| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| terri |
Posted - August 22 2005 : 12:17:28 AM
Okay, here is the scene:
It's June 25th. You are Custer and have just been informed by Mitch Boyer that if you ride into the hostile village you will not come out alive. You have also been in the Crows Nest and HAVE SEEN for yourself the massive pony herd that your scouts claim is amassed on the plains.
You as Custer BELIEVE Mitch Boyer and your scouts. What are your orders?
Me? I send a rider for Gibbons fast and hold on any plan for attack until I disceren what the hostiles will do. Yeah, I know I'm giving Sitting Bull time to ready for battle, but hey, I'm a rookie and this is just a senario. Besides, the hostiles don't know Gibbons is only a day away and they just might have a wait and see attitude like me. And if Gibbons hurries, we can most likely pull it off.
Okay, give me a cigarette and a blind fold please. I'm ready to be stood up next to the firing squad.  |
| 25 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| joseph wiggs |
Posted - August 30 2005 : 5:30:52 PM
Quite correct Wild,debating issues only. This is certainly my preference and, will continue to be so. |
| wILD I |
Posted - August 30 2005 : 2:20:47 PM
Wild, truly think you for your support. It is, as always, appreciated.
Only for the debating point Joe not the personal stuff. |
| joseph wiggs |
Posted - August 29 2005 : 8:49:21 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Cloud
I don't get the reference to a firing squad, Benteen.
There is a great deal that you don't "get" D.c., so allow me to assist you. With the exception of you, every member of this forum would prefer to stick to issues and not be subjected to salvos of crap. You make others uncomfortable because you seem to be obsessed with uttering questionable remarks towards others that have absolutely nothing to do with anything.
An analysis of your posts reveal that you are a walking embodiment of over compensation. I don't mean to infer that there is something wrong with that although one may shudder to think which physical abnormality you are compensating for; your height?.
For those who think D.c. is being "cruel" to me, I can assure you that it is not so. We actually like each other very much. All of this back and forth banter is merely two chums having a lark. May I end this post by saying that the last year with D.c. has been a period of wonder and bliss. Which reminds me D.c., if ignorance is bliss, I'll bet you live so blissfully. |
| joseph wiggs |
Posted - August 29 2005 : 7:14:34 PM
[quote]Originally posted by Dark Cloud
Wild,
What in the world is "memorial" about "Hurrah, boys, we've caught them napping!" I have no preference, but after years of reading your madeup resume and hearing about your neighborhood children and your refusal to admit you lied about your Benteen comments, it's always a safe bet you screwed up. Plus, all the times you clearly posted the exact opposite of what you thought you'd said.
The utilization of a statement, perspective, or action that is blantenly inappropriate may (under specific circumstances)become legendary as an example of what not to do. Looking down upon a massive village of hostile warriors and shouting, "We caught them napping" may seem, to some, bizarre at best, memorial at worst.
By the way, the kids said to tell you Hi!
|
| Dark Cloud |
Posted - August 29 2005 : 6:55:55 PM
Don't feel bad, Wild, it's difficult to know what Wiggs is saying, half the time. The other half, he doesn't know.
Actually, Wiggs, I'm not the one making up terms, declaring them known terms of a certain time period, and unable to offer any evidence for the contention. I've not pretended to what I am not. That would be you.
I don't get the reference to a firing squad, Benteen. |
| joseph wiggs |
Posted - August 29 2005 : 5:59:39 PM
Wild, truly think you for your support. It is, as always, appreciated. My lack of acknowledgment was an unfortunate oversight. D.c., I have been perusing other web sites the last few weeks and have been fascinated by the fact that not one of them, other then our own AAO's board, possess a pompous, effeminate, blowhard baboon like you. Why don't you apply for the position? You can use me for a reference. |
| wILD I |
Posted - August 29 2005 : 4:08:04 PM
Even Wiggs doesn't agree with you.
I was wondering why he did not acknowledge my "support".Ya can't win em all but at least your definition Surveillance is static was wrong. |
| Benteen |
Posted - August 29 2005 : 3:50:44 PM
If I remember correctly someone said, "No firing squad"! I guess that doesn't mean for everyone here, huh...?
Terri ~ "I've been pondering what Custer could have done differently and it all is beginning to come back to Terry's initial plans for the campagin and the lack of communication with Crook, and Gibbons."...."I still don't understand the lack of communication between Crook, Terry and Gibbons. Doesn't make sense. But let me ask you this, put yourself in Custer's place. Boyer and your scouts have basically informed you that if you send the 7th against these hostiles, you won't come out of it alive. What do you do? Do you sacrifice your command? Do you send gallopers to Gibbons? He was only 24 hrs away. Do you attack without dividing your command? I mean what options under the circumstances could one take?"
Then we have the obtuse way of answering a question with a question: "But if Terry and Custer and Crook had easy communication, what were they doing there?"
No I think the real question should be: If Custer wanted easy communication, what was he doing there?! If this is answered then we can find out all about the communications problem. |
| Dark Cloud |
Posted - August 29 2005 : 1:43:58 PM
Wild,
Even Wiggs doesn't agree with you. He said: "I believe Custer's three prong movement, which did,eventually, evolved into an attack, was in the beginning a Surveillance-in-Force. A military tactic of the nineteenth century utilized to gather intelligence while affording minimal protection for each unit. A tactic used when the disposition and exact location of the enemy(read INDIANS HERE)in unknown." See? The exact opposite of what you claim for him. In any event, I've never heard of a Surveillance in Force, much less as a well known miliary term of the 19th century. But then, I've never heard that Ireland was the academic backbone of Africa (where again?), or that selling gas and landing rights was "wetnursing." Perhaps someone can provide proof for either, like the ones who claimed it?
Wiggs,
What in the world is "memorial" about "Hurrah, boys, we've caught them napping!" I have no preference, but after years of reading your madeup resume and hearing about your neighborhood children and your refusal to admit you lied about your Benteen comments, it's always a safe bet you screwed up. Plus, all the times you clearly posted the exact opposite of what you thought you'd said.
Show me an example of where Surveillance in Force is a common military tactic. A few mentions. Google it. Such a common phrase as you contend would show up lots of times. It's just that Reconnaissance in Force comes up a lot, and seems to mean what you thought Surveillance in Force meant.
You keep speaking as if everyone was in agreement with you, Wiggs. If anything, recent events, of which I was unaware till this past weekend, suggest the opposite, although I wouldn't particularly care. There are no posts of mine that could not be read aloud to clergy or grandchild, and that's not the case with some.
The evidence - and there is a lot - for my opinion of you is still up on this message board. If you continue to pose as what you are not, if you denigrate dead soldiers and then lie about it, if you post things not your own as if they were, if you distort quotes to fit your current theories, nothing much will change. That's all up to you. Quite simple, really. |
| joseph wiggs |
Posted - August 27 2005 : 8:34:27 PM
D.c.,if you disagree with an individuals thread, post the rationale for your disagreement and be done with it. If your information is credible you may alter the perceptions of others as a result of substantial evidence. Veiled innuendos designed to ridicule a perspective by implying an inability to use words are patently obvious in its intent. It also exemplifies substantial immaturity.
I chose the definition "memorial" to describe Custer's hopelessly erroneous statement because that sad, and inappropriate remark "serves to help people remember" that history may hold people of note accountable for what they say at a critical point in time. Your preference of "memorable" is understandable and, I have no problem with your usage of it. You realize,of course, that your thoughts are not mine.
Contrary to your personal position,there is nothing "static" about surveying aboriginals whom some classified as the "greatest light Calvary" the world has ever known. You follow them,catch up to them, gather intelligence, then you act upon that intelligence at an appropriate point in time; much of what Custer did. Thus, my usage of my term is valid.
Last but certainly not least,recent events wherein personal assaults resulted in the expulsion of one of our valued members have taught us all a viable lesson, has it not? Every member of this board is well acquainted with your opinion of me;liar, idiot, and pretender. The problem is, that over a year later, we are all tired of you voicing this tired opinion or wasting valuable time hinting at it. Impress new members with your vast intelligence, not your propensity to ridicule others. You will be perceived all the better for it. |
| wILD I |
Posted - August 27 2005 : 3:16:46 PM
The exact opposite. At the Crow's Nest they advanced on the village because Custer thought they'd been seen and the village would be alerted and run. He certainly was not under the impression he was approaching a napping village.
Once Custer was within sight of the village then the Village that is the women,children,old and impedimenta and probably a fair slice of the pony herd were his for the taking.The question is would the warriors have fled as well.I don't think so.I dont think breaking up into small groups and trying to out run Custer was an option.
Surveillance is static,
Depends on whether the object under surveillance was stationery or moving would you not think DC? And It's Reconnaissance-in-Force, not surveillance.Reconnaissance means you are looking for something.Surveillance is the study of what you have found.So I think Joe is right. |
| Dark Cloud |
Posted - August 27 2005 : 1:42:22 PM
It's Reconnaissance-in-Force, not surveillance. Surveillance is static, you see. Reconnaissance-in-Force is pretty self descriptive, I'd think, but in any case it was no product of the 19th century; been going on forever. Further, although the term isn't used, by telling Benteen to scout and attack what, if anything, he found along the way, that pretty much suggests Custer's wishes. No mystery in that. If there has to be a mystery it's why Custer was unable to clearly state this without the need to send further couriers. Or, most odd, why scouts couldn't have accomplished everything faster. Custer was not at all forced into that tactic.
Custer didn't utter memorial words, however appropriate that would be. He uttered memorable words. Or, so we're told. Acts weren't being 'portrayed.' They were being done for real displayed before him.
Again. If hostages were the sure thing, why was Custer worried enough at the Wa****a to have to utilize Ben Arnold's fake? He had hostages. Do you think Gall - who'd lost wife and children - would be slowed down for a second because Custer had some Cheyenne hostages? If ALL the women and children were heading north, then who was, according to some stories, taking down the lodges and packing up? That's a big job. It's about two miles from Sharpshooter to the center of the village through a lot of dust. How would you distinguish gender and age, much less intent, through all that? People were running to get their horses, children, to alert friends, to get ready.
Of what benefit is it for the civvies to leave their worldly goods and huddle in plain sight on foot a short distance away while cavalry torches your village? If Custer burned the village and ran off the horses, wouldn't the tribes HAVE to return to the rez? This hostage theory keeps getting repeated as if it were fact, or made total sense. It could be true, but the evidence seems iffy, and other explanations exist, simpler and that don't violate what's known. |
| joseph wiggs |
Posted - August 26 2005 : 9:35:40 PM
quote:
Originally posted by movingrobewoman
But Joe and wILD ...
Wouldn't your scenario then allow the Native Americans to flee to the north? Wasn't that Custer's primary concern that day, one that caused him to implement the three pronged tactic, not unlike that he employed at Was-hita ... and that his personal battalion would have been able to cut off any potential scattering?
Well, supposedly.
Hoka hey!
This is merely a theory with no corroborative evidence to support it, nevertheless, I will offer it up for discussion. When Custer uttered those memorial words, "We've caught then napping boys",he may not have been referring to a befuddled, sleepy village suddenly aroused from a deep sleep by the startling sounds of the soldier's firing. He may have, and I emphasis MAY HAVE, been referring to two other acts being portrayed before him.
The frenzied rush of the vast majority of warriors towards Reno's skirmish line(or the unanticipated absence of warriors in the village proper)along with the mass exodus of women, children, and the elderly fleeing in terror, NORTH! Such a panorama of events viewed from the heights of Sharpshooter ridge(?) may have elated him to a frenzy of joy. The Capture a substantial portion of the non-combatants while the warriors were confronting Reno's skirmish line would have rendered them completely powerless.
Hence the necessity of Benteen's three troops to augment Custer's five may have prompted the "Come Quick" order. Capturing so many non-combatants required additional manpower and ammunition should the warriors returned prior to Custer's actualizing their capture.
At the very least, Custer did not believe that the warriors were actually napping,rather they (he thought)had unknowingly fallen into his trap. His one shot at success was coming to fruition. The Warriors had, it seemed, in their haste to stop Reno had foolishly abandoned their loved ones. Thus the "Hurrah Boys, we've caught them napping. Unfortunately, for Custer,the nap was extremely short lived.
The events that transpired of the Crow's Nest(as mentioned) and, Girard's spotting of the huge dust cloud heading toward the village convinced Custer that the Indians were, in fact, running.
I believe Custer's three prong movement, which did,eventually, evolved into an attack, was in the beginning a Surveillance-in-Force. A military tactic of the nineteenth century utilized to gather intelligence while affording minimal protection for each unit. A tactic used when the disposition and exact location of the enemy(read INDIANS HERE)in unknown. Native Americans fought in the "guerrilla" style as opposed to the Civil War,Standing Armies style. As such, Custer was forced to utilize the tactic I have referred to. At the Wa****a, Custer was confident of the location of Black Kettle's village. The prong attack was, therefore, utilized to bring havoc and confusion upon a startled enemy caught suddenly by surprise by an enemy coming into the fray from all directions. What Custer did not realized was that for several miles down river, numerous other tribes were station along the Wa****a river. |
| Dark Cloud |
Posted - August 26 2005 : 4:13:59 PM
The exact opposite. At the Crow's Nest they advanced on the village because Custer thought they'd been seen and the village would be alerted and run. He certainly was not under the impression he was approaching a napping village. |
| wILD I |
Posted - August 26 2005 : 04:07:17 AM
Yeah, but wILD, didn't GAC say that on the bluffs,
Sure but that was just confirmation all indications from the Crows nest on were going in favour of catching them napping. |
| movingrobewoman |
Posted - August 25 2005 : 5:47:55 PM
Yeah, but wILD, didn't GAC say that on the bluffs, after the battalions had already been split? Forgive me, I might be mightily confused.
Fat chance. Reno was in charge. |
| wILD I |
Posted - August 25 2005 : 5:33:50 PM
MRW
I still don't think that would have kept him from employing the tactic he used. He's "afraid" they might flee
You miss the point MRW at approx 3.00 he is no longer afraid they will flee he is in "we've caught them napping"mode.He now is faced with the problem of killing them which the silly bugger tries to do by feeding his men piecemeal to them.
Here's a question for you Joe [or anyone else].What is the least number of men Reno required to have successfully charged into the village and survived? |
| movingrobewoman |
Posted - August 25 2005 : 2:43:58 PM
wILD--
Okay, I see what's going on. You're staying true to Terri's scenario, right, that Custer actually believes he's facing certain death. Even then, I still don't think that would have kept him from employing the tactic he used. He's "afraid" they might flee ... his experience (other than at a sleeping Was-hita) has taught him nothing else, so I guess Custer wrote that script, eh?
Hoka hey
|
| wILD I |
Posted - August 25 2005 : 12:59:57 PM
But Joe and wILD ...
Wouldn't your scenario then allow the Native Americans to flee to the north?
They were not in a fleeing mode.They were fishing and making whoopee ya know a normal day and then 600 troopers appear out of nowhere.Move yar robe woman we gota flee northwards like the script says.
Sorry MRW but 600 troopers for afternoon tea? |
| movingrobewoman |
Posted - August 25 2005 : 12:35:44 PM
But Joe and wILD ...
Wouldn't your scenario then allow the Native Americans to flee to the north? Wasn't that Custer's primary concern that day, one that caused him to implement the three pronged tactic, not unlike that he employed at Was-hita ... and that his personal battalion would have been able to cut off any potential scattering?
Well, supposedly.
Hoka hey! |
| joseph wiggs |
Posted - August 24 2005 : 9:44:44 PM
I agree with Wild. A concerted charge, consisting of the entire command, may have presented an overwhelming, military front that the warriors may not have been capable of stopping, despite their superior numbers.
Reno's charge of only three companies resulted in absolute panic and chaos by a majority of the warriors who bolted in the opposite direction when confronted. Only when Reno decided to go into "skirmish" did the Indians regroup and pressed an attack.
Now, for those who may doubt my assertion that Reno ceased his charge when it was not necessary to do so I refer to his own testimony:Reno Inquiry, Graham page 277.
"I deployed and with the Ree scouts on my left charged down the valley driving the Indians with great ease for about 21/2 miles. I however soon saw that I was being into some trap as they would certainly fight harder." Reno then, suddenly, asserts that "the very earth seemed to grow Indians, and they were running towards me in swarms."
How did the actions of the warriors suddenly and inexplicable change from absolute flight to aggressive "swarming"? When Reno charged they ran, when he stopped his charge they recognized obvious tactical indecision and ineptitude and quickly took advantage of the situation.
I am not suggesting that a combined effort by Custer's command would have won the battle. However, it is highly doubtful that any portion of the command would have been wiped out. A charge led by Custer would not have petered out as a result of unsubstantiated speculation and "what ifs." At the very least, a concentrated effort of the entire command would have afforded him an opportunity to extricate his men from the clutches of the hostile warriors. |
| Heavyrunner |
Posted - August 24 2005 : 3:17:29 PM
Sorry, wILD, that wouldn't have worked either... Custer had no chance with the forces at his command except, maybe, to get all 600 killed. In this one, the Indians were better..bigger, better, stronger, faster and, very importantly, far more pissed off. |
| wILD I |
Posted - August 24 2005 : 03:15:35 AM
Do you attack without dividing your command?
Yes.Custer had one chance and that was to attack over the same ground as Reno with the entire regiment. |
| joseph wiggs |
Posted - August 23 2005 : 9:24:44 PM
quote:
Originally posted by terri
Okay, here is the scene:
It's June 25th. You are Custer and have just been informed by Mitch Boyer that if you ride into the hostile village you will not come out alive. You have also been in the Crows Nest and HAVE SEEN for yourself the massive pony herd that your scouts claim is amassed on the plains.
You as Custer BELIEVE Mitch Boyer and your scouts. What are your orders?
Your reaction (in this given scenario)is plausible, reasonable, and completely rationale, particularly when one knows the fatal outcome of this battle. Since it was a total disaster for the military, one can only assume that any military tactic would have been better that what Custer employed;right?
However, the scenario, unintentionally, omits two vital components that are extremely critical in comprising alternatives that General Custer may have utilized; alternatives that may have changed the outcome of this battle.
A. The village could have been as large as the city of Chicago and Boyer's announcement still would have been disregarded. Custer's mission was to chastise the recalcitrant Indians and, he firmly believed the 7th. Cavalry was perfectly capable of performing this task. His personal experiences in Indian fighting reinforced his belief (rightly or wrongly)that Indians normally fled when approached by a large force of U.S. military.
One must remember that the Native American defense force was not comprised of volunteer soldiers with no families, felons running from the law, juveniles escaping the drudgery of a harsh farm life, or "snowbirds" looking for the next gold mine before jumping ship. It consisted of husbands, sons and brothers who were counted upon to supply food for the young and old during the winter. As such, substantial deaths of warriors could be devastating to the tribe. This is why, when given the opportunity, they fled. Certainly not because they were afraid, they were simply smart. The size of a village was absolutely irrelevant regarding its ability to disperse. Survival of the village depended upon the crucial ability to divide and disperse into 360 degrees of flight.
B. The players in this tragedy were members of a nineteenth century society with instilled beliefs, customs, and entrenched sense of right or wrong, totally alien to contemporaneous mindsets. Thus,in the main stream society of that era and geographical location, most were convinced that Indians were savage heathens incapable of meeting and besting the finest the military had to offer. Custer and the 7th Calvary became victims to that ideology when the "heathens" chose to stand and fight for their loved ones.
Ironically, Custer's "tactics" were so successful that there was no time for the village to disperse thus, only one alternative remained; stand and fight.
No military commander of the twentieth century would have approached this battle as did Custer which means absolutely nothing. Warfare has achieved greater standards and success since then. Prior to the battle the vast majority of Americans were confident that the military would be successful. Only after the fatal results did the naysayers and Monday Morning Quarterbacks (then as now)resolve to comprehend this great American failure by scapegoating. |
| terri |
Posted - August 23 2005 : 12:17:28 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Cloud
Oh good. Military manuals. My favorites.
To start, Terry and Gibbons had excellent communication for the time. They rode together.
But if Terry and Custer and Crook had easy communication, what were they doing there? Communication was assumed to be blocked with the Sioux, which it mostly was. Second, they weren't expected to act in close harmony, rather with notional concepts of where to drive the village so as to include the most possible friendly forces. Messengers would tend to ride where the Sioux were not, so it's misleading to say they were 24 hours apart if they had to go around.
I have no real objection to anything Custer did until his micromanagement of Benteen's Scout and his run north leaving Reno. Even so, there can be good and valid reasons for that.
But heading NORTH from MTC along the ridges was stupid if intentional. I still think the first companies to attempt to cross at MTC were blunted and ran to Calhoun and LSH while the back companies, unclear what was happening, provided downhill covering fire as they rode north to unknown purpose. I don't think Custer intended this. Awful ground for cavalry, and he'd avoid it.
If he were going to cross, MTC was his best chance. Riding north to another place lost any surprise and pulled a greeting crew to him, making the move rather stupid. But he didn't have enough guys to make a go of it and that MUST have been apparent at the time MTC backed up on him. I don't understand any of that, and the highly detailed dance lines purported as accomplished by a force on the offensive strike me as nutty and based on the location of shell casings that could have any number of other reasons for being there.
Wow, I've got a lot of reading to do on this subject. I'm certainly a newbie. And it's a safe bet, I wasn't a military guy in a past life. Just kidding.... :)
|
|
|
