| Author |
 Topic  |
|
dave
Captain
Australia
Status: offline |
 Posted - December 11 2004 : 11:17:03 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Cloud
Dave,
Why is high ground preferable if there's nothing to hide behind? You're visible to the enemy and an easy target. With all the dust around, and the quality of the soldiers, there's no long range shooting advantage.
Well then, its no more of a disadvantage than level ground where theres nothing to hide behind and you're still an easy target - is it?.
Anyway to try answer your question I've picked up my Dec 1986 National Geographic, which happens to have a 3D panorama of the battlefield.
I can't judge how steep the slopes are on the river side of the ridgeline from Reno Hill to Weir Point. But from the graphic they appear reasonably steep. That strikes me as being fairly important, as it means that the Indians might not have been able mount a cavalry attack from that side (or effectively rush the defenses by foot, en masse). This in turn probably allowed Benteen and Reno to redistribute some soldiers from the river side to other parts of their defensive perimeter - in effect shortening the overall length of the perimeter.
quote:
Weir Point is the highest ground in the neighborhood, and that was rejected by everyone as a good place from which to fight. Reno and Benteen both saw the depression atop Reno Hill (right and well under Sharpshooter Hill)as the best spot; they were probably correct, helped by the packs and trenches.
Having never been the battlefield, there is no possible way I can reply to this portion of your statement.
Maybe Weir Point was too exposed, maybe the acreage was too confined and Benteen/Reno were worried about crowding men and animals into a tight, target rich area. Maybe Weir Point was too close to the Indian camp, and they considered that the position would be too provocative to the Indians - meaning they might be attacked harder and earlier. Maybe they had already started digging in at Reno Hill and the men were exhausted. Maybe they thought they would be attacked before they could dig in.
I'm not really sure how you can say "Weir Point is the highest ground in the neighborhood, and that was rejected by everyone as a good place from which to fight".
Did Reno or Benteen or anyone else specifically state that Weir Point was an unsuitable place to fight from?
I really don't know that Reno Hill was the most defensible part of the battlefield. I suspect that at least part of the reason that spot was picked, was because it happened to be the place where Reno's men congregated after their flight from the timber. After Benteen joined him, it was probably simpler to begin entrenching near where they were, rather than move the wounded to another part of the battlefield.
quote:
I still don't see why Custer couldn't ride back south to unite the command, even under fire.
I agree. I'm totally bewildered myself as to why he didn't. I find it quite bizarre when you look at a map of the movements of Reno/Benteen. And then a way off in the distance is Custer and LSH
PS to anyone who has the Dec 1986 Geographic, take a look at the geezer on the left of the photo on page 744. |
  |
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - December 11 2004 : 12:10:53 PM
|
Dave,
Weir Point is without question the highest point in the neighborhood. And Benteen and Reno rejected it out of hand on record.
From the ford where Reno crossed West to MTC the land on the east is high above the river. I don't think anyone was worried about being attacked uphill from across the river so much as by the other three sides, more or less at about the same height except for Sharpshooter Hill which was some distance away. And yes, it's not like after a huge search they selected Reno, it was because it was in use and better than anything else immediately available. Still, it looks wonderful compared to LSH, or Calhoun, or Weir Point. At those sites, there's no cover and much cover for people beneath you in gullies and ravine.
LSH and the whole battlefield is deceptive. It's very bad land for defense and horses. Most Sioux fought on foot and virtually all the soldiers, so there is agreement between the two that it's bad cavalry land. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
joseph wiggs
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - December 11 2004 : 3:53:23 PM
|
| Billy, my quote regarding the ammunition boxes came directly from page 394, "Custer's Luck" by Edgar I. Stewart. It appears that accredited researchers can disagree and not be called "Liars." Would it not be nice if two members of this forum could manage to do likewise, as true men often do? |
|
|
|
joseph wiggs
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - December 11 2004 : 4:13:10 PM
|
| Dc, I won't dignify your un-substantiated and obnoxious remarks, regarding my credibility, with a response. First of all you are not important enough to do so, secondly you have desensitized the forum with your continuous name-calling which has nothing to do with this subject. However, I will use this opportunity to address a hot issue regarding the forum. Warlord has been admonished for his harsh vocabulary and rightfully so, as he violently cross the line several times regarding you and Larsen. I'm not saying he was wrong, he just should have toned down the wording. I find you offensive. As you are incapable of addressing me as one gentleman should another, please refrain from contacting me in any manner from this point forward. Your voracious need to belittle others (as evident by the departure of a few members who could no longer could tolerate you) is inexplicable but, indicative of a mentality that needs desperate therapy. I would choose the company of Warlord over a worm like you any day of the week. Thank you for your time and have a Merry, Merry Christmas. |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - December 11 2004 : 7:23:03 PM
|
"Benteen failed to render aid to 10 to 12 soldiers that HE obsevred being slaughtered in the valley." Joseph Wiggs.
"I did not charge Benteen with failure to render aid to the troopers left behind on the valley floor." Joseph Wiggs.
Anyone who wants to follow Mr. Wiggs' tenuous grasp of truth, his plagiarism, and not understanding what he himself posted has only to start at the beginning of this thread. It's hysterical.
And when people defame those who cannot defend themselves, dead or alive, we need to call them on it. Enjoy the read; nothing is funnier. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
joseph wiggs
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - December 11 2004 : 9:00:41 PM
|
This from a man who enjoys the dubious distinction of being one of only two people on the entire planet (the other being H. Miller)to believe Custer was wounded at MTC and, miraculously, transported to LSH bleeding from a gaping chest wound. Pardon me if I can not take anything you say seriously.
In addition, and realistically speaking, nothing posted between you and I could possibly fall into the catagory of "humor" Your insistence that my thread is, "hysterical" and "nothing is funnier" is a psychological projection of anger at my classifying you as the long, slender, soft bodied animal that you are.
Sniff, do I detect the approach of a Larsen? |
Edited by - joseph wiggs on December 11 2004 9:04:43 PM |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - December 11 2004 : 9:12:51 PM
|
Gee, Wiggs. I'm honored, given I'm so unimportant to you. I'm only predicating Custer being wounded because I cannot believe a healthy Custer would make the decisions that led him to LSH, and his being wounded conveniently explains pretty much everything. Of course, there is no evidence and I claim none.
I don't fear anyone reading my posts here or anywhere, Wiggs. There are no fabrications. I err, apologize, explain, move on. You have all these very foolish things up. And everyone can read them at leisure. Pretty much forever.
|
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
joseph wiggs
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - December 11 2004 : 9:38:44 PM
|
DC, do I denote a pang of animosity in your response? I was only joking with you. I think you are a wonderful commentator and analytical purveyor of truth. My esteem for you is exceeded only by your own estimate of your self worth. I salute your efforts on this forum, my friend. The one point that I must disagree with you is your position that you "err", never I say. You are incapable of committing an "err." Please, never say that again. As leader of the DC fan club, I protest any negative remarks about you, even ones coming from you.  |
Edited by - joseph wiggs on December 11 2004 9:44:44 PM |
|
|
|
Anonymous Poster8169
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - December 12 2004 : 12:06:00 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by bhist
Now, to fully understand the next part it is advantageous to have visited the battlefield. If Custer still felt the need to either attack the village or capture the non-combatants, then he would’ve asked Bouyer for another good crossing point other than MTF. That place would have been the ford near where today’s Hwy 212 and I-90 intersect. It so happens that’s the area that the non-combatants gathered west of the river.
What you say about Bouyer's possible involvement is quite plausible, but if Custer still felt the need to attack the village or capture women, I don't see why he wouldn't just use Ford B. He'd gotten burned detaching from Reno (and a good crossing) to use a ford that almost certainly wasn't as close as he thought it would be, so would he really try it again? At Ford B, the village is right there, and there's a perfect avenue for you to get onto the west bank to round up the women. I really don't think he intended either (capturing the village, or capturing women) at this point, because with Reno repulsed it made no sense. How could he hold it? And rounding up women would just burden him.
Fox is the guy who has argued most forcefully for the capture-the-women-and-children plan as the reason why Custer abandoned the crossing and turned his head north, but I don't think the "Strategy" he promotes in his chapter of the same title is anywhere reflected in the actual history of the Plains wars. Take this choice quote:
"In spite of a village inadequately defended at Medicine Tail ford, the general could see that something else was missing --- people. Fugitives remained the principal objective: one could not return an empty village to reservations. Control of the village proper meant nothing without first apprehending its inmates." (315)
Rubbish. Escorting a captured hostile village back to the reservation was not de rigueur, and probably hardly feasible in any case. You didn't need to "return" anybody back to the reservation. Just burn up all their food, shelter, and kill their transportation and they'll go back on their own accord. I mean, let's look at the instances where the military was able to attack a hostile village that year.
3/17, Reynolds at Powder River. 105 lodges. When he attacked, the pony herd was first secured. Most of the villagers, unhurt, fled to the bluffs. The empty village was quickly secured, presumably because Fox wasn't there to tell them it meant nothing. Reynolds didn't bother capturing the villagers and gave orders to move out the horses and burn the village down with all speed. Some Indians who had been wounded in the initial assault and thus weren't able to flee with the rest were left behind. Because Reynolds didn't follow Custer's example at the Wa****a and kill the horse herd, and didn't do a good enough job of protecting them, most of them were recaptured during his withdrawal to Crook.
9/9, Mills at Slim Buttes. 37 lodges. When he attacked, the pony herd was quickly secured. Again, most of the villagers, unhurt, fled to the bluffs. A few were taken prisoner, and some were caught in a ravine where they endured a siege for several hours. The village was torched. The herd was kept for both food and fresh mounts. Crook (who had come in in support of Mills) released all the prisoners, though some chose to accompany him anyway, and were allowed.
11/25, MacKenzie at Red Fork. 173 lodges. After a struggle, the pony herd was secured and the villagers fled into the bluffs. The village was secured and destroyed. No prisoners were taken; in fact, as they withdrew the troops watched several of the dispossessed villagers go back to the site and "sit down, cry, and sing mournful songs" (Greene, Morning star Dawn, 154).
12/18, Baldwin at Ash Creek. 122 lodges. Baldwin fired his howitzer and the villagers abandoned it bloodlessly. No attempt was made to capture them. Not all the herd was captured, but the empty village was destroyed, and Baldwin was quite pleased with himself.
Fox is making the villagers out to be the prime objective, "the principal objective," in a village assault, which supposedly can only explain why Custer didn't attack at Ford B. He cites not one example. Even at Wa****a, where Custer did drag back 50 captives, nobody began rounding up women from the lodges (and, in the case of Elliott, outlying areas) until the herd had been captured and the village was secure.
What on earth is Fox talking about?
R. Larsen
|
Edited by - Anonymous Poster8169 on December 12 2004 01:00:27 AM |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - December 12 2004 : 10:26:17 AM
|
Exactly. A poorly defended crossing into an empty village.......necessitates a rush north on the east bank? Straight lines are not the shortest distance in Custerland? Fox is a scientist. He must know.
I say again (freshen my coffee, I'm on a roll here...)that a great deal of the 'controversy' surrounding this event for over a century are rather frantic and increasingly bizarre attempts to explain away Custer's failure to actually attack through MTC, if the village was as small as now suggested.
I think when consistent criteria are agreed upon with which to judge the command and tactical actions of Reno, Benteen, and Custer and eventually bear fruit, it can be admitted that by any consistent standard applied accurately to the three on that day, Custer ranks lowest, Benteen highest. It's too much trouble to figure out where Reno ranks, we can ask Wiggs' neighborhood children.
Anything can be tolerated except the implication that Custer himself performed poorly on a field of battle, and there is a great deal of Procrustian effort put into conforming theories to that goal.
Warlord, the evidence for Custer's wound is testimony from those who saw what had to have been an absolutely gross body three days later. Less there be any doubt, I do not believe for a moment that he was laying there, gently between and upon the bodies of his mutilated soldiers, himself untouched and with a smile on his face. I forget, were his hands clasped in prayer or fists raised in defiance to the last? Had he carved "Libby, Thy Heart Soothes Me" with a pen knife on his horse or leg before he passed over? It's so moving, I can't read about it without choking.
It's described as on the left side, mortal, chest wound, below the heart, all variations. But in fact, that could mean anything. Safe bet nobody poked around to do an autopsy. It could have been an incapacitating wound, but it might not.
We certainly do not know if it was a .45 that did it, or when he received it, or how bad it was. Waterman says he saw him holding his left side near the battle's end on his knees. It's possible he could ride on his own if wounded earlier. It's inconceivable that he would have been left there alive if he'd been hurt at MTC or environs anyway. Miller and I are NOT the only ones who can imagine this, and Miller is far more adament than I am. Without that scenario, Custer is responsible for the ride north, and I do have issues with that. But I have zero evidence. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
Edited by - Dark Cloud on December 12 2004 10:40:42 AM |
|
|
|
joseph wiggs
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - December 12 2004 : 4:23:55 PM
|
In an earnest attempt to derive critical information from various sources, we sometimes over complicate matters and fail to see the simplicity of a situation.
It normally occurs when the thinker has etched a perceived thought in stone and refuses to expand his or her thoughts to include a variety of possibilities, even those in conflict with personal convictions. We don't know why Custer did not attack the village via Ford "B", we just know that he did not. Why not? It was fordable, it supplied a direct entry into the center of the village, and it was defended by a few warriors only. Yet, Custer chose not to.
Just prior to sending Yate's battalion down MTC, Custer himself observed the village proper from Sharpshooters Ridge. From this location he gathered critically needed, military intelligence. The village appeared to be void of warriors, the warriors were responding to Reno's thrust (as planned) and, the noncombatants were stampeding north in total panic.
An attack at this point would have placed the warriors in a precarious position, sandwhiched between two elements of the calvary. However, this movement would not ensure that the warriors would be prevented from slipping out of the trap. Not only that, unless plans were immediately taken to rounded up the women, children, and old men, they too could escape. The capture of the noncombatants would not be a "burden" to the General. On the contrary, it would have ensured the complete capitulation of the warriors. You see, they loved their women and children also.
Custer ordered Yate's battalion down MTC to induce further panic in the villagers while he observed their actions from the environs of Luce Ridge. It was a military "feint." Approximately 10 Cheyenne warriors stood between Yates and the village. The warriors knew nothing of military tactics and, assumed the worst. They fired at the encroaching sodiers and a buckskin, clad soldier dropped from his mount into the river. The Indians observed the other soldiers pull this misfortunantfrom the river and re-mount him. To go to so much trouble to retrieve a body caused the warrior's to assume this man to be a "Leader" soldier. Perhaps this is how the assumption that Custer was felled at Ford "B" got started.
Had Custer been incapacitated, he would have been replaced by the senior officer, Keough. The fact that the captain was discovered fallen with his troop indicates that Custer made it to LSH in good health.
Fox shows conclusive evidence that Custer traveled to an area he designates as Ford "A", a 1/2 mile or so further north of LSH. Custer shortly thereafter journeyed to the basin located directly below LSH and waited 20 minutes or so for Benteen to arrive. No attack took place at Ford "B" because their was no military advantage in doing so. We now know that Reno fled his positon in as blind a panic as the Indian women and children thus, freeing up hundreds of warriors to go against the General. He, however, could not have know that Reno would funk out and that Benteen would not respond as ordered.
This information was gathered through several sources. Im not the author of any of it. This disclaimer was created with Dc in mind because,apparently,he believes I'm stupid enough to plagiarize printed information known to every member of this forum, or he's simply a liar? |
Edited by - joseph wiggs on December 12 2004 4:46:34 PM |
|
|
|
BJMarkland
Colonel
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - December 12 2004 : 7:17:56 PM
|
Larsen, I am not going to "quote" you on your post of 12/12 at 12:06 p.m. in order to save space.
While I agree somewhat with your thesis, look at the dates. Each of them are either in the fall, after the summer hunting is done or in the winter/late winter when the village is subsisting primarily on preserved food. Burning the village at those times would have done more damage to the Indians than during the spring or summer simply because of the hunter/gatherer lifestyle of the Plains Indian. Capturing/burning the village in June, while an inconvenience, would not have been enough alone to drive the "wild Indians" into the reservations as there still was plenty of time to hunt and gather supplies for winter.
Killing the horse herds, ala McKenzie [sp] and Custer was the sure-fire method of bringing the hostiles in. Without horses, they starved, even during summer.
Just my two cents worth.
Merry Christmas,
Billy |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
|
|
bhist
Lt. Colonel
Status: offline |
Posted - December 12 2004 : 7:55:36 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by joseph wiggs
We don't know why Custer did not attack the village via Ford "B", we just know that he did not. Why not? It was fordable, it supplied a direct entry into the center of the village, and it was defended by a few warriors only. Yet, Custer chose not to.
But, we do not know if MTF was fordable as everyone that has posted today and yesterday assumes. If you believe the latest evidence coming from the battlefield, MTF was not fordable. That is the only reason I can believe, understand, and explain why Custer turned to Bouyer to find out where the next intersection was. For the rest of my theory read my post from yesterday, 12:37:52 AM. |
Warmest Regards,
Bob
www.vonsworks.com
www.friendslittlebighorn.com
www.friendsnezpercebattlefields.org |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - December 12 2004 : 8:25:02 PM
|
Didn't the Sioux pour across MTC in the other direction by testimony of a whole lot of people? If not, where did they access the 7th? How in the world can archaeology prove the depth of the LBH at a specific point and a specific day? Fordable to people or horse?
|
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
bhist
Lt. Colonel
Status: offline |
Posted - December 12 2004 : 8:33:26 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Cloud
Didn't the Sioux pour across MTC in the other direction by testimony of a whole lot of people? If not, where did they access the 7th? How in the world can archaeology prove the depth of the LBH at a specific point and a specific day? Fordable to people or horse?
What have you been drinking this weekend, D.C.? I never once mentioned the word archeology. The new evidence has nothing to do with archeology. And, frankly, I know very little of the specific evidence since the researcher is keeping it under wraps while he writes a book about it all. And, I promised him I wouldn't reveal what I know.
Guess, all of us will just have to wait and see. |
Warmest Regards,
Bob
www.vonsworks.com
www.friendslittlebighorn.com
www.friendsnezpercebattlefields.org |
Edited by - bhist on December 12 2004 8:39:33 PM |
|
|
|
joseph wiggs
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - December 12 2004 : 8:40:11 PM
|
| Bob, I see your point and, it certainly has validity. Custer's movement may have resulted from an inability to cross at MTC. My research, thus far, counters your conclusion. There are reasons to believe that much of the scouting was accomplished by a detachment of five or so troopers who scouted the lay of the land ahead of any movement by the General. That being the case, Ford "B" and "A" should have been scouted by these men. Let me get back to you. One thing I do know is that no one on this board is more astute, knowledgable,or as sincere as you. So pardon me if I choose not to say you are wrong! |
Edited by - joseph wiggs on December 12 2004 8:44:54 PM |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - December 12 2004 : 10:50:48 PM
|
Well, let's see. The first two bottles were St. Charles Single Malt and the third was .... the 409 refill bottle. Uh-oh. That makes it dicey to choose the amount of insulin to recover from Wiggs' post. How much did you use to get through it?
That much? Huh.
Well, it was an assumption. There can only be two types of evidence, the statements of witnesses and the study of the field and environs. Since I haven't read anything that says that broad area by and north of MTC was of depth unusual for that river, which is pretty shallow, I assumed something had been discovered. Or not discovered, but barely conceivable if drunk, which you apparently think I am.
Well, won't attempt to loosen your lips with my patented and fearful ability to ellicit information someone doesn't want to reveal on public forums (you're getting sleepy....), especially with the startling information the author has discovered, but based upon the ridiculous theories and (....sleeeeeeeeepy....) strained supposed new insights of the last few years I'm fully expecting the alien/ufo slant any month now (.....no! don't think of that, you're really sleeeeeeeeeeeepyyyyyy), and I'm not expecting much from this.
How's the cranium of Harrington book doing, any converts? (Wait! We just learned today it was Keogh who was that fearsome warrior, all the Sioux said so, not Harrington.....sleeeeeeeppyyyyyyyyy...)
No? Okay, pick a card, any card.....sleeeeepppppyyyyyyyyy. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
bhist
Lt. Colonel
Status: offline |
Posted - December 12 2004 : 11:38:32 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Cloud
Well, let's see. The first two bottles were St. Charles Single Malt and the third was .... the 409 refill bottle. Uh-oh. That makes it dicey to choose the amount of insulin to recover from Wiggs' post. How much did you use to get through it?
but based upon the ridiculous theories and (....sleeeeeeeeepy....) strained supposed new insights of the last few years I'm fully expecting the alien/ufo slant any month now (.....no! don't think of that, you're really sleeeeeeeeeeeepyyyyyy), and I'm not expecting much from this.
How's the cranium of Harrington book doing, any converts? (Wait! We just learned today it was Keogh who was that fearsome warrior, all the Sioux said so, not Harrington.....sleeeeeeeppyyyyyyyyy...)
Well, I can see the problem outright. You're drinking bad single malt Scotch. You need to change to the Springbank Campbeltown 100 Proof, 21 year for starters.
Secondly, you need to be less pessimistic about what today's researchers are doing. Yes, the majority of them are bad, but my friend who has this information is very good. What he has is a mind blower -- his evidence is hardcore.
Lastly, I don't follow or understand your point about Harrington or Keogh.
Merry Christmas... |
Warmest Regards,
Bob
www.vonsworks.com
www.friendslittlebighorn.com
www.friendsnezpercebattlefields.org |
|
|
|
bhist
Lt. Colonel
Status: offline |
Posted - December 12 2004 : 11:41:58 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by joseph wiggs
Bob, I do know is that no one on this board is more astute, knowledgable,or as sincere as you. So pardon me if I choose not to say you are wrong!
Thanks, Joe, but I have to remind you that this research regarding Custer not able to cross MTF because of a bog is not mine. And, I can't make a solid conclusion since I haven't seen all the evidence. The accumulation of different evidence deals with a lot more than just MTF. |
Warmest Regards,
Bob
www.vonsworks.com
www.friendslittlebighorn.com
www.friendsnezpercebattlefields.org |
|
|
|
Anonymous Poster8169
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - December 13 2004 : 05:37:34 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by joseph wiggs
An attack at this point would have placed the warriors in a precarious position, sandwhiched between two elements of the calvary. However, this movement would not ensure that the warriors would be prevented from slipping out of the trap. Not only that, unless plans were immediately taken to rounded up the women, children, and old men, they too could escape. The capture of the noncombatants would not be a "burden" to the General. On the contrary, it would have ensured the complete capitulation of the warriors. You see, they loved their women and children also.
It's a burden if you haven't captured the village, the horse herd, or subdued the warriors. That's the objective, isn't it? Reynolds, MacKenzie, Mills, and Baldwin certainly had a different set of priorities than what Fox argues for. What evidence are you basing this on, other than your cuddly rhetoric?
Has anyone noticed that, Ford D or not, this is not something Custer ever did, or by any account even came close to doing? It depends entirely on the argument --- an assertion really, since an argument using examples from military practice of the period has never been made --- that with Reno repulsed, the village aroused, and Benteen far from action, Custer thought the best way to force a surrender of the village (ha) which dwarfed every other seen that year was to move away from support and, with guns to the heads of maybe 50 -100 - 200 - 1000? women, with just 200 men, convince 2,000 warriors to give up?
What would ever give him the idea that this would work?
quote:
Custer ordered Yate's battalion down MTC to induce further panic in the villagers while he observed their actions from the environs of Luce Ridge. It was a military "feint."
And you know this how?
quote:
Approximately 10 Cheyenne warriors stood between Yates and the village. The warriors knew nothing of military tactics and, assumed the worst. They fired at the encroaching sodiers and a buckskin, clad soldier dropped from his mount into the river. The Indians observed the other soldiers pull this misfortunantfrom the river and re-mount him. To go to so much trouble to retrieve a body caused the warrior's to assume this man to be a "Leader" soldier.
Source?
quote:
Had Custer been incapacitated, he would have been replaced by the senior officer, Keough. The fact that the captain was discovered fallen with his troop indicates that Custer made it to LSH in good health.
What exactly would "replacing" Custer require Keogh to do? Keogh and Yates were both in charge of their own separate battalions.
I don't see how Keogh's death on Battle Ridge indicates anything about Custer's health.
quote:
Fox shows conclusive evidence that Custer traveled to an area he designates as Ford "A", a 1/2 mile or so further north of LSH.
Ford D, you mean --- Ford A was Reno's first crossing --- and his "conclusive evidence" is a joke. The claims of John Stands in Timber, who wasn't even born at the time, and the vague notations on an Agency officer's map which even Fox concedes doesn't claim as much as he would like it to.
quote:
Custer shortly thereafter journeyed to the basin located directly below LSH and waited 20 minutes or so for Benteen to arrive.
You know he did this and that he did this for that reason .... how? And why couldn't he just go back to Benteen himself and save time? It's not like the ground they were at was really awesome for giving it hard to the Indians. Besides, I thought the purpose of this whole movement was to bundle up the women. Why now is he sitting on his ass waiting for Benteen to join him in this cavalry deathtrap?
quote:
No attack took place at Ford "B" because their was no military advantage in doing so. We now know that Reno fled his positon in as blind a panic as the Indian women and children thus, freeing up hundreds of warriors to go against the General. He, however, could not have know that Reno would funk out and that Benteen would not respond as ordered.
What do you mean? If Reno had fled, he already knew he was out of action. And Benteen was never ordered to join Custer, unless Cooke really butchered the message, and Martin gives no suggestion of that.
quote:
This information was gathered through several sources. Im not the author of any of it. This disclaimer was created with Dc in mind because,apparently,he believes I'm stupid enough to plagiarize printed information known to every member of this forum, or he's simply a liar?
I've asked you to provide some sources anyway. And answer some questions; you're not as critical of these gathered, hoarded theories as you ought to be.
R. Larsen |
Edited by - Anonymous Poster8169 on December 13 2004 06:41:10 AM |
|
|
|
Anonymous Poster8169
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - December 13 2004 : 05:48:33 AM
|
Billy-
I agree that a winter attack would have done more damage, and put the Indians in a harder position, but burning down lodges, killing horses, and confiscating or destroying ammunition would not just be inconvenient. Such stuff (horses you mention, and ammo too) is not easily replaceable, and even if they didn't come in to the agencies, by going to other tribes to borrow the things they lost, they would weaken and burden them also.
R. Larsen
|
|
|
|
Anonymous Poster8169
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - December 13 2004 : 06:02:04 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by bhist
But, we do not know if MTF was fordable as everyone that has posted today and yesterday assumes. If you believe the latest evidence coming from the battlefield, MTF was not fordable.
But Hare said it was "easily forded" (RCOI, pg 303), and Culbertson said it was "fully as good" as the one Reno used to begin the fight (pg. 386, same reference).
R. Larsen
|
|
|
|
Anonymous Poster8169
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - December 13 2004 : 06:04:47 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by bhist
And, frankly, I know very little of the specific evidence since the researcher is keeping it under wraps while he writes a book about it all. And, I promised him I wouldn't reveal what I know.
He'll have a hard time dealing with Hare and Culbertson, assuming he chooses to.
R. Larsen
|
|
|
|
Smcf
Captain
Status: offline |
Posted - December 13 2004 : 06:32:05 AM
|
| Weren't there accounts of horses bolting into the village at this ford? I've also heard of an Indian account stating not much was seen from the west bank due to the dusk and smoke, until riderless horses galloped from the field and into the village. |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Benteen's order
Topic Locked
