| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Rich |
Posted - October 10 2002 : 11:23:50 AM
Who was the most responsible for the 7th Cavalry's defeat at Little Bighorn? |
| 25 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| joe wiggs |
Posted - June 23 2013 : 11:27:56 AM
quote:
Originally posted by AZ Ranger
quote:
I beleive Custer thought the Indians would run and had no expectation that Reno could hold them.
Custer intended that the warriors would be caught between his force and that of Reno's. Benteen's responsibility was two fold;turn back any Indians who were attempted to flee and as a support
to Reno.
quote:
He had only to bring them to battle or drive them. Thanks to someone on another board I now believe Custer did not intend a flank attack or else he could have done it. Seeing the size of the village I believe his objective was to let Reno and Benteen drive them from the village and Custer would block them from crossing the river. The new objective drive them towards Terry, kill a few, and capture the village.
Custer never observed the true size of the village until he arrived in the area of Luce Ridge. from Reno's hill, the northern portion of the village was hidden from him. As a result, his sending Reno and Benteen was irrelvant to the village size. Please explain how you "drive" a large exodus of human toard Terry?
quote:
Unfortunately there were to many Indians for Reno to drive them but he did bring them to battle. There were to many Indians willing to fight and Custer got them to battle
.
It is most unlikely that anyone intended that Reno act as a driving force at all. The tracks of the village ponies and lodge pole dragings were sufficient enough that any member of the command (capable of reading those signs) new how many Indians were involved. From that number they could extrapolate the number of warriors. Reno's job was simple;bring the Indians to battle which he accomplished
d,
AZ Ranger
|
| joe wiggs |
Posted - June 21 2013 : 8:10:56 PM
quote:
Originally posted by whistlingboy
There seems to be some concensus here on the board, at least by description, that Reno LED a charge to the river and up the embankments. If we put ourselves on a horse, or for some idiotic reason on our knees by our horse in some kind of skirmish line and together see this (going by what's been described) horde of Indians coming at us, whooping it up, firing repeaters and discharging arrows all around us, seeing our buddies heads' getting blown up next to us....well, the phenomenon that occurs is not an orderly retreat but "mass hysteria" which manifests itself in the form of PANIC and involves every trooper, including RENO, now dazed and shocked by what's happened next to him. They aren't retreating, they are running for their lives, crying, screaming and wildly turning around to shoot an errant shot into the air not concentrated and meant to kill anyone but to naively scare some Indian. They scamper for their lives and at that moment the top priority is not killing any other life but saving their own. It behooves me how one can denigrate Custer's leadership under fire and build Reno's character by saying he led a 'charge' to the river. Reno saved himself and more than likely had help doing that...he was not in any condition to save anybody else at that moment. Fair is fair.
Happy 4th of July to all!
I sure miss you buddy! I hope to hook up with you again one day. |
| joe wiggs |
Posted - May 25 2013 : 4:50:07 PM
to be or not tobe |
| joe wiggs |
Posted - May 25 2013 : 4:44:40 PM
quote:
Originally posted by AZ Ranger
quote:
Originally posted by Benteen
Who would know, who did know? The troopers who right after that battle counted the spent shells, and several did it.
If your relying upon Indian statements, they vary from little to no ammo in the belts to full belts, or nearly full belts. Perhaps Benteen's "scattered corn" statement best fits what happened. Several positions were overran, one by one, and that kept up until they were finished. And it didn't take any longer than Benteen said it did.
Did the troopers account for approximately 25,000 + rounds of carbine and revolver ammunition?
What does it say regarding the ratio of hits to fired?
How would additional ammunition make them more successful at hits?
What quantity of revolver ammunition was with the pack train?
What answers does your four meaningless questions provide? |
| joe wiggs |
Posted - May 25 2013 : 10:54:45 AM
One can not find fault when a person attempts to address a deplorable and sad non-military movement in the best light possible. For example Ryan's description:"Charging through the Indians in a solid body" actually refer's to a mad dash to safety of men pressed together in their haste to flee.
Remarkably you may be the only indiviual on this planet incapable of understanding this. |
| AZ Ranger |
Posted - November 05 2012 : 08:49:13 AM
quote:
Originally posted by joe wiggs
az (anorestic zebra) Ryan never has and never will (he is currently dead) substantiate your pathetic conclusions no matter how often you twist his perspectives. do you have a life?
Joe This really shows how stupid and childish you are. Again this a quote from Sgt Ryan
Sgt Ryan "The order was then given to charge, and we away went up the steep bank charging through the Indians in a solid body, Major Reno being in the advance. As we cut through them the fighting was hand to hand, and it was death to anyone who fell from his horse or was wounded and was not able to keep up with the command.
|
| joe wiggs |
Posted - October 06 2012 : 8:39:31 PM
az (anorestic zebra) Ryan never has and never will (he is currently dead) substantiate your pathetic conclusions no matter how often you twist his perspectives. do you have a life? |
| AZ Ranger |
Posted - September 03 2012 : 12:59:33 PM
Joe how stupid are you? I quoted from Sgt Ryans book. He was there. |
| joe wiggs |
Posted - August 05 2012 : 5:19:50 PM
Tsk, Tsk, Tsk, couldn't find a single source could you. Of course not. You see Az, in all seriousness and awe, you are the only individual whose commitment to Reno's "Charge" being anything but a retreat is as solid as an immovable (stubborn) rock, despite evidence (not my opinion) to the contrary.
You constantly paint yourself in a corner due to you fact-less stance in which the only way you can extract yourself (you falsely believe)is to create and sling a camouflage of irrelevant and childish (below the normal status of an adult response) scoffs in an inadequate and pathetic fashion.
Remember when you were a child and there was always one in the group who got mad and screamed insults when he or she did not get their way? The child grew up to be you. I truly and compassionately feel sorry for you.
Once again az, please post any source that agrees with you! |
| AZ Ranger |
Posted - August 01 2012 : 08:04:51 AM
Sgt Ryan "The order was then given to charge, and away went up the steep bank charging through the Indians in a solid body, Major Reno being in the advance. As we cut through them the fighting was hand to hand, and it was deathto anyone who fell from his horseoe was wounded and was not able to keep up with the command.
It really doesn't matter what students think. The command was given an order to charge to cut through the Indians and they did that both by trooper accounts and Indian accounts. The charge was to break through the Indians and it was successful.
A charge at full speed is short lived after contact. In Reno's movement they charged to make it through the Indians and then continued the retrograde at full speed ending at the Reno Hill rallying point.
I don't take money from incompetents ( lacking the skills, qualities, or ability to do something properly). Are you really so stupid to believe that a charge can not be used as part of a retrograde?
AZ Ranger
|
| joe wiggs |
Posted - June 24 2012 : 7:18:00 PM
quote:
Originally posted by AZ Ranger
Asked and answered time does not change the answer. Soldiers that thier horse took off, on the skirmish line, in the timber, crossing the river or climbing the hill are not causities of the charge.
You still don't get it do you Joe
I will pay you $25.00 for every student of the battle, other than you and Reno, who described that pathetic movement as a "charge."
The mere fact that you can not shows that your position is untenable, unprovable, incredible, schismatic, and completely extraordinary.
That is exactly why you I feel, pardon me, that you are such a fascinating head case in that once you've made up your mind nothing can change it;to include facts!
In your mind the movement was a charge! As a result, you will drag that perception to the grave. In all seriousness, I am not trying to change your mind to my way of thinking. I believe that you could be a valued contributor of information if you were not so obstinate against all odds! |
| AZ Ranger |
Posted - June 12 2012 : 10:25:25 AM
Asked and answered time does not change the answer. Soldiers that thier horse took off, on the skirmish line, in the timber, crossing the river or climbing the hill are not causities of the charge.
You still don't get it do you Joe |
| joe wiggs |
Posted - May 27 2012 : 12:07:57 PM
quote:
Originally posted by AZ Ranger
[quote]What you posted 35 fatals in the charge was not fact. Fact is 14. Tell how it was like a "fox hunt" in your own words?
Joe Wiggs
Statements like this are the nucleus of my reasoning for doubting your sanity. Please prove me wrong by posting your source that only 14 men died during Reno's dash/charge for them "dar" hills. |
| joe wiggs |
Posted - February 04 2012 : 6:46:32 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Cloud
There is no evidence that this was the "the greatest conglomeration of hostiles ever known." It was the biggest any of the survivors had seen, is all. Just like calling the Indians the world's greatest cavalry is bogus on its face, because nobody had seen even a meaningful plurailty of the world's military horsemen. Hyperbole, and a kindness to the fact they rode without saddles. In any case, the world's greatest cavalry seemed to lose all the time.
Custer was no scapegoat for the campaign. Even at the time, the blame for the campaign's failure was not put on Custer. Crook's battle couldn't be blamed on him. Custer is the scapegoat for the Battle of the Little Bighorn only, with reason and hard to argue against it.
How does accepting the army's hardwired belief the Indians would run allow one to "begin to understand..."
1. Crook's appreciation of his foe.
2. The Sioux running from Terry and Gibbon
3. that Custer was slaughtered....
....that the facts alone didn't provide?
Custer could have retreated right up to the point he crossed MTC. His decision to do else was his error.
Of all the incomprehensible and convoluted amalgam of misinformation you have ever printed, the above takes the cake. How is it that you are unable to comprehend that the erroneous theory of the warriors "not making a stand" was believed to be true beforethe battle of the Little Big Horn, not after. Cooke, did in fact, understand the fallacy of that presumption after his battle, not beforeit. It seems that everyone understood this "hay-wired" belief but you.
The Sioux did not run from Terry, they calmly walked away with their wives, mothers, and children. Unlike their opponents who tend to persist unless soundly defeated, the Sioux were contend with their victory.
Yes, Custer could have retreated-every school child is aware of this-so what is your point? Custer made a decision than countless military men have made for centuries. Why should he be singled out? Because he failed? many others have done so as well! Your Custerphobe slip is showing.
As for the facts that counter your simple minded position regarding the "Largest conglomeration",I'll await Az's defense of your garbage which, I'm sure, is forth coming. |
| joe wiggs |
Posted - January 21 2012 : 9:09:51 PM
Undoubtedly you will not agree with me regardless of sources and reasonable deductions no matter how many I proffer to you and, that is okay with me;truly. I will not attempt to change your position as you, obviously, are willing to "rest in peace" with it.
There were to many Native American warriors for the 7 Th. to overcome as was self evident in the final, fatalistic outcome of the battle. You and I should find no difficulty in agreeing with that position.
I do not know how many warriors were there and can only purview the deductions of numerous sources, add that knowledge to the physical realities that encompass a village capable of establishing a water supply, food supply, and available fodder for the Indian mounts to come up with a reasonable and educated "guest" as to how many habitants resided in the village. If there were 9,000 thousand warriors with wives, mothers, fathers, brothers, sisters, and children the number of inhabitants could exceed 45,000 people.
I just don't think so!
What I do know is that the number of warriors that the survivors of the battle claimed to have interacted with increased in numbers as time passed slowly by. In an era when aboriginals were considered to be less than human, it was extremely difficult for the average American to believe that "savages" could defeat an army of white men. Imagine being questioned by such a society. Would it not be reasonable to claim fantastic numbers of the enemy to justify a loss? What is the truth? Who Knows. Russel Means say that there were no more than 800 warriors engaged in the battle. Is he correct? Who knows?
Here is what I do know, if you can read the testimony of Benteen, Wallace, and Reno and perceive their testimony as gospel, finding no fault in their verbiage then may God bless you and good night. |
| AZ Ranger |
Posted - January 21 2012 : 4:58:11 PM
Looked at the footnote used in terrible glory and it does not support his statements. That others have different populations estimates is not what his point was that it changed to larger number over time. He would need to demonstrate that an individual changed estimates over time. Did Billy Cross change his estimate over time for example?
The estimates given from Headquarters were the whole Sioux nation or something like that which would be how many Joe? |
| AZ Ranger |
Posted - January 21 2012 : 4:28:33 PM
The RCOI occurred over a relatively short period of time and all those numbers were used there depending on the context of the question and the person answering. So you disagree that they were there in RCOI?
Benteen stated he saw 900 Indians in the valley and also stated his 9,000 estimate at the RCOI so I am not sure what you mean on increase over time. One was an estimate based upon observation the other based upon Custer being wiped out without observation. Which individuals do you making statements where there observations increased over time? Certainly not Benteen for his stated observations remain the same over time only his opinion of what it would take to overrun was given as 9,000 which he did not claim to observe. |
| joe wiggs |
Posted - January 08 2012 : 6:00:28 PM
I hate to disagree with you AZ but the sources I have read clearly define a time span where the numbers of "Warriors" on the scene increased from 1,500 to 9,000 over a number of years. During the Inquiry there was inference that the village had 20,000 pony's or more.
See A terrible Glory - P311 for a reference. |
| AZ Ranger |
Posted - January 08 2012 : 10:50:45 AM
All those numbers appear within a couple of days. They are all there at the RCOI. It all depends on the question ana whether it is observation or opinion. One must also be careful of the difference between Indian and warrior. |
| joe wiggs |
Posted - January 07 2012 : 8:04:55 PM
"Like the fish that got away, the number of Indian Warriors the Seventh had faced seemed to grow larger with each telling. Te 1,500 to 2,500 braves the regiment initially believed it had fought quickly doubled to 4,000, then became 5,000. Two and a half years later, Benteen would testify that he he had come to believe there were between 8,000 and 9,000 warriors, and Wallace would also claim 9,000 warriors it had fought."
Reno was not specifically asked to "testify" to the amount of warriors they faced,however,he assuredly agreed and probably saw a few thousand more. to say that Reno actually "testified" was an error on my part, I paced his name in my post rather than Wallace.
A Terrible Glory page 311. |
| AZ Ranger |
Posted - January 03 2012 : 08:13:35 AM
When did Reno testify to 9,000 Indians? Benteen stated it at RCOI as an off the cuff remark seemingly to account for how rapid Custer was defeated. Was the number 9,000 Indians, 9,000 warriors, or 9,000 fighters?
Was the total population of the Sioux less than 20,000 and where they at the time? |
| joe wiggs |
Posted - December 30 2011 : 6:06:41 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Cloud
Again: assertions have to be proved, the negatives cannot be. It may have been the greatest village size in that year or of the Sioux, but we really do not know, and it further conflicts with the "new" evidence that the village could only field about the same as the 7th. This, for the PC reason that the Indians need to be less numerous to excuse their incompetence and allowing civvies to be killed at the village, and granting Custerphiles permission to say Custer's plan would have worked if not for Reno and Benteen.
quote:
Does that mean that your "assertion" has to be proven as well? Never before had circumstances presented themselves to the Sioux and Cheyenne that even remotely resulted in such a mass of aborigines.
Pressed by the largest military thrust to date, their appeared to be safety in numbers.
And, it also requires an exact definition of "hostiles." Some of the Sioux claim they were a peaceful village and they would have surrendered if not attacked, etc. Was it bigger than the village at Kildeer Mt.? At the various treaty signings and gatherings? Since the pandemics killed off more than 90% of the population of the Americas in the years after Columbus, there's certainly room to picture huge villages of temporary duration.
quote:
Hostiles, all Indians who refused to come in when demanded by the U.S. Government no later than 1/31/1876. Yes, the village was bigger than Kildeer Mt. (whatever that was). Ask Reno and Benteen, they testified to 9,000 warriors alone.
It's just thoughtless hyperbole, like 'greatest light cavalry' and 'bravest soldier.' Which is to say: nonsense.
quote:
Do you receive an annuity for using the word "hyperbole?" I have never come across an individual who has such a fascination for the term. Your uncontested argument about the other two terms are with the historians who quoted the "hyperbole" from historical entities who used them. Please stop boring the present with your unsubstantiated insistence that they are not true!
I don't follow your point beyond that. Custer had many options beyond what he did, and he ignored them. For choosing a method that failed badly, he shoulders the blame, but for his battle only.
quote:
Under the circumstances he found himself under, Custer's "options" were not as multiple as you have suggested. For example he was ordered there and not responding on a lark, secondly, approximately 2/3 of his command rested on a hill for two hours while he was exterminated, Thirdly, perhaps you can come up with a more proficient way to capture the village without techniques available in our time?
|
| joe wiggs |
Posted - December 17 2011 : 10:10:35 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Cloud
There is no evidence that this was the "the greatest conglomeration of hostiles ever known." It was the biggest any of the survivors had seen, is all.
quote:
Mitch boyer who died during this battle was, unlike you, a veteran Indian fighter and greatly respected as an intelligent scout. ergo, he was strenuously sought to assist the troopers in this arduous endeavor as you may be aware of. he himself stated to General Custer that the village was the "biggest' gathering of Indians ever witnessed in his career as a scout. He was not a survivor was he?
Just like calling the Indians the world's greatest cavalry is bogus on its face, because nobody had seen even a meaningful plurailty of the world's military horsemen. Hyperbole, and a kindness to the fact they rode without saddles. In any case, the world's greatest cavalry seemed to lose all the time.
quote:
The men who challenged and met these warriors in combat are the same individuals who labeled them as the "greatest' calvary known. from the time they were able to walk, the Indian was preened, trained, and a part of his horse. Sheridan understood this and said so. Perhaps he should have conferred with you first?
Custer was no scapegoat for the campaign. Even at the time, the blame for the campaign's failure was not put on Custer. Crook's battle couldn't be blamed on him. Custer is the scapegoat for the Battle of the Little Bighorn only, with reason and hard to argue against it.
quote:
Crook was never officially censored nor admonished for his part in this "campaign". During the Reno Inquiry Reno was absolved of any wrong doing. Terry was never singled out for incompetence nor was Gibbon. Yet you say that Custer was never a 'scapegoat" when Reno and Benteen referred to his having no plans whatsoever. What would you call it;a testimonial?
How does accepting the army's hardwired belief the Indians would run allow one to "begin to understand..."
1. Crook's appreciation of his foe.
2. The Sioux running from Terry and Gibbon
3. that Custer was slaughtered....
....that the facts alone didn't provide?
quote:
It was a false assumption that resulted in the above. One's belief does not determine reality. Whether it was "hay-wired" or not it was the accepted perspective of the west at that time in history and proved to be so as Indians naturally preferred a guerrilla type attack whenever possible;hit and run...as fast as you can!
Custer could have retreated right up to the point he crossed MTC. His decision to do else was his error.
Hindsight is 20/20. you know now that he could have retreated. What you are unable to comprehend is that he did not wish to retreat until circumstances prevented his being able to do so. who knows, if reno had not chosen to cool his heel on the hill he might have been able to do so.
|
| joe wiggs |
Posted - November 13 2011 : 7:38:20 PM
You may be stating facts, sadly I can not tell as I was overwhelmed by the obvious hostility you displayed. It saddens me that you need to be right all the time,regardless of validity or the lack thereof, and you become completely unglued when challenged. If I am not mistaken, you and I are similar in age. My advise; take a chill pill before you do yourself irreparable harm. God Bless you. |
| AZ Ranger |
Posted - November 12 2011 : 11:46:44 PM
quote:
Originally posted by joe wiggs
WoW! Are you upset?
Nope stating facts.
|
|
|
