| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
|
|
prolar
Major
Status: offline |
 Posted - January 21 2005 : 1:16:30 PM
|
| Larsen: I had nothing to do with Warlord's post. Why shouldn't I have complimented Whistlingboy's post? Certainly I had you and DC in mind when I mentioned two trolls. While I didn't intend it as a compliment, unless troll has a meaning I didn't know or intend, both of you have used far more insulting terms. |
  |
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - January 21 2005 : 4:51:28 PM
|
DC
Whether a .45/55 or a .45/70 isn't relevant. Fun to talk about, apparently, but not really relevant to the battle, because they weren't trained well as a regiment in any firearm.
But it is relevant DC.It helps to build up a profile of the 7th.Is it possible that the troops were issued with assorted ammo?Was it government policy to issue old civil war stock.The QM stores were bulging with the stuff.If it was found that the 7th was using both loadings at the LBH resulting in inaccurate fire orders being given one could deduce that it was a was a very unprofessional outfit.Now if you are not too pushed about marksmanship in the unit then the issue of assorted ammo will not be of any great concern.
The relevance of minutiae is in it's sum total.It all adds to the jigsaw. |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - January 21 2005 : 5:33:00 PM
|
According to Varnum - uncontested - they had a choice of rifle or carbine, for whatever that tells us. Officers and some NCO's and apparently one recruit brought their own rifles, not of the same calibre. He says his guys took rifle, and assumed the others did as well. You'd assume they were trained in both, then, since there would be differences beyond throbbing shoulders. But nobody has found any evidence the 7th was trained with any ammo or firearm with the religion required to attain ease and marksmanship. Almost notional, in fact.
For the minutiae to be relevant, the macro template of basic competence with their weapons has to be assumed for the 7th in aggregate. Can we? I don't think so, because even without the LBH there's little to suggest the 7th was a hot shooting outfit. If the 7th had .22 target rifles (even long rounds)and .32 revolvers would anything be really different with the same amount of training? With 30/30 Remington deer rifles and twin holstered double action Colt .45's? No way to know, but I don't see it if the majority weren't really comfy with their weapons and confident in their own abilities. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - January 21 2005 : 5:57:05 PM
|
DC
For the minutiae to be relevant, the macro template of basic competence with their weapons has to be assumed for the 7th in aggregate.
It is relevant because if as I understand you to say the ammo issued was both rifle and carbine then accurate fire control and effected volley firing was compromised.
Now that gives an appalling shoddy image of the unit.You posted--Why Custer and his unit ended up where he did is of interest.The musketry system or lack of in the 7th reflected the effectiveness of the unit and contributed to where the unit ended up.
|
|
|
|
prolar
Major
Status: offline |
Posted - January 21 2005 : 6:46:53 PM
|
| Wild I; I believe you have stated that your army service was in the 60's, about the time of mine, so I can understand your feeling about old army equipment. I think we had C- rations left over from Korea or maybe WW11. However the ammo for the 1873 carbine was not produced before 1873. Whatever the defects in the ammo, it wasn't Civil War surplus. |
|
|
|
Anonymous Poster8169
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - January 21 2005 : 7:57:17 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by prolar
Larsen: I had nothing to do with Warlord's post. Why shouldn't I have complimented Whistlingboy's post? Certainly I had you and DC in mind when I mentioned two trolls. While I didn't intend it as a compliment, unless troll has a meaning I didn't know or intend, both of you have used far more insulting terms.
No problem, Prolar --- if I was wrong in identifying you as one of Warlord's lonely applauders, then of course you have my apologies. You sure had me, and probably others, thinking differently.
If you were going to call me a liar, though, I think it would have been pretty smart of you not to tell lies yourself in the same breath. "I have never posted garbage about Dark Cloud or anyone else" is a lie, "Prior to this, I have never had a problem with any poster" is a lie, and I think "I have never encouraged Warlord or anyone else to call names" is a lie too, though based on your recent clarification you can probably worm out of it by saying you don't encourage others to call names, you just do it yourself and then pretend you didn't.
R. Larsen
|
Edited by - Anonymous Poster8169 on January 21 2005 8:18:34 PM |
|
|
|
prolar
Major
Status: offline |
Posted - January 21 2005 : 8:49:18 PM
|
| Larsen: If you want to consider my reference to you and DC as trolls,to be name calling feel free. I consider it a factual reference. Don't mistake my post as an apology, you are still a liar. |
|
|
|
Anonymous Poster8169
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - January 21 2005 : 9:57:57 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by prolar
Larsen: If you want to consider my reference to you and DC as trolls,to be name calling feel free. I consider it a factual reference. Don't mistake my post as an apology, you are still a liar.
Of course it's name-calling my boy; and even if you want to be mealy-mouthed about it and invent some distinction by considering it "a factual reference," you still lie when you claim, greasily, that "Prior to this, I have never had a problem with any poster". That no one ever thought enough to make one with you doesn't count.
No, I didn't think your post was an apology. I thought you were saying I had misinterpreted you, and if I did then of course I'll accept that. But there's no misinterpretation about the lies you've just told. They're all quite transparent, made more contemptible by you using them as a basis to call someone else a liar. And stupidly too, since had you bothered you might have noticed I never accused you of any of the things you got so defensive about. I just said you had been one of Warlord's approvers. Your lies came in response to imagined charges.
R. Larsen |
|
|
|
prolar
Major
Status: offline |
Posted - January 22 2005 : 2:58:50 PM
|
| Larsen: No misunderstanding, you were specific in accusing me and others, by name, of "egging Warlord on". I readily conceded that my reference to two trolls could be construed as name calling. I never denied that I did it. That still leaves you lying on the other two counts. Since you are a established and proven liar, I'll address future posts to you as LR. |
|
|
|
Anonymous Poster8169
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - January 23 2005 : 03:35:41 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by prolar
Larsen: No misunderstanding, you were specific in accusing me and others, by name, of "egging Warlord on". I readily conceded that my reference to two trolls could be construed as name calling. I never denied that I did it. That still leaves you lying on the other two counts. Since you are a established and proven liar, I'll address future posts to you as LR.
Well, I don't see why there should be any misunderstanding. Of course I specified you as one of Warlord's eggers-on. I thought I was quite clear about that, and I've told anyone who may be interested exactly why I thought so. You tell me I didn't read you correctly: all right. If that's the case, you deserve --- and naturally have --- my apologies for placing you in a group you didn't belong in.
I don't know what you mean by two other counts, unless you refer to all the imagined charges you got so defensive about in your first posting; on that, you either intentionally mislead, or are totally confused. The facts are (which you can't wiggle out of, since they're all there in quotes by you) is that you were shown to be lying for the purpose of slandering someone else as a liar. That's just low, at every level.
It looks like you hold a lot more malice for me than I hold for you, which is about all I can chalk this up too. Otherwise, I don't see why any person would act so foolishly and recklessly as to put himself in this spot. If it helps any, I don't think this is something anyone will hold against you --- I won't --- if it's a one-time thing, but you really stepped over the line here. There's just no excuse that can be made for it.
R. Larsen |
|
|
|
prolar
Major
Status: offline |
Posted - January 23 2005 : 2:11:14 PM
|
| Larsen: OK, lets end it. I apologise for the troll remark though it seems mild to me compared to idiots. If you can post a quote where I posted garbage about another poster or encouraged another poster to call names, I'll apologise for that too. Telling Warlord that if he was Whistlingboy to keep it up does not qualify. I don't know of any Whistlingboy post anyone could object to. |
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - January 23 2005 : 3:25:19 PM
|
OK, lets end it.
No way.After what you said about Wild Bill Buffalo!!! |
|
|
|
Anonymous Poster8169
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - January 24 2005 : 7:14:51 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by prolar
Fine with me.
R. Larsen |
|
|
|
joseph wiggs
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - January 29 2005 : 9:41:20 PM
|
It is almost ironic that I have inadvertently placed myself in the role of a naysayer regarding the stalwart Benteen when I originated this poll. That certainly was not my intent. Benteen's exemplary, military record speaks for itself. The ire and hostility that this post created towards me, by some, exemplifies the rancor and outrage that this discuusion will forment at the drop of the proverbial "hat." Only conversations dealing with religion and politics will generate such overwhelming animosity.
Benteen's decisions were based, I am sure, on military experience that he possessed that I never have nor, never will be privy to. That is exactly why the mere questioning of his decisions, in the aftermath of the fatal consequences, by a novice such as I can arouse so much heated debate.
I do not find Benteen at fault for this battle, nor Reno, Custer, or any other singular individual. The results of this battle was a culmination of individual acts by the troopers and the Indians in an ever changing, fluid series of events wherein someone had to lose and someone had to win. Reno decided to form a skirmish line when he was under a direct order to bring the hostiles to battle. Benteen chose to join Reno's troops despite his written order to re-join Custer's command. These decisions do not make either of these men cowards. Their decisions do not automatically translate into a conclusion that Custer would have won had they did otherwise.
What it means, sans heated rhetoric and shouts of "foul, foul, foul", is that these men made decisions based upon what they believed to be the best circumstances for their troops on a given moment of combat. In doing so, they willingly disobeyed orders. Perhaps under the difficult circumstances Benteen faced,you or I may have done the same thing.
The orders, despite the conjecture of some, where clear and concise, "Come Quick."
Benteen may have thought that the order was impossible to comply with. This is understandable. It does not negate, however, the responsibility of following such an order. Had Custer survived the battle, it is certain that he would have preferred charges against Benteen and Reno. Both men, I am sure, would have vigoriously defended their actions and, in the process, may have convince their peers of the merit of their decisions. The bottom line is that at the least, they would have been forced to answer naysawyers like you and I for their actions. |
|
|
|
joseph wiggs
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - January 30 2005 : 1:24:44 PM
|
Benteen's own words regarding an earlier post where I commended on his actions which resulted in his leaving dismounted troopers to their fate.
"We did neither; but took the trot! and, from the ford where Reno first crossed the beautifully blue Little Big Horn we saw going on what evidently was not "skedaddling" on the part of the Indians, as there were 12 or 14 dismounted men on the river bottom, and they were being ridden down and shot by 800 or 900 Indian warriors. We concluded that the lay of the land had better be investigated a bit, as so much of the Italian trumpeter's story hadn't "Panned out." So-OFF TO THE LEFT I WENT, seeing a group of 3 or 4 Absaraka or Crow Indians."
Graham's "Custer Myth" page 180-181
Benteen made no mention of the final faith of these men nor, does he give any account of anyone attempting to render aid. One can only assumed that they were left to their grisly faith. |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - January 31 2005 : 2:00:21 PM
|
Regress to the mean and back to square one. Benteen saw at more than a mile's distance (look at the map, Ford A to retreat ford)men on foot being ridden down. The numbers doing so exceeded his own. He couldn't reach them in time to do anything had he 1000 men and the enemy was composed of 50. Explain how this is "leaving them to their fate" since he wasn't present to leave them. All he could do was observe their fate. Later, of course, you deny saying this.
Those new to the fiasco that is Wiggs' argument here can just pop some corn and start at the beginning of this thread. It's hilarious, well worth the read.
The recipient of bad - very bad - information, Benteen was correct to find out what the hell they were getting into before committing troops. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
joseph wiggs
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - January 31 2005 : 6:20:24 PM
|
Let us make a united and concerted effort to deal with reality here. As you suggested, I recommend that the entire forum read the threads from day one. I believe that they will come to a general conclusion that has eluded you for so many months. To point out the actions of an individual(s) on any given situation(s),followed by a resonable discussion of the results of the aforementioned action(s)is commonly referred to as a debate.
A debate consists of two or more opposing rationals. It is a formal contest in reasoned argument. Neither participant has to agree nor should they engage in immaterial and precocious remarks.
I have never stated that Benteen was a coward;
I have never said that he was wrong for not "charging" 800 to 900 Indians;
I have never said that he could have saved these men;
I have never suggested that he could save these men.
I did say that he turned away without trying to save them;
I did say that I may have done the same thing under the circumstances;
I did say that Benteen may have realized that his men were not up to the task;
I made reference to not judging him.
All of that aside, by his own admission, Benteen saw the 12 or 14 soldiers, he obliqued right, and made no effort to render assistance. Your bemoaning of the dispicable "Wiggs" who brought this information will not change a solitary fact. I did not, have not, and will not judge Benteen. I decline to even judge you.
Your persistent efforts to reduce this debate to a perpetual exchange of unsubstantiated "name calling" is tiresome at best. Will you ever achieve a point when you realize that your blackened perspective of me is totally valueless. Neither I, nor anyone else cares.
Last but, not least a new scenario: You are one of the soldiers preparing to face your last day on earth. A mile away, you observe approximately a hundred and fifty or so men mounted on splendid war steeds. As renewed hope leaps into your heart it is soon replaced with the horror of watching these men turn away. Would you, at that point, feel that you were being "left to your fate?" I would imagine as you gazed upon the rump of Benteen's horse growing smaller and smaller, an Indian arrow imbeded in you skull, your last thought might be, "Benteen has a right to see what he was getting in to." |
Edited by - joseph wiggs on January 31 2005 6:34:31 PM |
|
|
|
BJMarkland
Colonel
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - January 31 2005 : 8:57:07 PM
|
Joe, I think it was the "presentation" of that specific argument that raises hackles.
For instance, you said:
quote:
Benteen's own words regarding an earlier post where I commended on his actions which resulted in his leaving dismounted troopers to their fate.
as well as:
quote:
Benteen made no mention of the final faith of these men nor, does he give any account of anyone attempting to render aid. One can only assumed that they were left to their grisly faith.
While what you are saying is strictly true, i.e., that Benteen did leave them, no mention is made in your post that he could not have done anything whatsoever to save them if the distances DC gave are anywhere near accurate. Thus, the presentation comes across as accusing and rather one-sided. If those men had been within carbine range or there had been some "Long Toms" there, I have no doubts that Benteen would have had troops firing on the Indians in an attempt to give them cover fire. Of course, at that range, the troops were just as likely to have been hit as the Indians but it might have helped.
Best of wishes,
Billy |
|
|
|
joseph wiggs
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - January 31 2005 : 9:37:29 PM
|
I see your point BJ and appreciate your unbiased presentation of my point of view. While saying one thing, I can see now, how others may have inferred another, odious, meaning to my statements. Ironically I really meant to exclaim that Benteen's actions were not to be condemned; albeit carefully perused.
In my threads, I genuinely meant to portray the reality that every event that occurrs on a given moment in battle may, or may not, effect other critical events that when are interweaved,interacted upon,in a final culmination of events, will produce a final result; desirable or undesirable.
In my haste to prove that no "one" man was responsible for this battle, I seemed to have dumped an excessive amount of blame upon Benteen. That was not my intent.
I believe Benteen failed to obey a specific order from his commanding officer, I will not condemn him for doing so.
P.s. How quickly can a horse transverse, approximately, a mile? Three minutes? |
Edited by - joseph wiggs on January 31 2005 9:41:13 PM |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - February 01 2005 : 11:32:46 AM
|
PS. How quick can mounted warriors run down unmounted men? What is the point of bringing your soldiers to negative 4 to 1 odds to make a display of trying to impossibly save a few men and lose more in the process? How many are behind the 800?
There was one officer responsible for the battle. Custer. He ordered it fought. If you're heroically trying to prove that no one officer was responsible for losing it, that would still be Custer, who took a shot at long odds and came up short. Eh. Happens. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
joseph wiggs
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - February 02 2005 : 9:11:59 PM
|
You bring up several valid points. We can surmise that Benteen too, weighed the possibilities that you suggested and, having done so, chose to do what he did. To imply that his decision, in some way, was incorrect is not what I meant to imply. I was not there. What I am suggesting is that everyone of us must be held accountable for every decision we make that has a direct effect on others. Benteen's decision, right or wrong, good or bad, had a direct effect on a specific group. As such, there will always exist those who will claim he "did what he had to do" versus those who will also exclaim, just as strongly, "he should have helped." Who is wrong, who is right; neither group.
I believe that it is possible to promote the theory that the Battle of the Little Big Horn was the direct result of a myriad of factors and not the sole responsibility of any one man or event. This belief does not make me a "Custerphile." Rather, it makes me a man with an opinion. We may question the military tactics employed by General Custer in this battle. In doing so, however, we must not pluck him from his historical era and judge him by ours. The vast majority of military leaders of that time period were led by many false perceptions of the Native Americans. (Particularily the false perception that warriors would not "stand" against a cavalry charge.)
Under other circumstances, when escape was a viable option, they would have fled. The vast majority, I believe, of military leaders of that era would probably approach this battle in a manner similar to Custer. The tactics used in the nineteenth century compared to present day tactics would appear unsatisfactory to all contemporaneous military leaders of today. Foolish now, correct then.
|
|
|
|
Anonymous Poster8169
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - February 03 2005 : 01:15:30 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by joseph wiggs
Under other circumstances, when escape was a viable option, they would have fled. The vast majority, I believe, of military leaders of that era would probably approach this battle in a manner similar to Custer. The tactics used in the nineteenth century compared to present day tactics would appear unsatisfactory to all contemporaneous military leaders of today. Foolish now, correct then.
I don't buy this at all. How was it "correct" to tail off from the rest of your support and fight the Indians alone on open ground far from the village, plus any other target of value? What was "correct" about the shoddy communications Custer kept up with his other units? The mismanaged attack, each unit being defeated in detail, seems to go in line with that, don't you think? Custer's battlefield decisions were criticized a lot by his contemporaries, regardless of what you imply. Grant, Sturgis, Hughes, Benteen, plus others I forget. Running a battle in which all your men get killed tends to make people question your judgment.
R. Larsen
|
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - February 03 2005 : 10:54:44 AM
|
Let's recall:
Wigg's original statement: "Benteen failed to render aid to 10 to 12 soldiers that HE obsevred being slaughtered in the valley."
Wigg's denial: "I did not charge Benteen with failure to render aid to the troopers left behind on the valley floor."
This, within first three pages of this thread. It's more than mere presentation, Mr. Markland. It was bad enough to dump on Benteen for being a responsible officer and to imply there was something Benteen could have been done for those soldiers, which would imply murder or cowardice or dereliction. When that was blown out of the water, Wiggs lied about it, as if nobody would remember or would reread his postings and thus demonstrated his belief he should not be held accountable for his own writings. That's pretty lousy.
Of course, later he plagiarized and offered sentences that meant the opposite of what he thought they said, but lying about the contents of his own postings and pouting that he need not apologize nor correct this behavior remains the flag he rallies around. It's pretty clear and evidenced on the forum and it should be chastised when it appears. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
joseph wiggs
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - February 03 2005 : 3:50:52 PM
|
| D.C., you are a sad individual, I have no comment for you. |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Benteen's order
Topic Locked
