MovieChat Forums > MAGolding > Replies
MAGolding's Replies
It doesn't matter for Max's "regeneration" what he does to Fitch.
Max is recruited for a violent robbery in which some people could get killed. In the eyes of the law, anyone who takes part in a crime that results in death is a murderer. Max does nothing to warn anyone about the planned robbery and prevent the deaths that might happen.
On the morning of the robbery, the leader says to shoot the guards to kill. The robbers are planning to kill all the guards.
Max should have changed his plans at that point. When alone with his partner, Max should have killed, disabled, or eluded him and made his way to a place where he could shoot at the robbers from ambush, preventing them from killing all the guards. Or he should have ridden to the gold wagon and warned them of the ambush ahead.
A man brave enough to risk his life in shoot outs for the evil purpose of revenge should be brave enough to risk his life to try to save the lives of other people.
So Max is guilty of letting the guards be murdered and is a murderer himself.
Max is also guilty of letting the other evil, murdering outlaws scatter with their loot. Who knows how many of them are at the beginning of criminal careers which may see them commit evil murders like those of Max's parents. Which could have been avoided if Max found a way to trap the outlaws.
Did Kiowas stay in the same place long enough for Max/Nevada to be healed of his wounds - weeks or days?
Could Kiowas live off the reservation without government rations for weeks or months? Not after the southern buffalo herd vanished in the 1870s, being gone by 1876, soon after the final defeat of the Kiowas, Comanches, and Cheyenne in the Buffalo or Red River War of 1874 to 1875. Maybe that Kiowa camp was on the Kiowa reservation in Indian Territory (modern Oklahoma) and they did periodically get rations.
But the Kiowa reservation should have been hundreds of miles from Abilene (Abilene, Kansas or Abilene, Texas), and dragging the badly wounded Max all the way to the reservation, instead of to the next town, for medical treatment could kill him.
If that Kiowa band was camped for a long time near Abilene (Abilene, Kansas or Abilene, Texas) how did the Kiowas support themselves if it was after the buffalo were gone? If they hunted cattle in place of buffalo the ranchers wouldn't stand for it. Maybe some of the Kiowas worked as cowboys on the ranches.
But the general idea of a band of Kiowas being off the reservation and camped near Abilene (Abilene, Kansas or Abilene, Texas) for a while and the local white people being unconcerned about it instead of calling on the army to take them back to the reservation seems a little dubious to me.
About the possible redemption of Max/Nevada.
He is recruited for a planned holdup. The leader says shoot the guards to kill. He takes part in the planned holdup and apparently all the guards are killed. The outlaws, all guilty of murder, split up with their shares of the loot and Max chases the leader, the only one he cares about, and wounds him and leaves him begging to die.
Meanwhile the other outlaw murderers get away with their loot and Max is a murderer for not trying to prevent the hold up.
In one case Mr. C.S. Fly of Tombstone took photographs at a conference between the US army and hostile Apaches.
About reloading cartridges. I have read that the Sioux Indians invented a way to reload cartridges with black powder.
I thought that it was obvious that the logical way to get at a prisoner is to become a guard at the prison.
Possibly he asked for job and heard there were no vacancies, and thought about maybe making a vacancy by harming one of the guards. And maybe he thought that he didn't want to risk hurting a guard unless he was certain the guard was a sadistic bully.
Maybe he wanted to apply for a guard job but thought that it would be dishonest to become a guard just to help a prisoner escape, possibly having to shoot one of the other guards, and then murder the prisoner. Possibly he found out that guards had to swear to carry out their duties faithfully & obey the laws and thought that murdering a prisoner would violate the oath.
To me it seems really stupid to plan to get into a prison as convict instead of as a guard, unless he thought of becoming a guard but decided he couldn't do it ethically.
So it seems that Nevada was either stupid or hampered by his ethical code.
It may be off topic but I have watched The Time Tunnel episode "Massacre" recently.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8c-kWnx5Vos
A flag looking like a US cavalry regimental standard from that era is seen in several scenes. From about 1834 to about 1895 the design of a US cavalry regimental standard was 2 feet 3 inches vertical and 2 feet 5 inches horizontal, of blue silk with a yellow fringe, and had a version of the USA coat of arms and beneath the eagle a red scroll with the name and number of the regiment in gold.
If you look here: https://www.google.com/search?newwindow=1&biw=1536&bih=1072&tbm=isch&sa=1&ei=8zAsWuSOHozw_AaYp6zoAQ&q=United+states+Cavalry+regimental+Standards&oq=United+states+Cavalry+regimental+Standards&gs_l=psy-ab.12...6450.11844.0.13695.11.11.0.0.0.0.228.1331.3j6j1.10.0....0...1c.1.64.psy-ab..2.0.0....0.aH1-TdjL2m8
The blue flags with eagles are cavalry standards from the period and the yellow flags with eagles are later cavalry standards.
A battle scene near the end of "Massacre" that was used in several western movies has a blue cavalry standard that is about the correct color.
Nobody knows the fate of the regimental standard of the 7th US cavalry in the Sioux campaign of 1876. It might have been left behind at Fort Abraham Lincoln in May, or left behind at the Powder River depot on June 22 when the 7th cavalry left, or carried in the regimental pack train on June 25 and so preserved, or carried in the headquarters group of the 7th cavalry, it's proper place, on June 25 and so captured by the Sioux in Custer's Last Stand.
The prop standard used in "Massacre" doesn't look blue, being sort of purple or pinkish in various shots. Maybe the dyes used to color the prop flag faded and changed color after years of use and storage. Maybe the flag was photographed incorrectly which made it seem the wrong color - though the blue cavalry uniforms looked right.
Anyway, this is a sort of a similar problem to the bad uniform colors in TOS
Such worries are what I call "Fireflying".
I quote from TNG "A Matter of Time":
RASMUSSEN: Let me put it to you this way. If I were to tell you that none of those people died, you'd easily conclude that you tried your solution and it succeeded. So, you'd confidently try again. No harm in that. But what if I were to tell you they all died? What then? Obviously, you'd decide not to make the same mistake twice. Now, what if one of those people grew up
PICARD: Yes, Professor, I know. What if one of those lives I save down there is a child who grows up to be the next Adolf Hitler or Khan Singh? Every first year philosophy student have been asked that question ever since the earliest wormholes were discovered. But this is not a class in temporal logic. It's not theoretical, it's not hypothetical, it's real. Surely you see that?
So you are not the first person to think that way about such problems.
I say that they know that Yonada will strike Daran V and kill 3,000,000,000 people in 396 days unless something is done.
So diverting Yonada will make 3,000,000,000 people more alive on day 397 than they would have been, and on day 398, day 399, day 400, and so on for years and decades. It will add decades to the lives of billions of persons. It makes no sense to avoid doing all that good for fear of the slight probability than in the future someone might be another Genghis Khan, or Tamerlane, or Hitler, or Stalin, or Mao, and kill a measly few tens of millions of persons.
That would be like Rufus T. Firefly in Duck Soup, waiting to apologize to Ambassador Trentino and prevent a war, and wondering if Trentino will refuse to accept the apology, and getting so angry at that hypothetical possibility that when Trentino arrives he insults Trentino again and starts the war.
I accuse everyone who worries that way, about the possible minor bad results of doing major good, of "Fireflying".
What do we know about the planet Darran V?
SPOCK: The course Ensign Chekov just gave for the asteroid would put it on a collision course with Daran Five.
KIRK: Daran Five? Inhabited?
SPOCK: Correct. Population approximately three billion and seven hundred twenty four million, if memory serves me correctly.
And:
SPOCK: Captain, informing these people they're on a ship may be in violation of the Prime Directive of Starfleet Command.
KIRK: No. The people of Yonada may be changed by the knowledge, but it's better than exterminating them.
SPOCK: Logical, Captain.
KIRK: And the three billion on Daran Five.
SPOCK: Also logical, Captain.
I believe that is all we are told about Daran Five.
Maybe Darran V is a Federation member. Maybe Darran V has a treaty of mutual defense with the Federation. etc., etc.
The Prime Directive doesn't prevent the Federation from having open relations, both friendly and hostile, with other space traveling realms.
"Bread and Circuses" describes the full force of the Prime Directive for pre space flight non contacted worlds.
KIRK: The SS Beagle was the first ship to make a survey of this star sector when it disappeared.
SPOCK: Then the Prime Directive is in full force, Captain?
KIRK: No identification of self or mission. No interference with the social development of said planet.
MCCOY: No references to space, or the fact that there are other worlds, or more advanced civilisations.
But Yonada is not exactly pre space flight, and nothing is said about the possible relations of Daran V with the Federation. Kirk and Spock seem to agree that saving Yonada and Daran V doesn't violate the Prince Directive.
And the admiral says:
ADMIRAL [on viewscreen]: Perhaps haven't made myself clear. Let me restate it. You have been relieved of all responsibility for the asteroid ship Yonada. Starfleet Command will take care of the situation.
He says Starfleet command will act, not that the Prime Directive forbids doing anything.
Your reply is good but you make too big a distinction between regular troops and recruits.
US soldiers can be part of the militia or national guard, or part of temporary federal units raised during war, such the the levies in the Northwest Indian War, the US Volunteers in the War of 1812, the Mexican War, the Civil War, and the Spanish American War, the National Army in World War I, and the Army of the United States during World War II, Korea, and Vietnam, or they can be regulars. Regulars are members of the permanent and standing army of the US, the regular army or the United States Army.
A regular can be a new recruit - they all have to start as recruits - or a long term veteran or in between. When the recruits arrive in Rio Grande Col. Yorke says he was promised 180 men but only sent 18. Since he seems to have 3 or 4 troops of cavalry at the fort, the 18 recruits are about 10 percent of his forces. He also has several Navajo Indian scouts.
Major Dundee has at least two troops of companies of the 5th United States Cavalry (regular army) at Fort Benlin, despite the Fifth not being stationed in New Mexico during the war. In real life most of the soldiers in New Mexico during the war would have been in volunteer units raised in New Mexico, Colorado, and California. The black soldiers at the fort would have been members of the United States Colored Troops raised during the war, and probably infantry.
Dundee says he will take only a few soldiers from the garrison and recruits volunteers from civilian and military prisoners in the stockade and from the Rebel prisoners. My thread "Numbers" in the Major Dundee section discusses the numbers.
PS one of the few regular army units that stayed in New Mexico during the Civil War was the Fifth - the Fifth US Infantry that is. In case anyone wonders if the US Army would have enlisted someone who looked as young as Bugler Tim Ryan does, Thomas J. Foy was born 18 July 1849 and enlisted as a drummer in Company G, Fifth Us Infantry, at Fort Defiance on 16 September, 1860, aged 11 years, 1 month and 27 days, being the son of a soldier. Foy was one of over eighty men claimed to have been the youngest soldier in the Civil War.
I remember a scene where they camp by the Rio Grande after chasing the escaped Apaches. Several soldiers were singing around a campfire with Jeff, I believe, and Colonel Yorke was looking rather moody.
The fictional date of She Wore a Yellow Ribbon is 1876 according to the calendar (which oddly doesn't name the month) some time after the Little Bighorn on 25 June 1876.
Rio Grande opens 15 years, 2 months, and some days after the Shenandoah campaign (which was in October 1864 in real history) and thus probably in December 1879. The regiment prepares for a winter campaign which agrees. But there may be a time skip somewhere since the end appears to be dated in July, possibly in 1880.
Fort Apache happens sometime between 1865 and 1880, with the epilogue a few years afterwards.
She Wore a Yellow Ribbon is set at Fort Stark or Starke (like York or Yorke) somewhere near Kiowa territory, and thus probably in Kansas, Colorado, New Mexico, Indian Territory (Oklahoma) or northern Texas.
Rio Grande is set at Fort Stark or Starke which seems to be in southeastern New Mexico or the Trans-Pecos region of Texas, since they cross the Rio Grande to get to Mexico, and since Fort Bliss is a few days ride away and the real Fort Bliss is near El Paso, Texas.
It is unlikely the two forts are in the same place. Possibly old Fort Stark was been abandoned and new Fort Stark built tens or hundreds of miles away between 1876 and 1879. Possibly there is a Fort Stark and a Fort Starke, like York and Yorke. Possibly there are two separate forts with the same name, like Fort Kearney and Fort Phil Kearney named after uncle and nephew, or Fort Collins and Fort Caspar named after father and son.
Fort Apache is set at Fort Apache, Arizona.
Several characters wear caps with crossed sabers and the number 2 in both She Wore a Yellow Ribbon and Rio Grande. Thus the characters in both are members of the Second US Cavalry Regiment, stationed hundreds of miles from where it was actually stationed in 1876-1880.
Thus the relationships between the three movies are rather confusing and they could happen in alternate universes or in the same fictional universe.
In my thread "Numbers" I count the numbers of Dundee's command as well as I can.
It looks like only about 10 to 12 men remain at the end of the movie, out of about 46 or 47 who left Fort Benlin. 10 or 12 men seem like only a handful to me. And that gives about a 75 percent fatality rate for the expedition.
A new theory 11-27-2017
Early in the movie General McCabe returns from Washington with information about the coming campaign against the Sioux, saying that General Osborne will be in overall command. Later, during the campaign, another General meets McCabe and General Hoffman and orders them to converge on the Sioux. Naturally I assumed that General Osborne was the general in charge at the meeting.
But it was planned that General William "Squawkiller" Harney would command the Utah Expedition in 1858 but he was later replaced by Albert Sidney Johnston.
The Marquis of Santa Cruz, the first choice to command the Spanish Armada, died and so The Duke of Medina Sidonia became the commander.
And General Sheridan planned that George Armstrong Custer command the Dakota Column in the Great Sioux War in 1876, but Custer got in trouble and was banned from the campaign. Custer finally managed to be reinstated, but only as commander of the 7th cavalry, General Terry replacing Custer in command of the entire Dakota Column.
These examples show that military plans, including the choice of commander, change in real life.
The credits of The Glory Guys don't list General Osborne. Instead Paul Birch is listed as "Commanding General", the general in command, in the credits. Paul Birch portrayed U.S. Grant several times. And who was the commanding general of the United States Army from 1864 to March 4, 1869? U.S. Grant.
So possibly in the fictional universe of The Glory Guys, it was planned that General Osborne command the campaign against the Sioux but General U.S. Grant, the commanding general of the US Army, replaced him as the commander of the campaign, perhaps in a plot by President Andrew Johnson to get the popular Grant out of the public eye for a while.
A new idea about the possible date 11-27-2017.
Early in the movie General McCabe returns from Washington with information about the coming campaign against the Sioux, saying that General Osborne will be in overall command. Later, during the campaign, another general meets McCabe and General Hoffman and orders them to converge on the Sioux. Naturally I assumed that General Osborne was the general in charge at the meeting.
But it was planned that General William "Squawkiller" Harney would command the Utah Expedition in 1858 but he was later replaced by Albert Sidney Johnston.
The Marquis of Santa Cruz, the first choice to command the Spanish Armada died and so The Duke of Medina Sidonia became the commander.
And General Sheridan planned that George Armstrong Custer command the Dakota Column in the Great Sioux War in 1876, but Custer got in trouble and was banned from the campaign. Custer finally managed to be reinstated, but only as commander of the 7th cavalry, General Terry replacing Custer in command of the entire Dakota Column.
These examples show that military plans, including the choice of commander, change in real life.
The credits of The Glory Guys don't list General Osborne. Instead Paul Birch is listed as "Commanding General", the general in command, in the credits. Paul Birch portrayed U.S. Grant several times. And who was the commanding general of the United States Army from 1864 to March 4, 1869? U.S. Grant.
So possibly in the fictional universe of The Glory Guys, it was planned that General Osborne command the campaign against the Sioux but General U.S. Grant, the commanding general of the US Army, replaced him as the commander of the campaign, perhaps in a plot by President Andrew Johnson to get the popular Grant out of the public eye for a while.
Since the sign at Fort Doniphan says it was founded in 1867 if I remember correctly, the campaign would have to happen in 1867, 1868, or early 1869 if U.S. Grant was the general in command of the campaign.
See also Winchester '73 (1953)
https://moviechat.org/tt0043137/Winchester-73/58c704c74e1cf308b935f1a4/Swastika-Shown-in-the-Movie?reply=5a13b6bbe203d70012d80ed1&animate=false
There is another western movie where an Indian warrior has a swastika on his shield in one scene.
I believe it is the Indian Fighter.
[url]https://moviechat.org/tt0048204/The-Indian-Fighter/58c721fe5ec57f0478eb7418/Why-does-one-of-the-indians-have-a-swastika-on-his-shield?reply=5a13b729e203d70012d80ed4&animate=false[/url]
I don't know much about the culture of the various Indian tribes and nations. What I do know about those cultures makes me very dubious about Hollywood tribal lore. I know a bit more about the culture of the "Cavalry tribe" which would be much easier for Hollywood to research, so knowing how much they make up about the comparatively familiar culture of the "Cavalry tribe" makes me consider that Hollywood mostly made up and continues to make up the cultures of the various tribes in films.
As an example, one of my great great grandmothers, Anne Francis Veronica Hurst (1801-1868) married Jacob Demuth (1779-1842) as his third wife in 1822 if I remember correctly, and had nine children including my great great grandfather. Jacob Demuth was about 22 years older than his third wife and was 2.047 times her age. Curiously, a few days before Anne Francis Veronica Hurst married Jacob Demuth, her father Henry Hurst (1771-1834) married Jacob Demuth's niece - they had children who were Ann Francis Veronica Hurst Demuth's younger half siblings and also her grand nephews and grandnieces by marriage.