| Author |
 Topic  |
|
joseph wiggs
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
 Posted - June 16 2004 : 3:50:00 PM
|
| Crab, desertions continued after that. Recollecting some of the materials I read, a possible answer may lay in the composition of the post, civil war military. The war was over, the retention of a large, standing army was expensive to maintain, and many veterans-tired of war-opted for discharge. To meet the Indian problem, that congress now found time for, the new, re-organized army consisted of a small portion of recruits who saw enlistment as an opportunity for free room and board. That is until the next "gold strike" occurred in their area. When this happened, many went on the "jump." Needless to say, any unit commander who believed in discipline would not be favored by such men. |
  |
|
|
joseph wiggs
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - June 16 2004 : 3:58:29 PM
|
| Thanks Wild, I haven't been called "WIGGY" since I was five years old by a group of immature adolescents with acne. Is that were you got it from or, did it come from you own incomparable wit? |
|
|
|
lorenzo G.
Captain
Italy
Status: offline |
Posted - June 16 2004 : 6:53:49 PM
|
| First, that the men was on their knees and second that Custer was hounded in 1876. |
If it is to be my lot to fall in the service of my country and my country's rights I will have no regrets.
Custer |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
|
|
lorenzo G.
Captain
Italy
Status: offline |
Posted - June 16 2004 : 8:25:47 PM
|
| thanks. |
If it is to be my lot to fall in the service of my country and my country's rights I will have no regrets.
Custer |
|
|
|
joseph wiggs
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - June 16 2004 : 9:26:41 PM
|
Edgerly's statement to Hein
" When we arrived in the neighborhood of Tullock's Creek we ran on a hot trail that led straight to the Indian village. It would have been useless to scout this creek, for we knew that the Indians were in front of us. After Reno crossed the Little Big Horn, he proceeded at a trot towards the village. Custer seeing that Reno met with very SLIGHT RESISTANCE and seeing that the creek was only knee high to the horses, changed his mind about following Reno in support and swung to the right, thinking he could cross anywhere.
Unfortunately he had to go several miles before he came to a practical crossing. Instead of charging through the village as Custer expected him to do, Reno halted, and later recrossed the creek to the high bluff. This was his fatal error. WE OF BENTEEN'S SQUADRON SAW THIS RECROSSING AND JOINED RENO BEFORE ALL OF HIS MEN HAD RECROSSED, WHICH SHOWS THAT WE WERE NEAR ENOUGH TO COME TO HIS SUPPORT IN A FEW MINUTES. As soon as this second recrossing eas made, nearly all the Indians left Reno and went to meet Custer. from this moment nothing could have saved Custer's command.
If Reno had charged throught the village, Custer would have joined him in a very short time and Benteen later, and we might have had an expensive victory.
General Custer was severely criticized by some people (DC's,my interjection) for not obeying General Terry's order to scout Tullock's Creek. I show you why it would have been ABSURD, and do not believe any good officer would have obeyed it under the circumstances."
Edgerly a lieutenant at the time of the battle eventually became a general. He made this statement in 1925. Edgerly was respected by many and, his words carried great weight. What a difference in history may have been made had he made this same statement at the inquiry.Custer Myth W.A. Graham page 336. |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - June 16 2004 : 9:57:41 PM
|
Yes, well, this is one geezer's memory of what he says another wrote forty years previous, ten years after the incident. Or one geezer indited. I'm, of course, suspicious that someone would use 'indited' rather than 'wrote'; it's like he's trying to be vague how this came to him, and in what form. In any case, Graham didn't believe it true, and since it comes from Graham's book, you might have mentioned that, don't you think?
It does conflict with other statements by Edgerly. This would explain the redundancy of 'second recrossing.' It's either the crossing or the recrossing; there was no second recrossing. That's the sort of error absent from Edgerly's writings.
First, Edgerly would have no basis for saying Custer knew Reno had met light resistence. He also is rather weak on the time line, as was Godfrey at some points till confronted with conflicts from his own journal. It is doubtful Custer expected so few men to charge through the village by their lonesome, and few think it could have been possible. Further, Custer left for the north right after Reno headed out, so it's not like he seriously considered support from the rear, and he based this on no real info on the size of the village which he had yet to see.
I don't think anyone in this century or the last has been annoyed by not scouting Tullock Creek. Maybe in the 19th. Straw dog.
And finally, so what? What is this evidence for? And if you put things in quotes, attach sentences to the right paragraph at least. That doesn't demonstrate a devotion to accuracy. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
lorenzo G.
Captain
Italy
Status: offline |
Posted - June 17 2004 : 04:45:08 AM
|
Dark, concerning your sources, well, it's to me now to tell that I don't believe at this "melodhramatical" stories. The first come from Benteen...about this you've got to be a little bit suspiscious, at least. We know very well how he hated Custer and that he spended the rest of his life, after lbh to discredit the general, arriving sometimes to the most bizarre accusations. It would be the same to accept Mr Lenin as a biographer of the Czar ... However, the minimum that I can say is that Benteen is not an unbiased source. For the second source, that's the same. Price wrote an article that had the task to defend Reno and Benteen from Whittaker attacks. You see aswell that I don't consider Whittaker as a source in this matter, as I know he is too much from the side of General.
I think what El Crab said was the right. The doctor of the regiment witnessed and Weir too at the martial court. And they don't witnessed against someone to discredit him, (You see that I left out Tom) they just testimony the innocence of General. |
If it is to be my lot to fall in the service of my country and my country's rights I will have no regrets.
Custer |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - June 17 2004 : 09:32:12 AM
|
Benteen most certainly did NOT devote his life to bad mouthing Custer. Most of these stories were in private correspondence. Benteen did not write damning articles like Whitaker did (and he could write graphically and well), nor did he go on the lecture circuit. He hated Custer, with reason, but nobody has ever proved Benteen lied about anything, even Gray, who conveniently tries to distort Benteen's estimates of his milage from leaving Custer to the Custer field as a claim for the distance solely of his scout. In any case, Benteen was no Lenin to Custer's Czar. That's absurd. The doctor witnessed what? Weir was dead at the Inquest and a noted, uncontested drunk himself. What innocence of the General?
You don't address Graham's cancerous view of Heim's piece, including the aspect Heim didn't have anything in writing from Edgerly, and this appeared after his death. Come on, Lorenzo. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
movingrobewoman
Lt. Colonel
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - June 17 2004 : 11:06:26 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by bhist
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Cloud
Good on that panel, whenever, wherever. Finally, away from the conspiracy theories and up with common sense. My joy is augmented with how closely it is to my own views, which are, of course, flawless.
The cbhma symposium has been around a long time. It’s held in the Hardin Middle School in Hardin, MT inside a huge auditorium that has the best air-condition in town. About 70 people attend for the day long event to listen to one paper after another. Actually, most of the audience falls asleep due to the comfortable surroundings.
When I was asked to chair the symposium, I told them I would do it only if I could have total control over it. I was given that. I created “themes” for each symposium, I searched out presenters (instead of accepting any paper submitted) and I added the panel discussion. Doing this I eliminated 50% of papers given and made the symposium more “interactive” -- the audience participated for the first time. The results were fewer people taking fewer naps.
My purpose for the panel was for the same reasons you state, D.C. In the Preface to my books I wrote, “For the first time, the symposium included an afternoon panel discussion. The format of the discussion was designed to cover a broad range of controversial topics to spark audience interest, as well as to encourage debate. Those who have been unable to attend the annual cbhma meeting in June are missing out on a fun weekend. One has the opportunity to openly debate the many absorbing subjects of this battle with some of the most interesting and knowledgeable people in the world. It is my wish that reading the transcript of the panel discussion enables you to hear some ‘common sense’ ideas about controversial points of this battle.”
For a long time I had the opportunity to sit around the table with members of my panels and discuss the battle. You get a totally different perspective of the fight during these kinds of visits. I wanted to recreate that atmosphere as best I could and I think I did. The panel discussions were always the highlight of the symposium.
Now, since I’m no longer chairman, the cbhma has gone back to having eight presenters give one paper, one after another and, forgive me, but most of the papers are a rehash of stuff that’s been written about over and over again. The only person presenting today that has anything really good is Mike Donohue.
When I became president of the Friends we had a symposium as part of the NPS 125th commemoration events at the battlefield in June 2001. I took a big risk as chairman of this symposium with its theme. Instead of a symposium of more “papers” about where soldiers fought (where we think they were) I asked historians like Robert Utley and Jerry Greene to share their personal experiences while working at the battlefield. They loved the idea and the results were a big success. It was a great day.
People ask me why the Friends’ don’t have an annual symposium. Simple – you can’t do justice to this story by rehashing the same stuff every year. When I do a symposium I want it to be special, unique.
BTW – You can read about these symposiums as well as the papers that Utley and Greene presented at:
http://www.friendslittlebighorn.com/Symposiums.htm -- coverage of the two symposiums.
http://www.friendslittlebighorn.com/Utley-friends-125-symposium.htm -- Robert Utley’s presentation at the first symposium.
http://www.friendslittlebighorn.com/Jerome-greene.htm -- Jerry Greene’s presentation at the first symposium.
|
movingrobe |
|
|
|
joseph wiggs
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - June 17 2004 : 2:41:37 PM
|
"Benteen did not write damning articles like Whitaker:
BENTEEN GOLDIN LETTERS:
"I don't suppose there was ever an officer of the army got such a "cussing out" as as I gave Mathey at the L. Big Horn on the eve of June 25th, and before crowds of enlisted men, officers, and packs."
"Current camp rumor or talk at the time was that Moylan, Godfrey, and Gibson did far from well. I know what Gibson did-which was all I told him to do, which wasn't much.
"I expect Godfrey to say in his article that Reno recommended the abandonment of the wounded on the night of the 25th, and of "skipping off" with those who could ride; well, so he did, to me, but I killed that proposition in the bud."
"Well, French's command, by some means or another, "flunked" after my leaving there."
"Now, personally, Reno, I know, respected me, but I believe had no great regard for me, from the fact that I once slapped his face in the club room of a post trader's establishment before quite a crowd of officers."
"Mathey paid no attention to his pack-train on the hill until I gave him a square heel-and-toe "cussing out" in broad Saxon."
"However, I was well enough, too, to tell Col. Weir before a dozen or so officers that he was a d--d liar."
"On June 25th, 1876, when my battalion got to crest of hill where Reno took refuge from his "charge" from bottom, the first thing which attracted my attention was the gallantly-mustaged captain of "A" troop blubbering like a wipped urchin, tears coursing down his cheeks."
Here a man gloats over humiliating fellow officers in front of crowds should qualify for "damning articles" Of course I could go on but, I won't. I will not, for example, mention the letter, concerning the battle of the Wa****a, that was submitted to William J. de Gresse of the St. Louis Democrat (a newspaper) that defamed Custer in no uncertain terms. One guess on who submitted it. Benteen was just as capable of writing "damning articles" as the next man. To think otherwise is "dreaming." |
Edited by - joseph wiggs on June 17 2004 2:47:47 PM |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - June 17 2004 : 3:15:50 PM
|
You don't read well, Wiggs.
As I clearly said, Benteen did not write articles, but private correspondence not for the public. I'm surely impressed with the dedication you put in to providing quotes from this private correspondence that proves my point: that Benteen hated Custer, had a lot to write, and didn't write any of it. This stuff wasn't known by anyone till Benteen was dead and released by the fraud Goldin.
He did write the Wa****a letter, but it was a private letter(and it reads like it) given to the paper without Benteen's permission, although he didn't care (he says). Again, proof for me. All you've done is type, but at least you made some effort to put things in quotes when they're neither your ideas nor thoughts.
After the disaster Benteen surely could have made hay and money by writing about the battle and damning Custer in print for the public. Then, as now, the debate made money. He didn't. Considering the impression he could have made - a large, loud, well spoken man who many thought a hero of LBH as he surely had been in the CW - it's to his credit he didn't try to damn anyone in public other than his remarks at the inquest, when under oath. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
El Crab
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - June 17 2004 : 6:01:14 PM
|
Custer had 210 soldiers or so. Reno had 175 soldiers and scouts. The only reason people think Reno's force was feeble is because the numbers were misrepresented. I believe the numbers were "changed" to 140 soldiers and scouts. But Reno had about 140 soldiers, plus 30-35 scouts. And if you believe the 30-35 scouts were not better than the soldiers in terms of combat skills, then we're either giving too much credit to the soldiers or not enough to the scouts. And, from what I can tell, the majority of the scouts only bailed when the skirmish line was formed. They wanted to kill warriors (they did), non-combatants (they probably did), steal horses (they did), etc. I don't think most of them wanted to sit there and be shot at. When Reno stopped, they decided to cut loose. No chance of taking more horses, killing the Sioux in great numbers, etc. Time to go. And they left, and the left flank was up in the air.
So Custer could charge with 210 but Reno couldn't with 175? Granted, Reno faced the warriors, as he showed up first. But he had surprised the camp, not all the warriors were in his front. A lot of them were helping their families escape. Reno gave up the offensive, and allowed the warriors to get their families away and then go into battle in greater numbers.
The 7th numbered about 650 soldiers and scouts. Custer's battalion (210), Reno's battalion (175), Benteen's battalion (115), MacDougall's B Company (54 soldiers, not counting Lt. Hodgson) and the packtrain (6 soldiers, one sgt per company for a total of 84 soldiers). That's 638 soldiers and scouts. If Reno only had 140 soldiers and scouts, there's less than 600 in the field. Its possible Custer had closer to 220 soldiers or so, same with Benteen having a few more. I'll have to check my rosters. I believe Gray covered the movements of soldiers to and from commands in Custer's Last Campaign. But the point is, Reno had a fighting force closer to Custer's size than Benteen's and his having the scouts indicates he was to be the initial strike. They were best used to steal and scatter the horse herds, kill indiscriminately, etc.
Anyone have info on the actual numbers present in the fight? I've grown bored with counting from Camp's rosters, as its not guarantee who was where or if these numbers included Powder River soldiers. |
I came. I saw. I took 300 pictures. |
|
|
|
lorenzo G.
Captain
Italy
Status: offline |
Posted - June 17 2004 : 6:41:22 PM
|
In any case, Benteen was no Lenin to Custer's Czar. That's absurd.It was an exemple. Such a simple one that I am astonished you did'nt check it: Lenin was the greatest enemy of Czar and said any falsity and harsh things against him because of that. Same thing for Benteen. If Benteen had reasons to hate Custer, it was right also for the contrary. You say that he never lied, and instead he tel a great amount of lies about Custer, just to discredit him.
The doctor witnessed what? Weir was dead at the Inquest and a noted, uncontested drunk himself. What innocence of the General?
I'm talking about the court martial, not the Reno inquiry. Weir was'nt dead at that time. The doctor of the regiment, Weir etc, witnessed in favor of Custer.
|
If it is to be my lot to fall in the service of my country and my country's rights I will have no regrets.
Custer |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - June 17 2004 : 7:53:53 PM
|
Crab,
Reno had 154 men, by my count, who'd supposedly answer to him. The 21 Crow and Ree scouts weren't there or paid to fight, as I recall. To call them the left flank is odd, given they could run off at leisure with no penalty after they stole horses if they could and if they wanted and as they did. So being better or not than the soldiers didn't matter if they weren't planning to be there to demonstrate those skills, nor given to obey combat orders in English, a language they didn't speak.
In any case, Custer had released them from duty, so they were on separate but convivial pursuits with the cavalry. Reno had 73% of the men Custer did. Of these, a notable percentage were new to combat, most weren't very good riding or shooting, the officers knew this, and to lead such into the village was as absurd to Reno as it probably was to Custer with the same quality about him.
There is a great deal of romance and myth about the abilities of the remaining scouts, and some may have been far better than advertised, some less so, and some conveniently may not have heard Reno's orders to retreat or charge out because they thought they could get out better on their own, which may have been true. Once under observation by the soldiers on Reno Hill, their great skills attracted zero attention or comment, and nobody specifically asked for their shooting skills to clear Sharpshooter Hill, did they?
Lorenzo -
Lenin was never a subordinate of the Czar but he was an enemy and a successor. Neither were military men in inclination or accomplishment. There were many people elbowing to be the Czar's greatest enemy (the Kaiser, Trotsky, Kerensky, the Hapsburgs, the Turks, the Japanese, any of the starving millions or dying soldiers without food...), so this is an open question.
Benteen was a subordinate of Custer but not a successor and so did not order he and his wife killed, nor at any time was he thought to wish it. It is unlikely that Benteen would have lived if any portion of the remaining officers thought he had let their commander and friends be killed. "Stray shot got him...", just like someone probably killed the guy who cowered in the hill rather than charge when told to.
Benteen claimed openly and cheerfully to despise Custer, which made him unique only in his courage to say so, before and after LBH. I never said he never lied, I said nobody had proven it, despite all the bad mouthing. It isn't "same thing for Benteen." It's "totally different with Benteen!" |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
joseph wiggs
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - June 17 2004 : 8:10:13 PM
|
| Movingrobewoman, welcome back. Thank you for the informative web-sites. |
|
|
|
lorenzo G.
Captain
Italy
Status: offline |
Posted - June 17 2004 : 8:24:00 PM
|
It don't matter about roles of Czar and Benteen, the point was this: you can't believe without suspiscion to the testimony of one who hate the accused (contrary exemple, parents are not allowed too). Benteen did'nt only despised Custer. That was his point of view and not condemn him for this. Difference and to condem is that he insulted him and made all the efforts, also telling lies, to destroy the reputation of Custer. And pictured him as false as could be the myth of Whittaker.
|
If it is to be my lot to fall in the service of my country and my country's rights I will have no regrets.
Custer |
|
|
|
joseph wiggs
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - June 17 2004 : 9:01:47 PM
|
Lorenzo, it is very true that Benteen held no love in his heart for the General. He boasted of his abilty to put Custer in his place when others were afaid to do so:
"I mean most of the Captains and all of the subalterns in the 7th, seemed to be positively afraid of Custer. I always went to him in 'propria persona' and had the matter adjusted at once. Custer liked me for it, and I always surmized what I afterwards learned, de facto, that he wanted me badly as a friend; but I could not be, tho' I never fought him covertly."
Some scolars believe that Benteen's acrimonious bitterness resulted from the General's failure to commend Benteen for his actions at the battle of the Wa****a. He also blamed Custer for the death of Maj. Elliot which occurred during this battle.
"Benteen not only disliked Custer but despised him. There was a clash of personalities from the very start of their relationship."
W.A. Graham-The Custer Myth
Knowing these factors, one can not but wonder if Benteen's choice of action was a result of his intense dislike for General Custer? |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
|
|
joseph wiggs
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - June 17 2004 : 9:56:10 PM
|
The scholar to be named, at your request only one, is one of the most competent and, respected researchers into this battle. One whom I have used to justify a goodly portion of my arguments; Colonel W.A. Graham.
There are others, Kuhlman for example, but I won't bore you with a long list. For some inexplicable reason, you insist on mis-translating my threads into comments not made by me but, manufactured by yourself. I did not accuse Benteen of "letting 210 men die." What I patently said was, "Knowing these factors, one can not but wonder if Benteen's choice of action was a result of his intense dislike for General Custer."
This assumption is perfectly naturally. It is an option of thought. It is not meant, by me, as an accusation or condemnation of anyone.
|
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
|
|
El Crab
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - June 18 2004 : 12:35:10 AM
|
Reno had 154 soldiers. I was wondering, as I counted over 45 soldiers in both A and G after accounting for the 7 per company in the packtrain.
The remaining scouts were on the left of the skirmish line. They bailed soon after the skirmish line was formed. At least that's what I've read. Some stuck around to shoot, then decided it was time to go.
Show me where I referred to the scouts as "the left flank". I did not say that. I did say, when they left, the left flank was up in the air. I believe that's actually a phrase from a book I read. The scouts were on the left, and then they left. And then the warriors started passing around the left flank at a distance. I never said their leaving was the reason this happened, but they left, and the Sioux passed around the flank. It can't help any flank for a number of combatants to up and leave.
So no one had any business attacking the village? Is that what we're getting at? The soldiers weren't all Audie Murphy or Sgt. York, but they were soldiers. They may not have been trained, but they were expected to do their job. And if they were ordered to charge into a village and start killing people, that's what they're expected to do. I just don't understand saying that it was "absurd" to expect them to fight a battle. Why send them there in the first place? So, basically, none of the companies in the Seventh should have fought. Custer should have arrived on the precipice, looked off the edge, and decided against attacking? He did lose the fight, and his soldiers, on an individual level, were poor combat specimens. But he was a combat officer, in command of a combat regiment of cavalry.
Keep in mind, a majority of the Sioux and Cheyenne warriors had families to worry about. If there were 150 soldiers and 20+ scouts in the Hunkpapa camp, shooting and killing people, stampeding the villagers north, what would you do? You'd sure as **** try to make sure you get your family to safety. Then you'd worry about fighting the soldiers, unless they were in your midst. Or am I wrong? |
I came. I saw. I took 300 pictures. |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - June 18 2004 : 08:30:45 AM
|
Well, Crab, you said above Reno had 175, which includes the scouts, so it indicated you thought they were part of his command, on the left. Reasonable assumption, I thought, of your contention. And you reintroduce them as part of the command here, hypothetically attacking the Hunkpapa camp.
Attacking simply because you can with poor chances makes small sense. Sending in a portion and waiting an hour before sending in more makes less.
Hunkpapa in high summer awake and ready to go probably shouldn't be mistaken for freezing Cheyenne surprised at dawn in winter by a force that outnumbered them (and how long did that take?) Reno didn't even outnumber the Hunkpapas. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
joseph wiggs
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
 Posted - June 18 2004 : 4:48:31 PM
|
"The 21 Crow and Ree Scouts weren't there or paid to fight, as I recall."
There were 21 "Ree" scouts and four Crow Scouts involved in this battle. Four of the Crow Scouts were advised to leave, by Tom Custer not the General, prior to the advent of hostilities. Three of these Scouts took advantage of the offer and departed, shortly after the command entered Cedar Coulee. These three were Hairy Moccasin, White Man Runs Him, and Goes Ahead. Curley opted not to leave remainding with Mitch Boyer.
The "Ree" scouts were never dismissed by anyone. They entered the fray at the on-set of Reno's pursuit. Of the 21 Ree Indians, thirteen actually crossed the Little Big Horn River. Lt. Charles Varnum referred to this group when he stated, "Eight or ten Scouts were with me and as soon as the column passed I was joined by Lt. Hare."
If one considers that Lt. Varnum positioned himself to the far left of Reno's line, ostensible to stampede the Indian herds, then he, and they who were with him, were in affect, a "left flank" to Reno's line of advance. Albeit, an ineffective one.
Of this group,three Ree Scouts loss their lives; Bloody Knife, Bob-Tailed Bull,and Little Brave. Goose sustained a severe hand injury. A casuality list of three dead and a serious injury in such a small group speaks volumns for the bravery of these warriors. Lastly, everyone involved in this fight(including the Scouts) were paid for their services. |
Edited by - joseph wiggs on June 18 2004 4:54:40 PM |
|
|
|
Anonymous Poster8169
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - June 18 2004 : 10:27:14 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by El Crab
Reno had 154 soldiers. I was wondering, as I counted over 45 soldiers in both A and G after accounting for the 7 per company in the packtrain.
Well, using Hammer (and he seems to be the one most up-to-date) A had 47, G had 42, and M had 56 enlisted men present at the Little Bighorn, once you cut out the people sick at Fort Lincoln, or in jail in Chicago, or whatever. 7 were supposed to be detached from each company for the pack train, but when you look at the survivors list for the five destroyed companies, it is apparent that something is "wrong" somewhere. If Hammer's right, C had 7 men with the train, E 10, F 11, I 9, L 11. Either there are holes in the records (possible) or in practice, the pack details varied from company to company. So anyway, Reno might have had as many as 124 em's from the three companies, or perhaps as few as 112, roughly.
R. Larsen
|
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Benteen's order
Topic Locked
