| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| joe wiggs |
Posted - July 05 2008 : 12:45:46 PM
Many believe Custer entered this battle without proper preparation or planning. Many believe that he did. Here is your opportunity to voice your opinion as to what you believe. Everyone is invited,including guests, to offer their rational to substantiate their reasoning.
Did Custer act according to a military plan? |
| 25 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| joe wiggs |
Posted - July 30 2011 : 11:59:07 AM
Please, please, please! Your acknowledgment of making an error belies your sincerity! Your past postings decry "foul" to such a blatantly insincere statement of accepting responsibility for error;a gesture you are not known for.
Your simplistic (albeit sarcastic)response is inundated with an inexplicable sense of superiority that denies an approach of reality. You think to much of yourself to actually admit a mistake unless your faux pas is obviously obvious such as it tis in this case.
I would have thought more of you if you had simply not responded to an obvious "sting". Or, a plain acknowledgment would have sufficed.
In all sincerity, shouldn't an officer's first duty be to his men; they whose lives are entrusted to his care?
|
| AZ Ranger |
Posted - July 18 2011 : 08:22:08 AM
Actually it is a typo mistake unlike you I can admit an error. In your case that would be a full time job. |
| joe wiggs |
Posted - July 16 2011 : 8:03:22 PM
What's a "purposea?" Is it anything like a mammal that swims under water? |
| AZ Ranger |
Posted - July 12 2011 : 10:10:32 AM
Your use of quotes rather than comments serves what purposea? Your imbedding quotes within quotes. |
| joe wiggs |
Posted - June 26 2011 : 11:17:04 AM
quote:
Originally posted by AZ Ranger
quote:
Originally posted by joe wiggs
contrary to your often excessive,inexcusable,boorish,and immature need to label statements contrary to what you believe a "lie" I will not follow suit in my response. The acts I described were, obviously, above "standard" performances. To say that there were "no outstanding performances by officers that day" implies one or two things:
a. you were unaware of the actions I described when you posted;
b. you were aware of the actions but, decided that they were insufficient to be regarded as exceptional actions;
c. That saving the command, jumping off your horse to save another's life, etc. is merely standard behavior;
d. you don't read what you write.
Personally,I choose d.
As for the second paragraph, "insufficient funds" was not a true answer as well you know it. Just as it would have been impossible to find a source for the Grinch Who Stole Christmas, it was also a truism for your attempt to find a source to substantiate what you wrote.
Well at least you have backed your false misrepresentation of my statement that's a start. I think you are confusing individual behavior with my point of an officer making outstanding leadership decisions that effect the outcome of the engagement. Military relies on decisions of officer to accomplish the mission.
quote:
In your example of Godfrey covering the retreat do you think its expected of company commanders to cover a retreat? Is it for example in the textbooks on how to preform a retreat when the enemy is coming from the rear only? Which company left a trooper to his fate in the retreat?
quote:
Organized "coverage" when pursued by the enemy is standard procedure. Any "retreat" without coverage is detrimental to "organization" which is the essence of the term organized movement. I'm astounded that you, apparently, are not aware of this vital information as you seem to be so opinionated in these areas on a regular and sustained basis.
So look again at my statement.
Sounds fair enough to me. There were no outstanding performances for officers that day. At the same token I believed they acted within acceptable ranges for officers.
quote:
Godfrey's actions were outstanding as he prevented a second fiasco of the type initiated by Reno whose failure of leadership resulted in chaos and lost of command. The fact that you are unwilling to appreciate this point does not devalue its worth.
If you can not see it is relative to their total performances rather then any single individual act then I can't help you with that. I don't know how to make it any clearer for you on what I meant.
quote:
The clarity of your thought is so muddy with inaccuracies that a rational comprehension by me is impossible. The reality is that you make a completely erroneous statement, got caught with your pants down, and attempted to counter with a puzzling, non-comprehensive response that defies logic to all others but you.
So if it confused you than I am sorry for that but it does not change my point. Following you view you would have to say Reno did an outstanding job of riding in the front of his battalion as they approached the village look at Private Peter Thompson's account of how outstanding that was in his narrative.
quote:
b]Astoundingly, your summation of my "view" is the opposite of what I have written and that point is obvious to any and all who have read this post other than yourself.
It appears that you sole purpose when one does not agree with you is to misrepresent what they state and then have and idiotic multiple choice question or some other diatribe. Joe you are the one keeping people from posting with your antics.
quote:
Again, I must admit that you have numbed my senses with the addition of yet another unbalanced conclusion as I have perceived your responses as doing just that, keeping others off the board. Doesn't,t say much for either one of us does it?[/b]
Joe my statement is about total performances of officers in making officer decisions and not some individual act that is why it includes the wording acceptable ranges. If you want to argue with what I meant you lose since it also keeps others from wanting to post.
quote:
b]The total performance of the officers were poor at best and, in some cases, criminal at worst. That you see the Reno enclave antics as acceptable explains everything.[/b]
AZ Ranger
|
| AZ Ranger |
Posted - December 07 2009 : 09:31:46 AM
quote:
Originally posted by joe wiggs
contrary to your often excessive,inexcusable,boorish,and immature need to label statements contrary to what you believe a "lie" I will not follow suit in my response. The acts I described were, obviously, above "standard" performances. To say that there were "no outstanding performances by officers that day" implies one or two things:
a. you were unaware of the actions I described when you posted;
b. you were aware of the actions but, decided that they were insufficient to be regarded as exceptional actions;
c. that saving the command, jumping off your horse to save another's life, etc. is merely standard behavior;
d. you don't read what you write.
Personally,I choose a.
As for the second paragraph, "insufficient funds" was not a true answer as well you know it. Just as it would have been impossible to find a source for the Grinch Who Stole Christmas, it was also a truism for your attempt to find a source to substantiate what you wrote.
Well at least you have backed your false misrepresentation of my statement that's a start. I think you are confusing individual behavior with my point of an officer making outstanding leadership decisions that effect the outcome of the engagement. Military relies on decisions of officer to accomplish the mission.
In your example of Godfrey covering the retreat do you think its expected of company commanders to cover a retreat? Is it for example in the textbooks on how to preform a retreat when the enemy is coming from the rear only? Which company left a trooper to his fate in the retreat?
So look again at my statement.
Sounds fair enough to me. There were no outstanding performances for officers that day. At the same token I believed they acted within acceptable ranges for officers.
If you can not see it is relative to their total performances rather then any single individual act then I can't help you with that. I don't know how to make it any clearer for you on what I meant.
So if it confused you than I am sorry for that but it does not change my point. Following you view you would have to say Reno did an outstanding job of riding in the front of his battalion as they approached the village look at Private Peter Thompson's account of how outstanding that was in his narrative.
It appears that you sole purpose when one does not agree with you is to misrepresent what they state and then have and idiotic multiple choice question or some other diatribe. Joe you are the one keeping people from posting with your antics.
Joe my statement is about total performances of officers in making officer decisions and not some individual act that is why it includes the wording acceptable ranges. If you want to argue with what I meant you lose since it also keeps others from wanting to post.
AZ Ranger |
| joe wiggs |
Posted - December 05 2009 : 11:53:28 AM
contrary to your often excessive,inexcusable,boorish,and immature need to label statements contrary to what you believe a "lie" I will not follow suit in my response. The acts I described were, obviously, above "standard" performances. To say that there were "no outstanding performances by officers that day" implies one or two things:
a. you were unaware of the actions I described when you posted;
b. you were aware of the actions but, decided that they were insufficient to be regarded as exceptional actions;
c. that saving the command, jumping off your horse to save another's life, etc. is merely standard behavior;
d. you don't read what you write.
Personally,I choose a.
As for the second paragraph, "insufficient funds" was not a true answer as well you know it. Just as it would have been impossible to find a source for the Grinch Who Stole Christmas, it was also a truism for your attempt to find a source to substantiate what you wrote. |
| AZ Ranger |
Posted - November 30 2009 : 10:35:25 AM
Originally posted by joe wiggs
Are you suggesting that the historical events of bravery are standard responses in warfare. You made a statement that everyone involved in this battle performed badly. When I pointed out how incorrect you were, you immediately denigrated these brave actions with the quaint "thats what they bring weapons for."
Let's start with my original statement that shows that you lie Joe.
Sounds fair enough to me. There were no outstanding performances for officers that day. At the same token I believed they acted within acceptable ranges for officers. The nature of hitting a moving target of unknown size with the exception to the rule of flight is what I believe was the major factors influencing the outcome.
Are you implying that you contradict the history of warfare by alleging that that ever soldier armed with a "weapon" performs in the same manner? If so, please, again, post your resource. If you find one, just one I will write you a blank check.
[/quote]
Insufficient funds |
| joe wiggs |
Posted - November 29 2009 : 7:36:18 PM
Are you suggesting that the historical events of bravery are standard responses in warfare. You made a statement that everyone involved in this battle performed badly. When I pointed out how incorrect you were, you immediately denigrated these brave actions with the quaint "thats what they bring weapons for."
Are you implying that you contradict the history of warfare by alleging that that ever soldier armed with a "weapon" performs in the same manner? If so, please, again, post your resource. If you find one, just one I will write you a blank check. |
| AZ Ranger |
Posted - November 26 2009 : 11:17:48 AM
quote:
Originally posted by joe wiggs
quote:
Originally posted by AZ Ranger
There were a few officers that performed admirably that day.
Godfrey established a skirmish line on the retreat to Weir's Point that, in all probably, prevented Reno's command from being wiped out as well as Custer.
Joe that is basic tactics not something exception but standard
quote:
This is possibly, I'm not sure, but it just may be the most preposterous statement you have ever made. you state before the forum that no one performed admirably in this battle. I show you several examples of outstanding performance that saved Reno's command and you relegate these efforts to the trash bin. Anything to be right huh az, any port in the storm. you are absolutely amazing
.
An Indian sharpshooter was systematically picking off troopers from Sharpshooters ridge When French and others fired toward the warrior and silenced him. While shots were being fired all about him, it is said that French calmly dug out stuck rounds from carbines without flinching.
Again basic, What do you think they brought their weapons for?
quote:
az, listen up. Soldiers were dieing. They were being picked off one by one. Men were loosing their wits and their stomachs and, the possibility of panic threatened to overwhelm them. French's "aim" saved the day. Weapons brought to battle do not automatically equate weapons used effectively
.
Benteen, with enemy rounds about him and men begging him to take cover demanded that Reno reinforce his line of the battlefield and, personally led a charge against encroaching warriors.
Did Benteen lead the charge or form it? Did Reno go on the charge?
quote:
There were two charges. One was definitely led by Benteen. It has been alleged that Reno assisted in a second charge.
Lt. Varnum, during Reno's "charge" the Lt. halted to succor his orderly, Elijah Strode, who had been shot.
Retrogrades are preformed using many tactics.
quote:
I have no idea what this means. Sorry!
The problem is that the officers and men who did not do as well was an embarrassment to the proud and elite 7th.
The 7th may have been proud bit they were not elite
quote:
Who died and made you judge of what the 7th was referred too!
None of your examples show officers making decisions that increased the offensive nature of the action. All your examples are individuals or defensive in nature. The 7th was on offense but the Indians forced them to defense. There was only one medal that could be awarded and that was the medal of honor. Many were awarded to the troopers. How many were awarded to officers?
quote:
My examples are of officers who made a difference. Men who defied danger, death, and confusion to perform as soldiers. your unsubstantiated allegation to the contrary is ludicrous.
The only offense was Reno charging down the valley and forming a skirmish line. From there on it went to defense withdrawing to the timber and a retrograde. Custer, Benteen, and the pack train were on the defense when the major engagements occurred. There was no outstanding offensive action by the 7th in my opinion.
Your opinion is certainly yours. I can think of no one would want it.
AZ Ranger
At the time of this battle awards were given for acts done by individuals that exceeded standards which officers were awarded the medals?
AZ Ranger |
| AZ Ranger |
Posted - November 26 2009 : 11:14:01 AM
quote:
Originally posted by AZ Ranger
quote:
Originally posted by joe wiggs
Absolutely not.
There have been no false statements on this board. Just you and dc scrutinizing every word and paragraph in hopes of finding one little gray spot that can be used to twist, flip-flop- and denigrate others. you do realize that no other but you two constantly do this. It is often referred to as a smoke screen to cover up issues when the used is unable to respond intelligently.
So if Larsen called you a liar then your above statement makes it so.
AZ Ranger
|
| AZ Ranger |
Posted - November 26 2009 : 11:09:02 AM
quote:
Originally posted by joe wiggs
Absolutely not.
There have been no false statements on this board. Just you and dc scrutinizing every word and paragraph in hopes of finding one little gray spot that can be used to twist, flip-flop- and denigrate others. you do realize that no other but you two constantly do this. It is often referred to as a smoke screen to cover up issues when the used is unable to respond intelligently.
So if Larsen called you a liar then your above statement makes it so.
AZ Ranger |
| joe wiggs |
Posted - November 25 2009 : 9:53:37 PM
quote:
Originally posted by AZ Ranger
There were a few officers that performed admirably that day.
Godfrey established a skirmish line on the retreat to Weir's Point that, in all probably, prevented Reno's command from being wiped out as well as Custer.
Joe that is basic tactics not something exception but standard
quote:
This is possibly, I'm not sure, but it just may be the most preposterous statement you have ever made. you state before the forum that no one performed admirably in this battle. I show you several examples of outstanding performance that saved Reno's command and you relegate these efforts to the trash bin. Anything to be right huh az, any port in the storm. you are absolutely amazing
.
An Indian sharpshooter was systematically picking off troopers from Sharpshooters ridge When French and others fired toward the warrior and silenced him. While shots were being fired all about him, it is said that French calmly dug out stuck rounds from carbines without flinching.
Again basic, What do you think they brought their weapons for?
quote:
az, listen up. Soldiers were dieing. They were being picked off one by one. Men were loosing their wits and their stomachs and, the possibility of panic threatened to overwhelm them. French's "aim" saved the day. Weapons brought to battle do not automatically equate weapons used effectively
.
Benteen, with enemy rounds about him and men begging him to take cover demanded that Reno reinforce his line of the battlefield and, personally led a charge against encroaching warriors.
Did Benteen lead the charge or form it? Did Reno go on the charge?
quote:
There were two charges. One was definitely led by Benteen. It has been alleged that Reno assisted in a second charge.
Lt. Varnum, during Reno's "charge" the Lt. halted to succor his orderly, Elijah Strode, who had been shot.
Retrogrades are preformed using many tactics.
quote:
I have no idea what this means. Sorry!
The problem is that the officers and men who did not do as well was an embarrassment to the proud and elite 7th.
The 7th may have been proud bit they were not elite
quote:
Who died and made you judge of what the 7th was referred too!
None of your examples show officers making decisions that increased the offensive nature of the action. All your examples are individuals or defensive in nature. The 7th was on offense but the Indians forced them to defense. There was only one medal that could be awarded and that was the medal of honor. Many were awarded to the troopers. How many were awarded to officers?
quote:
My examples are of officers who made a difference. Men who defied danger, death, and confusion to perform as soldiers. your unsubstantiated allegation to the contrary is ludicrous.
The only offense was Reno charging down the valley and forming a skirmish line. From there on it went to defense withdrawing to the timber and a retrograde. Custer, Benteen, and the pack train were on the defense when the major engagements occurred. There was no outstanding offensive action by the 7th in my opinion.
Your opinion is certainly yours. I can think of no one would want it.
AZ Ranger
|
| joe wiggs |
Posted - November 25 2009 : 2:42:37 PM
Absolutely not.
There have been no false statements on this board. Just you and dc scrutinizing every word and paragraph in hopes of finding one little gray spot that can be used to twist, flip-flop- and denigrate others. you do realize that no other but you two constantly do this. It is often referred to as a smoke screen to cover up issues when the used is unable to respond intelligently. |
| AZ Ranger |
Posted - November 25 2009 : 09:53:17 AM
quote:
Originally posted by joe wiggs
"A false presentation of facts" sounds so professional. One would think we were in a Perry Mason movie rather than a web site involving open discussion about a historical battle that is of interest to all of us. Oh I forgot, most of us are, then there's you again.
So you think presenting false statements is OK? |
| joe wiggs |
Posted - November 24 2009 : 10:01:05 PM
"A false presentation of facts" sounds so professional. One would think we were in a Perry Mason movie rather than a web site involving open discussion about a historical battle that is of interest to all of us. Oh I forgot, most of us are, then there's you again. |
| AZ Ranger |
Posted - November 22 2009 : 8:33:30 PM
I am lambasted! Look who is accusing someone of "not liking it when others post alternatives." The arch defender of a drunk Reno who embarrassed the Army so much that they had to save him to avoid a total disgrace. az, you are unbelievable. You have no credibility what so ever. But, I would honestly miss you if you stopped posting. You and dc afford the forum so many wonderful perspectives.
Ps A point of clarification, "amusing perspectives."
A false presentation of fact is not an acceptable alternative. I know you can not understand the concept. You get challenged on the factual basis of your comments. Viable differing alternatives exist that are consistent with facts, testimonies, and accounts.
|
| AZ Ranger |
Posted - November 22 2009 : 8:26:09 PM
quote:
Originally posted by joe wiggs
"I see no post of Larsen." Your friend dc quoted the post in his thread, did you not see it? It is still there on another forum. did you think that this present forum is the only one? Unfortunately, I have been unable to download the main page for quite sometime or I would do so. Why not ask dc to assist you. He knows where it is and, the both of you are so close.
Show us Larson in your post below:
Hi dc, is this the same Larsent who ranted and raved and, insisted that I created and posted a thesis regarding Sitting Bull's supposed thoughts regarding Custer as they met in the afterlife. The same Larsent who demanded that I post my references for this alleged conversation. Who screamed that Indians would never say such a thing. The same Larsent whom I ignored for some time because I felt he had no right to demand anything from me or, anyone else for that matter.
The same Larsent who, like you, referred to me as a "liar" when he had no idea who I was, what I was, or what I may become; much like yourself. The same Larsent whom, when I finally got fed up and chastised him for calling me disparaging names, denied doing so.
The same Larsent who, apparently, became embarrassed when I pulled up his posts and proved that he, in fact, was guilty of lying as I posted his rants and false allegations confirming his guilt.
The same larsent, who from that very day ceased to post threads and, has not done so since? Oh yea, I remember him. Wasn't he your brother?PS, don't wait so long to post next time. It is true that your posts are absolutely devoid of value but, what the hey;they are interesting!
Not there is it?
and this statement of mine is correct:
No Joe it is not the same larsent. I see no posts by larsent.
|
| joe wiggs |
Posted - November 22 2009 : 5:55:03 PM
"I see no post of Larsen." Your friend dc quoted the post in his thread, did you not see it? It is still there on another forum. did you think that this present forum is the only one? Unfortunately, I have been unable to download the main page for quite sometime or I would do so. Why not ask dc to assist you. He knows where it is and, the both of you are so close. |
| AZ Ranger |
Posted - November 22 2009 : 1:36:44 PM
quote:
Originally posted by joe wiggs
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Cloud
.
R. Larsen[/i]
Alert readers will note how at each stage of Wiggs being destroyed by his own lies, he apparently attributes it to the superior skills of his then current tormentors - which is everyone - with language. This is because he usually isn't smart enough to know where he got found out, as with his plagiarism. Rather than admit his fabrications and incompetencies, he tries to mimic the cadence and format style of his antagonists and use those perceived weapons against them or others at later dates, still without a clue as to the humor of the internal puns and references, the internal intensifiers or literary references, and all that atop not having the slightest idea of what he's talking about or, worse, what others are, anyway.
Hi dc, is this the same Larsent who ranted and raved and, insisted that I created and posted a thesis regarding Sitting Bull's supposed thoughts regarding Custer as they met in the afterlife. The same Larsent who demanded that I post my references for this alleged conversation. Who screamed that Indians would never say such a thing. The same Larsent whom I ignored for some time because I felt he had no right to demand anything from me or, anyone else for that matter.
The same Larsent who, like you, referred to me as a "liar" when he had no idea who I was, what I was, or what I may become; much like yourself. The same Larsent whom, when I finally got fed up and chastised him for calling me disparaging names, denied doing so.
The same Larsent who, apparently, became embarrassed when I pulled up his posts and proved that he, in fact, was guilty of lying as I posted his rants and false allegations confirming his guilt.
The same larsent, who from that very day ceased to post threads and, has not done so since? Oh yea, I remember him. Wasn't he your brother?PS, don't wait so long to post next time. It is true that your posts are absolutely devoid of value but, what the hey;they are interesting!
No Joe it is not the same larsent. I see no posts by larsent.
So Joe if almost everyone that calls you a liar leaves because they tired of dealing with a liar then why do think there is not many people here?
There is no way to know whether someone is gone and hasn't come back. You were Joesph Wiggs and deleted your account you came back as Joe Wiggs. Safe to assume it is the same person. Not so with morning star, Reddirt, Pohanka, Pohanka jy, and realbird. How would you know if someone anonymous is not Larsen?
AZ Ranger |
| joe wiggs |
Posted - November 21 2009 : 9:46:25 PM
quote:
Originally posted by AZ Ranger
Benteen I would think women would be offended by Joe posing as one. There is no argument Joe posted as a 61 year old female. It was exposed when Joe denied it. If you don't want to hear it don't bring it up. It was you that brought up a name from another board when it suited your purpose. So get off you soap box you are disingenuous.
As far as Terry's order and his defense of his plan it is there for anyone to read in many books. I am comfortable with my opinion on orders having spoken with enough officers to form my opinion.
If it is anyone thinking that they have it figured out it is you Benteen. You don't like it when others post alternatives to you. I don't believe all these officers lied and see more simple explanations. You state things are fact which are not.
AZ Ranger
I am lambasted! Look who is accusing someone of "not liking it when others post alternatives." The arch defender of a drunk Reno who embarrassed the Army so much that they had to save him to avoid a total disgrace. az, you are unbelievable. You have no credibility what so ever. But, I would honestly miss you if you stopped posting. You and dc afford the forum so many wonderful perspectives.
Ps A point of clarification, "amusing perspectives." |
| joe wiggs |
Posted - November 21 2009 : 9:04:20 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Cloud
.
R. Larsen[/i]
Alert readers will note how at each stage of Wiggs being destroyed by his own lies, he apparently attributes it to the superior skills of his then current tormentors - which is everyone - with language. This is because he usually isn't smart enough to know where he got found out, as with his plagiarism. Rather than admit his fabrications and incompetencies, he tries to mimic the cadence and format style of his antagonists and use those perceived weapons against them or others at later dates, still without a clue as to the humor of the internal puns and references, the internal intensifiers or literary references, and all that atop not having the slightest idea of what he's talking about or, worse, what others are, anyway.
Hi dc, is this the same Larsent who ranted and raved and, insisted that I created and posted a thesis regarding Sitting Bull's supposed thoughts regarding Custer as they met in the afterlife. The same Larsent who demanded that I post my references for this alleged conversation. Who screamed that Indians would never say such a thing. The same Larsent whom I ignored for some time because I felt he had no right to demand anything from me or, anyone else for that matter.
The same Larsent who, like you, referred to me as a "liar" when he had no idea who I was, what I was, or what I may become; much like yourself. The same Larsent whom, when I finally got fed up and chastised him for calling me disparaging names, denied doing so.
The same Larsent who, apparently, became embarrassed when I pulled up his posts and proved that he, in fact, was guilty of lying as I posted his rants and false allegations confirming his guilt.
The same larsent, who from that very day ceased to post threads and, has not done so since? Oh yea, I remember him. Wasn't he your brother?PS, don't wait so long to post next time. It is true that your posts are absolutely devoid of value but, what the hey;they are interesting! |
| Benteen |
Posted - November 20 2009 : 8:55:16 PM
First of all to bring up something that is 5 to 6 years old, in my opinion, speaks for itself. My advice would be leave it in the past and move on.
I did find a few worthy tidbits of information worth discussing:
Courtesy of DC:
quote:
Why was Custer 'forced' to send a reconossaince in force? Why not just a scout?
If Benteen 'brought' the packs, how fast could he be?
Would a rational command order the packs to rush ahead, letting dropped boxes lay, and in essence opening a share program of ammo with the enemy? Hours before they'd gone bananas over a few bread boxes that were dropped in the night.
Once encumbered with wounded and the packs, what offensive moves were open to Benteen and Reno given the proximity to the village and the condition of the command? Offensive moves with plausible goal, I mean, given the enemy was not running and the command couldn't hit anything. As it turned out, they had barely enough to protect them in the heart of enemy territory, much less utilize them in sustained offensive against a numerically superior enemy.
Any feet of fire acrobatics should have been utilized by Custer to return to his command.
It seems as though DC is interested in the battle and does at times ask pertinent questions which few bothered to answer. So, I will do it here.
quote:
If Benteen 'brought' the packs, how fast could he be?
The easiest way to answer this one is with another question. How fast was Hare's mission AND their return with JUST the ammo packs? Because it was the ammo packs that was needed and requested.
quote:
Would a rational command order the packs to rush ahead, letting dropped boxes lay, and in essence opening a share program of ammo with the enemy? Hours before they'd gone bananas over a few bread boxes that were dropped in the night.
It would. It would if that "command order" was in desperate need of reinforcement and ammo packs. And that is the difference between the two different times you state. One not under battle conditions, the other under battle conditions.
quote:
Once encumbered with wounded and the packs, what offensive moves were open to Benteen and Reno given the proximity to the village and the condition of the command?
Benteen was never "encumbered" with the pack train detail that day, that was clearly McDougall's responsibility. Only Benteen could have interpreted the orders that way. But those orders didn't direct him to take charge of it, nor did it direct him to protect it. It asked him to provide assistance in accorandance with the ammo packs, and to bring them, that was all.
quote:
Offensive moves with plausible goal, I mean, given the enemy was not running and the command couldn't hit anything. As it turned out, they had barely enough to protect them in the heart of enemy territory, much less utilize them in sustained offensive against a numerically superior enemy.
And just what was the nature of Benteen's orders given to him by Gen. Custer on his mission "left"? These were never rescinded. Benteen by his own admission at the COI disobeyed them. And thus we get this conclusion by you: "Any feet of fire acrobatics should have been utilized by Custer to return to his command." AND NOT BENTEEN who was duly ordered to do WHAT?
Don't worry DC, we are not always in such a disagreement. I do agree with you at times. Sometimes you do say some things that are actually on the mark, like this:
quote:
"But nobody is arguing or has argued for decades that Custer disobeyed Terry's orders. That's not just kicking a dead horse,it's grave robbing of an old argument to distract attention..."
I couldn't agree more. 
But as for your assertions about 5 years ago on Joe's post, forget it will you. Let sleeping dogs lie. Or as Heavyrunner said:
quote:
The argument here is taking longer than the battle, itself.
And will do so again if you persist, and you know it.
The best summary that came from all of it was this by Lorenzo G.
quote:
But falsely accusing Benteen of deliberately letting people die isn't mean? Your quote DC.
quote:
Much of what you said about Custer, it is not more tender of this. If other people cannot acting so, this must be the same for you too. Custer was not an idiot or a killer as Bentenn was not too. Personally, i simply think that from the first mythicizing of Custer, the opinion is passed to demonization and this I can't accept it. I hate this. If he does wrong that damned day, other officiers too did. Problem is that other officiers was there to make an account and a defense for themselves but Custer not because he died fighting with his men. Nelson Miles could answer to you as he did: "To blame defeat at Little Big Horn on Custer is kick a dead lion". You have talk also about private problems (voices and suspiscions, you add then that you're not interested on it) of Custer out of Little Big Horn, but then, what's about court martial of Benteen that he had to face 1887 for "conduct unbecoming an officer and gentleman"? You did'nt talk about it. In his writings about Custer he had gone so far in prejudices, anger, hate, to become ridiculous. No one is perfect.
Take that last line to heart DC. Not even you, I, Joe, HR or Az is. Let it go.
Benteen
|
| AZ Ranger |
Posted - November 20 2009 : 6:09:16 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Benteen
DC,
I am not sure of which topic you are referring to, perhaps Crown Law... Responsibilities thread? If so, I take it you may have meant page 3. In that instance from what I read there, Joe was defending a position well known to history, where Crazy Horse was engaged with Reno's forces and had crossed the LBH, recrossed it and either went back up Deep Ravine (Joe's version) or around the north side and up a coulee there, and from the north side of where the monument stands attacked Custer's position. Since no one really knows which version is or should one say was correct, who is to say Joe was not correct? With Indian statements the way they were, no one really knows, so I did not see any problems with what Joe presented, nor for that matter what anyone else presented; it was opinions, and that was all there was to it.
The directions were clear maybe this can help. The Benteen's order thread is on that page.
http://www.mohicanpress.com/messageboard2/forum.asp?FORUM_ID=8&sortorder=1&whichpage=4 |
| Benteen |
Posted - November 20 2009 : 11:15:46 AM
DC,
I am not sure of which topic you are referring to, perhaps Crown Law... Responsibilities thread? If so, I take it you may have meant page 3. In that instance from what I read there, Joe was defending a position well known to history, where Crazy Horse was engaged with Reno's forces and had crossed the LBH, recrossed it and either went back up Deep Ravine (Joe's version) or around the north side and up a coulee there, and from the north side of where the monument stands attacked Custer's position. Since no one really knows which version is or should one say was correct, who is to say Joe was not correct? With Indian statements the way they were, no one really knows, so I did not see any problems with what Joe presented, nor for that matter what anyone else presented; it was opinions, and that was all there was to it. |
|
|
