Historical references in Firefly by DontCallMeLawrence

GENERAL DISCUSSIONS

Historical references in Firefly

POSTED BY: DONTCALLMELAWRENCE
UPDATED: Wednesday, March 29, 2006 14:19
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 6080
PAGE 1 of 1

Thursday, March 16, 2006 10:02 PM

Seeing as Firefly is a very historically based show, this is my attempt to start a little american history thread.

please post any musings on specific or general events referenced within the show, or parallels and similarities seen.

or just your personal thoughts on the post-civil war west and the post-unification outer rim.

Lawrence

P.S.
This is most likely a desperate attempt on my part to find some fellow browncoats who are as obsessed with the civil war and west as I.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 17, 2006 4:29 AM

BROWNCOAT1

May have been the losing side. Still not convinced it was the wrong one.

I am very much a War Between the States buff and love discussing it.

What are your thoughts on the parallels to the American conflict? You know of course that Joss read the book "The Killer Angels" and it inspired him to create Firefly.

__________________________________________

"May have been the losing side. Still not convinced it was the wrong one."

Richmond, VA & surrounding area Firefly Fans:

http://tv.groups.yahoo.com/group/richmondbrowncoats/

http://www.richmondbrowncoats.org

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 17, 2006 5:44 AM

ZOOT

I aboslutely love and find riveting the US Civil War and the settling of the West - but speaking as an English woman, I never seem to know quite enough about them - despite having read a huge tome entitled "The West" and watching the wonderful Ken Burns' Civil War on the History Channel every Saturday ... (in passing once also saw a Ken Burns thing on the Indian Wars which was fab) ...

Would be very interested to hear what anyone else has to say re the links between FF and history though ...

***************************************

Okay, I'm lost, I'm angry, and I'm
armed.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 17, 2006 6:36 AM

DONCOAT

I'll throw one into the mix, though it may be a bit controversial.

One facet of the American West was the tendency for fringe religious groups to migrate there to establish communities free from government and/or social oppression. The most obvious example of this was the Mormon faith, aka Latter-Day Saints (LDS), who were hounded out of a couple of locations further east and finally settled in the Great Salt Lake area. The state of Utah is predominantly LDS to this day.

Now, these fringe religious groups often had unconventional ideas and practices that made them anathema in more settled regions. In the case of the LDS, these were the acceptance of some very, shall we say, unusual scriptures, and the practice of polygamy.

How does this relate to Firefly? Well, we didn't learn much about the hill people portrayed in Safe, except one thing: they have some very unusual religious beliefs (which sanction the burning of "witches"). These are certainly unconventional even in the 'verse at the time, judging by Inara and Book (the two crew members who seem to profess any significant faith).

Could this community have been a veiled reference to the LDS or other, similar fringe groups who settled on the American frontier?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I don't disagree on any particular point.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 17, 2006 7:50 AM

KUANGZHEDE

The historical connection that I see in relation to American history is more of the overall symbolism that the show expresses. As with Manifest Destiny, the 'verse, particulary on the outer fringe has a since of longing for new hope and new opportunities. Mal's plight is similar to that of many confederate troops who headed west from their occupied and devistated lands, doing mercenary work, crime, searching. The fringe of the 'verse is any many ways comprable to the mind set of early american settlers heading west. People had a sterotypical veiw based on lack of knowledge about the peoples and dangers of the west. More myth than reality. Reavers, while not a direct comparison to Native Americans, share many of the sterotypical views earlier settlers had: Savages who will rape you to death and wear your flesh is not a new idea. More over, in Serenity, Miranda(Reservations and the Far West)is a nice little example of how early US goverment, in an attempt to calm and control the population uses Pax...aka whiskey and pox blankets. While Reavers hit settlements and ships (wagon trains and early settlements) and preform barbaric acts, the debree feild they hangout in reminds me of the difficulties of crossing the Rocky Mountains. The converted transport ship hit by Reavers trying to start a new life in a distant land is another example.

The people in general struggling to survive and cut out a peice of the 'verse to call there own. The hope of the west was a chance to start over. Criminals gaining power and creating a false front as respectable business men.

As hero's go, the history of the west is full of hero's who in essense were anit-hero's which Firefly seems to be full of. Wyatt Earp was not that the same guy who used to be a child actor for Disney. Janestown is a good example of this. Disease is a important part in exploration and settling and firelfy touches on that as well in the Train Job( well and its a train heist lol). Heart of Gold gets your nice emperical leader similar to land owners of the west who owned unclaimed territory in which they were the law (oh yeah and hookers.) The fact that the haves and have nots population spread is similar to the old west where a few men have all the power, no middle class to speak of, and the rest scrapping along is nice. Mals' gun, though I know we know what real gun it is, is very similar to the early line of colts. Zoe's gun looks like a chopped down winchester. Book is a missionary traveling to the fringe to spread the word as was common in the old west. Robbing the payload in Serenity- Butch Cassidy and Sundance.

Sitting around the dinner table has always fascinated me. That an entire group of people eat together around a gas lamp (fire) reminds me of wranglers. Speaking of which, they do move cattle don't they? In that regards to, the sword duel, while I am sure Mal would have prefered his pistol, that is similar to old west shot outs when a persons honor had been insulted. Also noticed that the coffee is made on the stove, I think, in that super european (was it porshe?) pot. If not, I know it was on the stove when Jane got a cup.

When the Fed's encounter Serenity and discuss shooting first if they run into the brother and sister, and latter Mal ask if this is his first command on the fringe, I am reminded of the atrosities of US troops, sent west to quell crime and uprisings under the guise of protecting the citizens, under pompous and uninformed "green" generals which sometimes got them killed (why does everybody assume I am talking about Custer?)

Sorry for the long post, I just keep thinking of things. If you like the West or want to learn more in general, see "Into the West" very good

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 17, 2006 6:20 PM

DONTCALLMELAWRENCE

shiny!

some fellow buffs.

Does anyone know if Joss has confirmed that The Battle of Serenity Valley was based on Gettysburg?

I sort of assumed due to the Killer Angles inspiration, but in the firefly deleted scenes Zoe does mention some stuff that is reminiscent of Fredericksburg.

Early on in the show there where some obvious references. The Georgia Galaxy, Jubal Early. One of my personal favorites is the exchange between Zoe and Mal"This is why we lost, you know. Superior numbers." Zoe: "Thanks for the re-enactment, sir.", and then of course the line about rising again.

I always felt that Lawrence Dobson, from the first episode, was a nod to Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain. And that Mals name was inspired by John F. Reynolds...

...So many Confederate ideals so many Union names... but that is neither here nor there

And now the big question...
... How valid is a future that so mirrors the post civil war west. Could it happen?

If I get a response I'll post my opinion on that one.

Lawrence

******************************

Tom: The men from 2nd Maine are being fed, sir.

Lawrence: Don’t call me sir.

Tom: Well, Lawrence, Great God A-Mighty–

Lawrence: You just be careful of that name business in front of the men. Listen, we don’t want anybody to think there’s favoritism.

Tom: General Meade has his son as his ajutant.

Lawrence: That’s different. Generals can do anything. Nothing quite so much like God on earth as a general on a battlefield.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 17, 2006 8:25 PM

CABOT

You can toss in former Confederate soldiers such as Frank and Jesse James turning to a life-of-crime after the war, robbing banks and trains. (Of course in their case, what they did after the war was pretty much what they did during the war too...)
____________

River: Midbulk transport. Standard radion accelerator core class-code 03-K64. Firefly.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, March 18, 2006 4:30 AM

MICJWELCH

Quote:
Originally posted by DonCoat:

Could this community have been a veiled reference to the LDS or other, similar fringe groups who settled on the American frontier?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I don't disagree on any particular point.

You sounded like you were hoping for a responce, so here goes. I'm LDS myself, and I don't find what you said so contraversial. I think Joss Whedon modeled the show after the old west, so that included pretty much everything people have referenced here, including the religious groups leaving persecution. I'm certainly glad though that the LDS church didn't get the same treatment it did in Starship Troopers. That was weird.

I'm not sure that any of the references are DIRECT references though. The civil war, the churches, the government... I think Joss Whedon simply modeled his 'verse after our own. I don't see anything to suggest that Joss Whedon thinks the southern states should have seceeded. I don't think he's trying to say that our government is out to "make us better." I don't think he's really very politically motivated. I think he's just trying to tell a story. And a story is more believable and relatable (is that a word?) if it is close to something we already know about.

"We may experience some slight turbulence, and then... explode."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, March 18, 2006 4:43 AM

DONTCALLMELAWRENCE

I found the payroll robery in Serenity veary Jesse James

Tom: The men from 2nd Maine are being fed, sir.

Lawrence: Don’t call me sir.

Tom: Well, Lawrence, Great God A-Mighty–

Lawrence: You just be careful of that name business in front of the men. Listen, we don’t want anybody to think there’s favoritism.

Tom: General Meade has his son as his ajutant.

Lawrence: That’s different. Generals can do anything. Nothing quite so much like God on earth as a general on a battlefield.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, March 18, 2006 4:54 AM

DONTCALLMELAWRENCE

I'm going to be out and with no computer access all weekend, but will hopefully have a chance to do a longer post after that.

but just for the record the confederacy was completely justified in seceding.

I love the war in general. My favorite general is Chamberlain (Union), but I do lean to the Confederate when it comes to ideals.

******************

Tom: The men from 2nd Maine are being fed, sir.

Lawrence: Don’t call me sir.

Tom: Well, Lawrence, Great God A-Mighty–

Lawrence: You just be careful of that name business in front of the men. Listen, we don’t want anybody to think there’s favoritism.

Tom: General Meade has his son as his ajutant.

Lawrence: That’s different. Generals can do anything. Nothing quite so much like God on earth as a general on a battlefield.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, March 18, 2006 3:56 PM

DOLLWEN

Also, in Jaynestown (the title itself seems to be a reference to Jamestown), the mudders are called "indentured servants": when people first started to settle in the colonies, they needed more people to work in the fields. A lot of Europeans were too poor to afford to take a boat to America, so the settlers paid their journey, and in exchange these poor people had to work in the fields during 5 or 7 years without getting paid. They were called indentured servants. This system worked for a while, but the indentured servants were treated so badly that they ended up rioting. Afterwards, nobody wanted to have indentured servants anymore, so they had to find another way to make people work in the fields without having to pay them, and that's when they started to make Black people come from Africa and to use them as slaves.
So these mudders in Jaynestown are probably people who come from an even crappier planet than that one, who wanted to go to Boros but didn't have the money to do so, and who work there to repay their "spaceship ticket".

"If wishes were horses, we'd all be eatin' steak"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, March 19, 2006 7:41 AM

SHEPARD

Quote:
Originally posted by DontCallMeLawrence:
And now the big question...
... How valid is a future that so mirrors the post civil war west. Could it happen?

Most everyone is familiar with the idea that history travels in cycles. This is incorrect. History is a series of interconnected events which flow from previous occurances to form a web of unique instances. The cyclical appearance of history occurs only because people focus in on a particular series of events and their aftermath, ignoring the bigger picture. What remains the same is humanity, and the fact that when faced with same issues we react in similar ways. Therefore, given a set of circumstances in the future resembling the post civil war west, we would likely react in a similar fashion. This is currently happening in the world today, look at states with weak governmental control, especially Somolia.

Hell. It's special.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, March 20, 2006 4:28 AM

SERENITYSHADOW

Some of you guys might think this is stupid. Others, maybe there is something to this: Towards the end of "Serenity," Zoe moves forward of the line while firing at all the reavers coming into the room. Jayne calls her back after she kills a few bad guys, but they keep pouring in of course. Though maybe just a microcosm of something that happened at the battle of Gettysburg, which we all know how much Joss W. seems to have been influenced by; Gen. Dan Sickles similarly moved all his troops forward on the second day of battle, leaving an enormous gap in the Union line despite repeated orders to move back and close the hole. Detailed accounts of Gettysburg will often cite this as one of the big Union errors of that day. Also like Zoe, Sickles was seriously wounded.

Now, not to harp on Zoe. Wash had just died and she was obviously taking out some revenge on the reavers. But, people often wonder what the hell Gen. Sickles was doing when he brought all of his troops forward. Maybe things were getting personal for his union troops. They ought to have been, I suppose. They were all finally fighting in Union territory.

That's just my two cents. And, I have watched "Serenity" way too much.

"I aim to misbehave."

SerenityShadow

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, March 20, 2006 7:19 AM

BROWNCOAT1

May have been the losing side. Still not convinced it was the wrong one.

Quote:
Originally posted by DontCallMeLawrence:
shiny!

some fellow buffs.

Does anyone know if Joss has confirmed that The Battle of Serenity Valley was based on Gettysburg?

I don't believe that Joss has ever come out and "officially" said that the Battle of Serenity Valley mirrors the Battle of Gettysburg, but the similarities are too stark to think it could be otherwise. For the Independents the Battle of Serenity Valley was key to their fight for independence. The loss of that battle was pivotal to their defeat at the hands of the Alliance. The same is true of Gettysburg. The Confederacy needed a large victory in the Eastern theatre to prove to England & France that she could win the war, hoping they would officially recognize her & offer to mediate a peaceful end to hostilities. The loss at Gettysburg marked the end of hopes for European intervention and for the most part the hopes of a Confederate victory in the war.

__________________________________________

"May have been the losing side. Still not convinced it was the wrong one."

Richmond, VA & surrounding area Firefly Fans:

http://tv.groups.yahoo.com/group/richmondbrowncoats/

http://www.richmondbrowncoats.org

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, March 20, 2006 8:06 AM

WEICHI

I think some of the posts are overthinking this a tad. I agree that Firefly is more Old West then post Civil War. Admittedly, the romance of a "lost cause" is there, but it is more of a general reaction to being hemmed in, to civilization heading west.

This is particularly true in the total downplaying of the military leadership in Firefly. Much of Lost Cause lore is worship of the great leaders, of defending ones State against the Union. But in what we got to see of Firefly, it was all individuals, the leadership was useless, folks seemed to be fighting more for their own personal independance, then for any particular colony or governing structure.

On some particular points - since Joss read Killer Angels, I think the Reynolds connection might be a good bet, the Chamberlain - Lawrence Dobson seems a stretch.

The Sickles thing is a stretch too, Zoe was all about avenging her man. By the way, there are folks who believe Sickles forward movement had merit, they bled the Confederates, reducing their elan before defending the position that must be held. I agree Sickles the idiot is the majority opinion.

On the comment that a victory at Gettysburg could have led to European recognition, I disagree. Those hopes were dashed in Maryland at the Battle of Sharpsburg 10 months before. Not only was Lee sent South there for the first time, but Bragg was stopped in the West as well. This gave Lincoln the clout to make the Emancipation Proclamation, and this finished Southern hopes of recognition. Once the war became about slavery, and the South became the only western nation clinging to slavery (putting aside vestiges of Serfdom in the Russian Empire) Europe could no longer choose the side of their market and raw material supplier, but had to stay out, England and France, the only countries that truly matter in this analysis could not intervene, offically, for slavery. Furthermore, a victory at Gettysburg would still have cost lives the South could not afford, and Vicksburg would still have fallen the next day.

See how I'm not punching him, I think I've grown!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, March 20, 2006 8:36 AM

CLIOMUSE

Quote:
Originally posted by Shepard

What remains the same is humanity, and the fact that when faced with same issues we react in similar ways. Therefore, given a set of circumstances in the future resembling the post civil war west, we would likely react in a similar fashion.

Well said. As an historian and an anthropologist I wholeheartedly agree. History appears to go in cycles because basic human nature doesn't change much and we keep doing the same things to one another. We learn from our "mistakes" and repeat them anyway.

I had friends who had problems with the "backwardness" of some of the behavior on the rim planets in "Firefly." They didn't think it was realistic in light of how "civilized" we are now and where we would be in 500 years. I pointed out that many a pioneer family left a pretty civilized existence in the East to go West where they frequently lost the trappings of polite society when faced with the harsh realities of practical survival.

If the two dominant cultures in the 'verse are China and the US, then you would expect colonization to follow these cultural models. For example, I can see a religious sect moving to a planet where they will be tolerated and becoming more and more insular and dissimilar from the "dominant" culture are time goes on. Or a bunch of survivalists moving to a marginal planet where they think they won't be interfered with. Maybe that is why we didn't see many Asians in the parts of the 'verse the crew frequented. It was just too Western!

Thank you Joss Whedon for giving us something to chew on.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, March 20, 2006 10:35 AM

CAPERCAILLIE

What an interesting thread!

As it happens, me and mine just returned from a sojourn to Gettysburg and Antietam. We are "Mainiacs" and Bowdoin grads, so of course, we made a pilgrimage to Little Round Top. The kids got a big kick out of finding the name Jubal Early on one of the markers!

A point of interest about the Battle of Gettysburg, key turns in the three day battle occur in the matter of minutes, i.e. someone arrives in the nick of time, Buford holding the Ridge until Reynolds can arrive, the Alabamians arriving from a long march to move right into battle.

I think Mal has a quote in Bushwacked in which he says he fought on the losing side, not the wrong side. It reminds me why I like this show - there are no good guys or bad guys, there's just folk, full of the foibles and failings that humans have. I liked Babylon5 for that reason too - there were just two different points of view, not necessarily a right one and a wrong one.

All I can say here is, visit the battlefield. It is truly "awesome".

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, March 20, 2006 12:02 PM

DONTCALLMELAWRENCE

Quote:
Originally posted by weichi:
On the comment that a victory at Gettysburg could have led to European recognition, I disagree. Those hopes were dashed in Maryland at the Battle of Sharpsburg 10 months before.

What you have said is commonly repeated in history books and the like, but it is wrong nonetheless.

It is true that after Sharpsburg (Antietam to you Union folks) Union war aims changed, but that doesn't mean Confederate ones did. For the Confederate soldiers it was never a war solely to maintain the institution of slavery, and this didn't change post emancipation proclamation.

I don't truly believe that Europe would have actually come into the war, actually declared war on the U.S. at any point. They may have kept up their behind the scenes help. Sending supplies, helping to build raider in their ports. But this doesn't mean that the C.S. didn't still have hope that they would, and that hope was still there during Gettysburg.

This is very understandable as there was a British royal official present at the time. He was traveling with the C.S. army as an observer for the queen herself.

Also there is quite a difference between the pre and post civil war west. Firefly is decidedly post civil war west.

Lawrence

Tom: The men from 2nd Maine are being fed, sir.

Lawrence: Don’t call me sir.

Tom: Well, Lawrence, Great God A-Mighty–

Lawrence: You just be careful of that name business in front of the men. Listen, we don’t want anybody to think there’s favoritism.

Tom: General Meade has his son as his ajutant.

Lawrence: That’s different. Generals can do anything. Nothing quite so much like God on earth as a general on a battlefield.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, March 20, 2006 3:20 PM

WEICHI

Apparently you disagree with me and the history books, I am not certain that makes me wrong however.

I never said that the Emancipation Proclamation changed Southern war aims, but it did change the nature of the conflict in terms of foriegn reaction. Britain and France had long turned their backs on slavery, and while sympathetic with the South as a trading partner as opposed to a competitor, this affinity was trumped by Lincoln's upping the ante.

Your claim that the south still hoped for recognition at Gettysburg may well be true, but it has nothing to do with reality. Lee's troops did not want to surrender and still had hope at Appomattox let alone Gettysburg. The fact that a sensible ruler wanted to observe the tactics of a new conflict does not mean that recognition was on the menu.

See how I'm not punching him, I think I've grown!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, March 27, 2006 1:03 PM

DONTCALLMELAWRENCE

yeah, so I'm bored, and this threat has kinda died.

So hear goes my attempt to bring it back.

I love firefly and all, but does anyone just feel like discussing the war... the civil war that is... or war between the states, war or northern aggression, 2nd revolutionary war... whatever you want to call it.

We could have an argument, god knows there is enough controversy surrounding the war for that.

Or just discuss Generals you love or hate, different stories from the period, ancestors you have, period music, dress, or even movies about the war.

Lawrence

****************************
Tom: The men from 2nd Maine are being fed, sir.

Lawrence: Don’t call me sir.

Tom: Well, Lawrence, Great God A-Mighty–

Lawrence: You just be careful of that name business in front of the men. Listen, we don’t want anybody to think there’s favoritism.

Tom: General Meade has his son as his ajutant.

Lawrence: That’s different. Generals can do anything. Nothing quite so much like God on earth as a general on a battlefield.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, March 29, 2006 2:19 PM

KIZYR

I've been on a little hiatus with posting, so I'll gladly revive the thread with my thoughts. I'm a history nerd myself, though I may not be as well-read as some folks. That and growing up in Tennessee, you learn a decent amount about the Civil War by default.

Quote:
Originally posted by BrownCoat1:
I don't believe that Joss has ever come out and "officially" said that the Battle of Serenity Valley mirrors the Battle of Gettysburg, but the similarities are too stark to think it could be otherwise. ...

Situation-wise, and how that particular battle fit into the whole scheme of the War, I would have to agree with you. But my first thought regarding what the Battle of Serenity Valley would mirror would be Shiloh; what stands out in Mal and Zoe's mind right now isn't just that they lost the battle and hence the war, but that they witnessed so much devastation in that one battle--and, with regards to the loss of life, so much death as well.

That brings me to another thing... Most Civil War deaths occurred in the barracks, not the battlefield, with infected wounds, sicknesses, etc. etc. There's another parallel there with how so many Browncoats died on Hera after the battle was already over.

It's not just how wars can resemble each other when you're in the worst part of it, but the style of the Civil War and Unification War was markedly similar when you look at it from a certain perspective, as well.

Quote:
Originally posted by Cliomuse:
I had friends who had problems with the "backwardness" of some of the behavior on the rim planets in "Firefly." They didn't think it was realistic in light of how "civilized" we are now and where we would be in 500 years. I pointed out that many a pioneer family left a pretty civilized existence in the East to go West where they frequently lost the trappings of polite society when faced with the harsh realities of practical survival.

Very, very, very true. But that reminds me of a related point... The Firefly 'verse doesn't just take off of history, it takes off of the present day as well. Now we have the same degree of disparity with technology, too, and that's something I honestly do not believe will change. Not in the next 500 years, not in the next 1000. There'll always be those areas with the latest technology, and those that still make-do. Over here, we might have huge agribusinesses and tractors to farm immense tracts of land the size of a county. Yet most farmers in the world still make-do with oxen-pulled plows.

That's how it is. Poverty today often isn't a lack of resources, per se, but a lack of distribution--that can be distribution of resources themselves, or distribution of the methods by which to procure more resources (technology, e.g.).

Anyway, to continue in the historical spirit of this thread, am I the only one that believes there're a few similarities between the Operative and Gen. Custer? The Operative may very well have been a quite celebrated figure during the war--not widely celebrated, but lauded among the tiny few who gave him orders. And here he is post-war still carrying out military business on the frontier.

Oh! And huge similarity between Little Bighorn and the Reaver-Alliance battle! The Sioux at Little Bighorn managed to hide their numbers from Custer's sight due to their better knowledge of the topography of the area. When they'd drawn Custer's men in far enough, then they surrounded and attacked him.

Hills and dales... Ion clouds... Taking advantage of overconfidence.... It's all there. Only thing lacking is how the Operative isn't really a 'celebrity' like Custer was in his day.

This is fun; hopefully other folks will feel like picking up this thread once again. KF

~KF

Lord, I'm walking your way. Let me in, for my feet are sore, my clothes are ragged.
Look in my eyes, Lord, and my sins will play out on them as on a screen. Read them all.
Forgive what you can and send me on my path. I will walk on until you bid me rest.
~Haven Prayer

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

YOUR OPTIONS

SHARE THREAD

NEW POSTS TODAY

USER	POST DATE

USER

POST DATE