, and all knew their fate if taken alive by the "noble" red man. I have no doubt they fought to the last man, surrender was out of the question and there was no place to run.
This current crop of historical contrarians is essentially engaged in the practice of badmouthing western civilization. Towards that goal they pretend to be seriourly engaged in finding the "truth" about stories like the Alamo, George Custer and Isandlewana.
One only has to look at the defense of rorkes drift to see how the individual soldier conducted himself in all these battles.
thankyou