| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Benteen |
Posted - July 26 2005 : 1:25:48 PM
I think without any doubt that what contibuted the most to this horrible disaster was ~ Mistakes. While most simply refuse to believe that Custer could have disobeyed any orders. What most will admit to is that he made mistakes, or bad errors in judgement. Here in this one instance. Human error and/or human transgression while in the performance of one's duties are considered separately. One having nothing what~so~ever to do with the other. Are most blinded by faith, or am I missing something here?
While Custer has been, and still is idolized as a brilliant strategist, leader, and a credit to his profession. These tragic errors in judgment made by him that disastrous day. Epitomize someone who was either totally unprepared for what occured. Which seems unfathomable to most. Or he had a plan. Which went totally beyond the Twilight Zone of being believable. Most try to absolve him of any wrong doing. And we are perpetually replaying over and over those tragic events. Desperatly trying to find out ~ what went wrong.
Most try to place blame upon the junior officers of the regiment. Most notably Reno and Benteen. Citing quote and verse about all thier errors in judgment along with their supposed disobediance to orders.
What are we as amateurs, professional researchers, book writers and who ever else is out there left with? To be brief! Holding the perpetual black hole bag! Forever falling into the trap of history's myth's and the legends of old.
If Custer made errors in judgment? If Reno made errors in judgement? If Benteen made errors in judgment? What does that tell us about this battle? Each error was a crutial element in Custer's battalion's annihilation! Each error interlinks and tells a story that is quite the reverse of this historical heroism that most try to aspire to. Sadly, Custer was too late the hero!
What happened? This question has been bounced around for so long. And so many myths have grown up around and within each myth. That the answer may never be found. And likely never will be. The most important question remains ~ WHY?
Was Custer totally unprepared for battle that day? Which in turn, if answered "yes" does explain not only his errors. But those of his junior officers as well. And in turn. Can a point of reference be found within the testimonies that does point to this?
The arguement for years has been: That the soldiers from Custer on down felt that the indians wouldn't fight. And instead run! Yet past battles proved time and again that this theory wasn't to be held in reverence! This arcane feeling of urgency to attack a village that was alarmed of their presence without preparation seems unjustifiable. And unfounded as well. The indians had stood their ground on other occasions. And could easily do so this day. As they did.
The insane thing about this is: Where did Custer think they were going? A village this size would have taken an enormous amount of time to pack up and leave in any organized way. Were the warriors just going to leave the old, the women and the children behind? Or were they all just going to mount ponies and leave everything behind? Many of the indians walked. Not all of them rode ponies to the next camp sites. Where were they supposed to get ponies to ride? And what about the aged, and infants and young children? To leave without taking proper precautions as to their condition would have had disastrous consequences. No George that huge village wasn't going anywhere, was it? And if it wasn't going anywhere. What was the warriors supposed to do? Lay down their weapons at the 7th's appearance? I don't know about anyone else. But this all seems too well scripted to be true!
Because of all the above and the confusion it has created over the years. Where the discussion usually goes from here, is about personalities and their agenda's. Each person of note, Benteen, Reno, and Custer all sharing a unique portrait of sanctimonious saint hood, or reviling evil! No two people seeing eye to eye on anything! Yet these 3 personalities lived together, worked together, and fought together on previous occassions for how long? One would think that one of these would have gone elsewhere, or at least requested to do so! Seeing as they hated one another so much, or did they? What glue held these 3 commanders together? Where is the common bond? Instead we look for the things between them that made discord, disobediance, and dastardly deeds the issue. A narrow vision at best, wouldn't you say? If all of us were to judge our co-workers in such a way. Only seeing the bad side of their character. And never the good. What would future historians say? Too long the focus has been upon worst between these commanders! Too long the crutial facts of their common bond have never been told. And to be honest. Those common bonds. If found. Would have more to tell than all the dirt one can ever find. Find the common bonds, and you find the truth.
***********************************
|
| 11 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| joseph wiggs |
Posted - August 08 2007 : 9:09:06 PM
I know of no photo that would include Custer and Benteen. You can find a myriad of photos which include the "Custer Clan" or, individuals who were related, friends, or predisposed to Custer.
Ironically, it seems that as many soldiers who admired Custer there were an equal number who despised him.
|
| Brent |
Posted - August 05 2007 : 2:43:24 PM
Makes you wonder at what point he DID realize they were fighting??
There is an old saying in the military:
"The COMMANDER is always responsible for what his unit does--or fails to do"
Obviously that has many difficulties connected with it, but that's the official way the military will always look at things. Which is why Custer(and not Benteen or Reno) is "officially" resposible for LBH.
And interesting that Reno and Benteen--neither a Custer "confidant", were in command of the units that day.
Is there any existing photo of Custer and Benteen and Reno together?? I've seen some of Custer with Calhoun, Godfrey, Keough, Boston, Tom, and others. But none (as far as I know )with Benteen or Reno. He didn't spend any time with them, it seems, and that spelled trouble later--.No "harmony"--
To understand Custer and the negative effect he had on some officers, you MUST read "Life in Custers Cavalry" by Albert Barnitz. It's really a collection of diary entries by Barnitz and letters to his wife--all "real time" and not made up years later, or under oath at a military hearing. You'll notice he (as an officer)didn't think much of Custer, and shows why!! Also some interesting comments on tactics and training--. |
| AZ Ranger |
Posted - March 25 2006 : 11:41:51 PM
There could be dozens of mistakes that Custer could had made.First he desided to attack without seeing what he is really up against.He should had sent a scouting party out to see what they are facing.Mostlikly the indians would have attack anyway.There is his part of the battle.He should have protect his horses.He had his command to far from each other .Which they coulded give each other surport.By kepting his command in close formation.He should had headed away from the village.By doing this he made or made not drew the indians away from the village.The indians could easyly went back to attack Reno.Then he could have turn and attack the warriors from the rear.Whild they were attacking Reno. Custer didn't believe the Indians were willing to fight rather than run away. That was the big mistake.
|
| kenny |
Posted - February 24 2006 : 6:17:19 PM
There could be dozens of mistakes that Custer could had made.First he desided to attack without seeing what he is really up against.He should had sent a scouting party out to see what they are facing.Mostlikly the indians would have attack anyway.There is his part of the battle.He should have protect his horses.He had his command to far from each other .Which they coulded give each other surport.By kepting his command in close formation.He should had headed away from the village.By doing this he made or made not drew the indians away from the village.The indians could easyly went back to attack Reno.Then he could have turn and attack the warriors from the rear.Whild they were attacking Reno. |
| AZ Ranger |
Posted - February 06 2006 : 10:11:12 PM
"Well, they started packing up around midday of the 26th and left around sunset about sixteen hours ahead of Terry's arrival, which doesn't suggest blinding speed or panic. Reno's guys suggest a hours long evacuation at some leisure. They had new clothing and equipage and left stuff they didn't need any more, including donations for the dead." My point was that they were fully capable of leaving when they chose to do so. This was the fear. In less than half a day, maybe as little as two hours, with word that Gibbons was coming they cleared out. Considering the size of the village that to me is an impressive speed. Certainly fast enough to be gone before Gibbon arrived. So if Custer had reconnoitered further or just sat and waited till the 26th the Indians could have left. Even if Custer waited till the morning of the 26th, Gibbon would not have been there in time to help Custer if it played out in the same way. Custer would have been dead even with the delay till the morning of the 26th. If Custer hadn't run into the Indians on the 25th Terry might have met them. According to some Indians their plan was to move right where Gibbon's and Terry scattered group was located. |
| Dark Cloud |
Posted - February 06 2006 : 8:54:31 PM
Well, they started packing up around midday of the 26th and left around sunset about sixteen hours ahead of Terry's arrival, which doesn't suggest blinding speed or panic. Reno's guys suggest a hours long evacuation at some leisure. They had new clothing and equipage and left stuff they didn't need any more, including donations for the dead. |
| AZ Ranger |
Posted - February 05 2006 : 3:41:37 PM
The insane thing about this is: Where did Custer think they were going? A village this size would have taken an enormous amount of time to pack up and leave in any organized way. Were the warriors just going to leave the old, the women and the children behind? Or were they all just going to mount ponies and leave everything behind? Many of the indians walked. Not all of them rode ponies to the next camp sites. Where were they supposed to get ponies to ride? And what about the aged, and infants and young children? To leave without taking proper precautions as to their condition would have had disastrous consequences. No George that huge village wasn't going anywhere, was it? And if it wasn't going anywhere. What was the warriors supposed to do? Lay down their weapons at the 7th's appearance? I don't know about anyone else. But this all seems too well scripted to be true!
It would appear to me that is exactly what the village did do when they found Gibbon was coming. The indians left in a short amount of time. They were gone before he got there which was the fear. Didn't take very long considering all the loot and injured they had to leave with after fighting with Crook then Custer. |
| RonH |
Posted - August 06 2005 : 2:24:56 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Warlord
RonH:
And I would say pretending to be personally insulted over posting a bunch of non-fact guano is neither justification nor vindication of crappy posting!
Or perhaps you have decided to go into detail about the Wa****a and why the indians who geathered around Custer did not attack him! Or even better, to provide the board with a good military tactical analysis of the LBH and how other decisions that could have been made, would have affected it! Of course, that will take some research to dig up the facts! Then in light of the facts, formulate some genuine hypothesis!
Warlord, I wasn't going to respond to this, because you obviously know very little about what happened at LBH, and troll this board to insult others who want to discuss something of mutual interest.
Your posts are full of nonsense, such as "adopting an obsolete rifle" when the cavalry used a springfield .45-.70 carbine . That went through extensive field tests, and had proven to be superior in range and accuracy. complaints about the difficulty in extracting fouled cartridges wasn't an issue until long after the battle, and was not an issue with the officers and men at the immedidate conclusion of the battle.
"Leaving the cavalry's primary shock and hand to hand weapon at home, the sabre" Are you serious? The soldiers would have been far better served with two Colt's revolvers, if they indeed needed to carry more weapons. These inexperienced soldiers wouldn't have known what to do with a sabre.
"Not making sure each man had 300 rounds of rifle ammunition, broken shell extractor, and 100 rounds of revolver ammunition on his own body. Come on, how much would all of that weight? What does your research tell you?
You say "allowing Custer to leave infrantry units, Gatling guns, or pack Horitzers (Howitzers?) home! Have you sir, ever really read about this battle? When did infrantry units ever bring plains indians to battle? Let alone capture their village.
There is just so much nonsense in your posts, while you sit back and ridicule others by telling them to do research.
Based on all these nonsensical ideas you have posted, don't be surprised when you don't get a response. It's not because your arguments are well thought out and researched, believe me.
No, it's a lot easier to claim you have been insulted, then run for it!!!
|
| joseph wiggs |
Posted - July 30 2005 : 2:49:02 PM
[quote]Originally posted by Benteen
I think without any doubt that what contributed the most to this horrible disaster was ~ Mistakes. While most simply refuse to believe that Custer could have disobeyed any orders. What most will admit to is that he made mistakes, or bad errors in judgment. Here in this one instance. Human error and/or human transgression while in the performance of one's duties are considered separately. One having nothing what~so~ever to do with the other. Are most blinded by faith, or am I missing something here?
While Custer has been, and still is idolized as a brilliant strategist, leader, and a credit to his profession. These tragic errors in judgment made by him that disastrous day. Epitomize someone who was either totally unprepared for what occurred. Which seems unfathomable to most. Or he had a plan. Which went totally beyond the Twilight Zone of being believable. Most try to absolve him of any wrong doing.
/quote]
Benteen, a very good read. Well thought out and substantial in content, as usual. However, I am not certain that your first two paragraphs are completely on the mark. I do not believe that history has afforded General Custer with a special dispensation from his obligations as the commander in this battle, as evident by the raking of his name, common sense, and martial abilities across the coals of infamy.
Regarding human error/transgressions in battle, these commodities are always subject to an scrutinizingly and unforgiving "how come" by the masses; after the fact. While all of the circumstances that precipitated this battle are know to us, they were not know to Custer. This is the most significant dilemma in second guessing historical figures; reality is often sacrificed in the process and re-invented by augmenting personal views to the mix. Military acts that are grossly negligent are obvious, nothing Custer did was grossly negligent. In fact, an argument could be made that he did what he was suppose to do and, what was expected of him to do by his superiors.
With all respect, I have read many things about Custer but, never, have I read where he was referred to as a "brilliant strategist, leader. During the Civil War, he was admired by many of his men because he always "Led" the charge into the midst of the enemy. Such action inspired admiration from the troops who were not accustomed to a "fighting general." Unfortunately, his charges probably resulted in the needless death of his men.
When one understands that the need to "punish" the recalcitrant Indians was of paramount importance to the U.S.Goverment, one then begins to comprehend the zealousness of the battle plans created by the high command of the military. Believe it or not, had Custer kept his forces together and, they somehow managed to escaped, he probably would have been censored.
Not knowing the exact location of the enemy during this particular era (sans contemporaneous electronic equipment)called for a recognizance-in-force, a perfectly acceptable tactic of the nineteenth century. The same tactic was utilized at the Battle of the Wichita and was successful. Custer is seldom criticized for this action;because he won! Ironically, had he not captured over a hundred woman, children, and old folk during the process, the infuriated warriors from a village that strung for seven miles down river, would have annihilated his command piece meal. It is my personal belief that he had every intention of performing a similar feat at the LBH; capture of the non-combatants would have rendered the warriors as ineffective there as they were at the Wa****a. Despite their reputation for being "savages" the warriors would not have jeopardized their loved ones needlessly. |
| RonH |
Posted - July 27 2005 : 12:54:04 PM
I would only say that insulting others is neither arugument or discussion |
| RonH |
Posted - July 27 2005 : 06:36:50 AM
Custer's biggest mistakes were overestimating his soldiers and underestimating the Indians. He had seen the Sioux skittish and cautious on the Yellowstone, had sent troops to charge them and watched them scatter. He had seen them gather in hordes around his regiment while in the Wa****a village, and yet left his regiment alone. He knew of course, that any small party was in peril, but he obiviously thought that with 3 troops Reno and Benteen both had a formidable striking force. He obviously was unafraid with his five troops, venturing miles down the river beyond supporting distance, although I think he waited for Benteen to come up. His soldiers just were not experienced cavalrymen such as he'd led to victories in the civil war. The terrain didn't lend itself to cavalry tactics, and the Sioux were able to dictate the tactics on the battlefield. It's so easy now to find fault with his tactics, knowing the result of the battle. He can always be portrayed as a buffoon in over his head in an Indian fight. And I do not believe he disobeyed any orders, but was used as a scapegoat just as his supporters used Reno as a scapegoat later. There was certainly enough blame to go around, starting with army policy. And, how many of you would like to have a subordinate like Benteen in your command? |
|
|
