| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
 Posted - June 09 2004 : 08:36:08 AM
|
Even in the unlikely event that soldiers at the time would agree with you (they said they did not) or that historians can agree it was an order reflecting distress (they do not), precisely what was Benteen to do under your manly summation? Ride pointlessly to Custer?
Please describe how this would have affected the outcome and list out Benteen's actions that would make it so. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
  |
|
|
joseph wiggs
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - June 09 2004 : 10:30:08 PM
|
| I was tempted to answer you question because it was a very good one. However, just in time I remembered an old adage, "It is useless to p*** in the wind, you only get wet." Your feelings concerning this battle are fundamentally predisposed to your personal conviction of what is right or wrong regarding the battle. You are not open to honest debate. Nothing I could say would would change that. Nothing anyone could say would change how you feel. |
Edited by - joseph wiggs on June 09 2004 10:33:18 PM |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - June 09 2004 : 10:43:43 PM
|
Oh, it's not for me, Wiggs. It's for those who've suggested that Reno and Benteen failed or worse because they could/should have gone to Custer after hearing/not hearing the shots from Custer/up north somewhere.
Because if they're not willing to provide the specific illustrative and instructive example of what SHOULD have been done, they ought to knock off the snide remarks about what WAS done, don't you think?
Go ahead. Start. What should Benteen and Reno have done to improve the day and save Custer when they met on Reno Hill? Nobody? Okay, when Benteen Met Martin, which you imply is an order Benteen failed to obey. Anyone?
Let's not always see the same hands.....
Someone? |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
lorenzo G.
Captain
Italy
Status: offline |
Posted - June 10 2004 : 05:05:13 AM
|
what Reno could have done it's easy to say. Even Grinnell, an historian Sioux partisan (I mean that he likes sioux and not so much Custer), tell that Reno retreat was a little bit too fast and that their positions could have been held. In my opinion he had first to stay were he was. Grinnell: Then the troops stopped and seemed to become very much excited and retreated to the timber. After a short stop in the timber the troops rushed out and began to retreat, their commander apparently leading the way. (...) They did'nt cross where they had come before, but jumped over a bank. All the cheyenne evidence shows that they made no attempt to defend themselves but thought only of getting away.(...)We could never understand why the soldiers left the timber, for if they had stayed there the indians could not have killed them. They (indians)heard shooting and calling down the river. A man shouting out that troops were attacking the lower end of the village. They all rushed down below and saw Custer coming down the hill and almost at the river. (...) All the men rushed down the creek to the lower camps
Grinnell said too: "Custer's purpose was to charge from both ends. The plan was a good one, but required that the charges should be made at the same time and should be led by men who were without fear
This is also my point of view. I understand all extenuating circumstances, but the point rest: he had to resist just few minuts more, and Custer, or his men if he was already dead, should have arrived, as happened for the truth. If he had not lose his head, Reno, would have held the positions, as prospetcted from other officiers and then an attack from both sides would have begone.
Benteen charges, to the next post.Now I have to go. Sorry. |
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 10 2004 : 07:07:07 AM
|
Look at the time lines. Reno would have run out of ammo staying in the timber, from which they could have been burned out eventually even if they had enough ammo, which they did not. The statement that they "should" have stayed is pretty bizarre. Lorenzo, entertain the notion that because something is said in print doesn't make it true, or necessarily reflect that the author thought it true.
"JUST A FEW MINUTES MORE...."???? Remember: Custer only STARTED his whatever-it-was to MTC an HOUR AFTER Reno attacked and retreated. Reno didn't know where Custer OR Benteen OR the packtrain were. Given that, and Custer's verifiable history of leaving men to their own devices, it would have been the height of stupidity to stay in the timber, run out of ammo, and been slaughtered.
If Custer's plan was to attack from both ends, why didn't he? He had time and momentum and he stopped. Or aren't we pretending that MTC is the north end of the village this year?
How did the Cheyenne get to the south end to play such a large role in Reno's fight? How did "all" the Indians rush the miles to confront Custer when he got to the river, which in any case is now claimed not to have happened? Since you claim to understand 'all extenuating circumstances' - no, you don't and could not possibly nor could anyone - you ought to know that the complaints about Reno's decisions or lack thereof somehow were not heroically made on the field but only later when he became the designated scapegoat.
And there it is, Erroll Flynn in utero. Lorenzo feels soldiers should be led by men without fear. I think people who feel this way and are willing to condemn those who feel fear and sometimes act on it should enlist to the colors themselves and get a chance to serve under such paragons in combat to appreciate the deep stupidity of that statement.
Being without fear is a disorder and not to be mistaken for courage, which is facing up to fear. Custer was, apparently, without fear. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
lorenzo G.
Captain
Italy
Status: offline |
Posted - June 10 2004 : 12:03:20 PM
|
for another time you treated me like a stupid. I don't think what you said "I entertain".
I have simply a different opinion from yours. that's all. I give you published material as an exemple because then is more easy that you don't misunderstand my thoughts as I write the Martini english.[
Yes, Custer retreated but because Reno let free to running the indians. The greatest part of indian witness claim this. And they have no reason to lie about it.
Nobody pretend nothing, but it looks at me that you're stating as true and proved just Custer's movements that are the only facts not proved and just supposed.
Who claim that is not happened then? Have we find the final true of this affair? would be fine, but I think not if this book I forward you (there are others in the same line) is written only few years ago - what I mean is that there are some historians that don't agree with you. Normal.
Is not true that complaint to Reno was made only later. Must I make a couple of exemple about it?
Lorenzo don't feel what you stated. Lorenzo, I repeat for the third time he's not a stupid with erroll flynn syndrome. Lorenzo proved too the fear when he was a soldier, and think fear is normal. But fear don't allow you to escape in front of the enemy. There have been a lot of situations in battles and wars, similar to Reno situation where the regiment, overwhelmed, hold his cold blood and finally win (don't shout now at the blasfemy, I don't mean he could have winning, just that there was a possibility to resist)Nobody says that it is easy. But this is the hard work of a soldier.
It was said once in another post that was fault of Custer if he had lack of ammo. Because he don't take enough with him. Now you say that Reno had to run away because he had lack of ammo. I answer: was its fault, because he wasted a lot of it, shooting when indians was holding theirselves out of range.
I don't even condemn Reno then, I just stated a point of view, an option, in answer to what you've asked. A circumstance that could have given different end to the battle. Who might knows? Even You can't.
You close your enraged reply with an offence to Custer. You just have to read (or maybe consider, if you've already read them) few accounts he made by letter to understand that He, as many other american soldiers, had normal fears, but shadap them with an high sense of duty.
|
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 10 2004 : 1:27:59 PM
|
What high sense of duty was Custer exhibiting when he had men shot without trial? When he deserted his own men to run to his wife, possibly because he was needy, possibly because he feared an affair?
What higher sense of duty allowed him to tell three different versions of the same incident in print, to pose as an objective journalist writing about his own campaign, to borrow and lose money gambing and repay at leisure?
People forget that when he was back East begging for his 1876 job, and technically AWOL, he was confronted with relatives of the men he'd had shot years back who apparently were trying to bring that to trial or perhaps blackmail him. On top of everything else. This in Graham, page 332.
Since Reno himself had to call the inquiry three years after the battle, what new complaint have you uncovered made in the interim, and who made them? We're not counting those courageous statements made years later.
Are you saying Reno should have osmotically known the amount of ammo he needed? Compare his fight to Custer doing EXACTLY the same thing at the Yellowstone three years previous. Custer dismounted, hit timber and then was rescued while running out of ammo. Reno didn't know or have reason to believe the ammo was coming his way (and it wasn't, if he stayed in the timber; Custer was kissing him off with the Martin order).
No Lorenzo. Reno had already retreated to Reno Hill when the Indians left for the north. Whether they made the miles in time to affect the fight there is open to debate. Gray's time lines, as yet uncontested, don't support you.
You say I give offense to Custer by saying he had no fear? |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
bhist
Lt. Colonel
Status: offline |
Posted - June 10 2004 : 2:45:21 PM
|
Lorenzo – good to see you posting here all the way from Italy. Did you receive the Friends’ newsletter?
I helped build the index to Ron Nichols “Reno Court of Inquiry” and I’m damn glad I did or else I couldn’t find the following:
Lt. Wallace, Jan 16, 1879: His answer to what would’ve happened to Reno’s command if they had stayed in the timber, “Major Reno and every man with him would have been killed.
Lt. Varnum, Jan 23: His answer if Reno could hold the timber with the men he had, “I don’t believe we had men enough to cover as large a line as it was necessary to cover in order to hold that timber. It does not seem so to me.”
Capt Moylan, Jan 25: “In my judgment the command, without assistance, would have been annihilated in the timber.” And my favorite by Moylan from the same day in response to the question, “Would it not have been better, as a soldier, to have been dead in the timber than dishonored on the hill? Moylan’s’ response, “I don’t know that that is a proper question to put to me. Very few men but would prefer to die in the timber than to be on the hill degraded.”
I know there are some statements made by others that feel the timber was defensible, but I don’t want to take the time to find them. The point to all of this is that none of us were in that timber or in those circumstances. I just don’t see how we can call what Reno should or should not have done in staying or retreating from the timber as bad or good.
|
Warmest Regards,
Bob
www.vonsworks.com
www.friendslittlebighorn.com
www.friendsnezpercebattlefields.org |
|
|
|
lorenzo G.
Captain
Italy
Status: offline |
Posted - June 10 2004 : 5:05:22 PM
|
BHIST:
first to you, yes, i get the newsletter last week. You post statement from whites, but, in this case, I think what is most important is to listen at the indians. And almost whole statement of them, said the same thing: that if soldiers was staying on the timber they would'nt have able to kill them. I'm not discussing about what the soldiers themselves thought.About your conclusion, well, then we was not with Custer, we was not on the hills with him then we can't say what he should or should not have done. Problem is that everybody here said what he have done without to know it, and condemn him without trial, a way to act that seems to be condemned elsewhere. And in the end, I was just answering a question;if that question was posed to have no answers, well, better was to tell it before.
What high sense of duty was Custer exhibiting when he had men shot without trial? If this is not propaganda, it is hate or something similar. I want to recall to you that in that period was however in full enemy territory and that the desertions were by now daily. And that was by now a problem of safety of the regiment entire - I found it strange that you take side with the ones who abandons the commando in full Indiana campaign when instead you condemn Custer in merit to its going away from the commando (and this happened with thousand attenuating circumstances). However, the desertions were so much that had to to take hard measures , and the only way was to bring back the discipline. You omits to say that Custer pretended cruelty for giving an example to the troop and that in reality when the deserters went back blessed, whispered to the doctor to cure them after to have pretended in front to the soldiers that he would have wanted to leave them without cares.
About ammo, it was just this that I wanted to show with a paradox: the truth is that it was not fault of Reno about ammo (also if still is a bad use of them shooting to someone out of range), as was not Custer fault.
What I ment concerning the retreat is: was not wrong the retreat but the way in which the retreat was done. A little bit too fast. Second: Gray is not a Bible. However, the minuts of the retreat, if they was used to stay, instead to run, maybe - and I say maybe - would have changed some.
You say I give offense to Custer by saying he had no fear?
Have I to quote your exactly words? they are: Being without fear is a disorder and not to be mistaken for courage, which is facing up to fear. Custer was, apparently, without fear.
Well Dark, maybe (surely) I don't write a good english, but, I am not a stupid (4 times) |
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 10 2004 : 5:46:29 PM
|
Not propoganda but fact and against the law. The Seventh had by far the worst desertion rate in the army, so right away there is suspicion the deserters were on to something.
Yet, Custer was convicted of deserting his command for personal reasons, how come you aren't in favor - as you say, to set an example - of his being shot as well? Gee, maybe the soldier's wife was having an affair and he had to see to it? That's called hypocrisy, not higher purpose. There were no extenuating circumstances, and in fact Custer went AWOL a fair amount and got away with murder. Literally.
Custer was often described as fearless, what's your point? He didn't object, why do you? |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
lorenzo G.
Captain
Italy
Status: offline |
Posted - June 10 2004 : 7:21:47 PM
|
| Then you really think that I'm imbecile. The point is that the one without fear you called "desorder". But, It' useless to answer as you don't want to hear. You always take your side of the reality. Hold it. |
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 10 2004 : 7:59:58 PM
|
Lorenzo,
You are correct when you state that Custer's plan was to attack both ends of the village. This tactic is perfectly obvious by Custer's right oblique along Reno's bluff rather than following the Major in on the initial attack. However, even that plan was changed when something unexpected occurred. Research has shown that he led his wing down Cemetary ridge to a ford near the location where the frightened Indian women and children had gathered. Now there was no need to attack the village. If he could capture the women and childred, the warriors would capitulate. Realizing that his force was insufficient for such a large endeavor, he marched to the basin, near Deep Ravin, and awaited Benteen who never arrived. That Custer failed to actually attack the village or capture the non-combatants is also obvious, he was assulted by an overwhelming force of warriors who were suddenly "freed up" by Reno's ineptness as a commander.
As for the bizzare statement reference your preference that soldiers be led by men without fear, what is the alternative, being led by men with fear? |
|
|
|
joseph wiggs
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - June 10 2004 : 8:51:58 PM
|
| Dark Cloud, could you please submit, to the forum, your analysis of the data that conclusively proves that the 7th.had the worst desertion rate of the entire Army of that era? Thanks loads. |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - June 10 2004 : 9:14:11 PM
|
Best I can do for the moment is a 52% desertion rate in 1867, over 500 between Oct 1 1866 and Oct 1 1867. Page 149 SOTMS. I have a chart in my notes I'm digitalizing with everything else I did in the 1980's, and I'll dig it out. The best was the 10th cavalry, the worst the 7th. Unless I'm bonkers, but I remember it clearly.
Actually, if anyone has the Utley books handy, I think it came from one of his. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - June 11 2004 : 06:22:35 AM
|
Dark Cloud, could you please submit, to the forum, your analysis of the data that conclusively proves that the 7th.had the worst desertion rate of the entire Army of that era? Thanks loads.
Well when the CO deserted what can you expect from the rank and file? |
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - June 11 2004 : 07:01:50 AM
|
Joe
If he could capture the women and childred, the warriors would capitulate. Realizing that his force was insufficient for such a large endeavor,
WHAT ? Are you now telling us that having intended attacking the village he retreated when faced by defenceless women and children?
That Custer failed to actually attack the village or capture the non-combatants is also obvious, he was assulted by an overwhelming force of warriors who were suddenly "freed up" by Reno's ineptness as a commander.So we have Custer driven back by women and children now with his command strung out over a mile sunning himself awaiting developments.
I say Cookey old chap I do hope that ice cream man you sent back to Benteen can convince him we're dead meat if the Indians get here before he does.
As for the bizzare statement reference your preference that soldiers be led by men without fear, what is the alternative, being led by men with fear? My preference would be for an intelligent coward.
|
|
|
|
Heavyrunner
Captain
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - June 11 2004 : 4:44:25 PM
|
The plan didn't beat Custer. Reno's failure didn't beat Custer. Benteen's movements (or lack thereof) didn't beat Custer.
The Indians beat Custer. With the same plan, the same numbers, against the same foe; Caeser, Napoleon, Rommel or Patton would have suffered the same fate. |
Bob Bostwick |
|
|
|
joseph wiggs
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - June 11 2004 : 8:11:24 PM
|
| The warriors were caught completely by surprise and, frantically rushed towards Reno's troops. At this point in time, they were totally unaware of Custer's encroachment. The non-combatants, naturally, fled to the rear (north). From Sharpshooter ridge, Custer observed what appeared to be a vacant village. Visibility was hamperd by a dense tree line. This, of course, led him to believe that, thus far, Reno's charge was successful. Later, after venturing down Cemetary Ridge, Custer now ascertained the location of the women and children north of the Cheyenne camp. Why capture an empty village? The Indians would have never risked injury to their loved ones, thus the need for their capture. A coward's intelligence, religious beliefs, or personal view points regarding the meaning of life are totally irrelevant. In battle they run and desert their men because they are overwhelmed with fear. |
|
|
|
joseph wiggs
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - June 15 2004 : 9:22:16 PM
|
Excerpt from a letter to General Godfrey from William O. Taylor of "A" troop, 7th. Cavalry. February 20, 1910.
Reno proved incompetent and Benteen showed his indifference-I will not use the uglier words that have often been in my mind. Both failed Custer and he had to fight it out alone. This is but one of my theories-a theory of one who has no chance of studying the field or talking with survivors of the battle. Among the several things that impressed me greatly, one was the general demoralization that seemed to pervade many of the officers and men, due in great measure, I think,to Major Reno. When an enlisted man sees his commanding officer lose his head entirely and several other officers showing greater regard for their personal safety than anything else, it would be apt to demoralize anyone taught to breath, almost, at the word of command. |
|
|
|
El Crab
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - June 16 2004 : 12:29:54 AM
|
You know, I was re-reading this topic, and I realized something. Custer did NOT have soldiers shot without trial. He did not order the soldiers to chase down the fugitives and shoot them no matter what. He did order the troopers to bring them back, and if necessary, shoot those that resisted. The shooting was for the purpose of bringing them in. It was frowned upon (obviously), as it was a charge in his court-martial. But with the frontier Army having a rather high desertion rate and Custer's regiment leading the way, an example had to be made. They were losing several men a day, and while in Indian territory. Continuing to lose troopers would endanger those who stayed. So when they ran for it in broad daylight, Custer made a decision.
Were there desertions on that campaign after that? |
I came. I saw. I took 300 pictures. |
|
|
|
lorenzo G.
Captain
Italy
Status: offline |
Posted - June 16 2004 : 06:53:36 AM
|
Super el crab! You're completely right!
Joseph, that's a letter I already quoted but it kept no attention from the mass. I'm glad you posted it again.
|
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 16 2004 : 08:43:57 AM
|
Taylor, 30 odd years after the fact, never having walked the field or understood anything beyond his small part, and never having talked to another member of the 7th since he was released later that year except Ryan (whose opinions are totally different, in print anyway), and after reading all the newspaper opinions through the decades, suddenly finds his opinion of Reno to be in line with then current feeling.
He may have been pulling a Goldin with Godfrey, as Goldin did with Benteen. He's entitled to his opinion, but Godfrey's views were well known by then and it sounds like he's pandering to them. And this is old stuff, Lorenzo, and its appearence isn't a shock to anyone here.
Crab, shooting people as they resist or running is somewhat different than executing them after capture without trial. You get the difference? One is conditionally legal. One is not. The men were on their knees and shot from above. Cooke and Elliott were the executioners, as I recall. Elliott was facing an inquest before he was killed, which may explain his determination to impress. In 1876, Custer had been hounded in Washington by relatives of soldiers executed in Kansas, to what if any result we don't know. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
lorenzo G.
Captain
Italy
Status: offline |
Posted - June 16 2004 : 11:46:08 AM
|
| I have other version about that fact. Can you please post the title of the books where you found your version? Thank you. |
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 |
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - June 16 2004 : 3:17:29 PM
|
The warriors were caught completely by surprise and, frantically rushed towards Reno's troops.
I always thought that surprise was an advantage.Maybe if they had not been surprised they might have run the other way.
From Sharpshooter ridge, Custer observed what appeared to be a vacant village.
God ,those old indians could move fast when surprised.
Custer now ascertained the location of the women and children
So what did he do?????
A coward's intelligence, religious beliefs, or personal view points regarding the meaning of life are totally irrelevant. In battle they run and desert their men because they are overwhelmed with fear.
What convoluted point are you trying to make Wiggy? |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Benteen's order
Topic Locked
