| Author |
 Topic  |
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
 Posted - May 12 2004 : 09:30:06 AM
|
I/He got his command to within striking distance of the enemy.
2/He achieved the advantage of surprise.
3/He probably stopped a rout and managed to organise a stand.
Anything else?
|
|
|
joseph wiggs
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - May 14 2004 : 9:48:37 PM
|
The old adage about not being able to see the woods for the trees exemplifies a predominant perspective of this battle that is difficult to over come; the fatalistic approach. Custer attacked the village, he and his men were killed, Custer was in charge so the responsibility is his. Straddled with this overwhelming version, our insight into other, possible, view points are severely hampered. So deeply rooted, but not necessarily true, is this approach to the battle that if it were somehow possible, and it isn't, that it could be proven that Custer's tactics were correct, it would do nothing to change the viewpoints of many.
Is it possible that another turn of events occurred, a different twist, a spin as it were, that would tell a different tale. What if the Indians were caught by complete surprize and panic and chaos erupted throughout the village at a fantastic rate. What if Reno's approach was so shocking and completely unexpected that the vast majority of the warriors immediately rushed to their women and children (a perfectly natural reaction)turning their backs to the encroaching soldiers. Conversly, What if a sudden, and totally unexpected event occurred that gave the warriors renewed hope, the soldiers inexplicably and abrupt termination of a mounted, military charge. In stead, forming into a skirmish line and firing ineffectively towards the village. Aggresive tactics suddenly becoming submissive. What if the warriors viewed this totally, unanticipated halt as a positive sign from their God, a further confirmation of Sitting Bull's prediction that the soldiers would fall (die) head first into the Indian village. What if a drunken Reno fled towards the bluffs even though he had, thus far, sustained minor loss, freeing up hundreds of warriors to meet Custer who now approached the northern part of the village. What if Custer waited on Cemetery ridge for assistance, that would nerver come, while his opportunity to escape deminished with every passing second. With all of these "what if's," so many other variations may have occurred. Who then was wrong?
|
  |
|
|
Anonymous Poster8169
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - May 15 2004 : 12:34:11 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by joseph wiggs
The old adage about not being able to see the woods for the trees exemplifies a predominant perspective of this battle that is difficult to over come; the fatalistic approach. Custer attacked the village, he and his men were killed, Custer was in charge so the responsibility is his. Straddled with this overwhelming version, our insight into other, possible, view points are severely hampered.
How so? I feel as though I've seen just about everyone and everything blamed or credited for the defeat. Custer, Benteen, Reno, Crook, guns, horses, cowardice, bravado, ad nauseum nauseum nauseum. Wasn't there one guy who suggested that if they'd only brought sabers along, they might have pulled it out?
quote:
Is it possible that another turn of events occurred, a different twist, a spin as it were, that would tell a different tale. What if the Indians were caught by complete surprize and panic and chaos erupted throughout the village at a fantastic rate. What if Reno's approach was so shocking and completely unexpected that the vast majority of the warriors immediately rushed to their women and children (a perfectly natural reaction)turning their backs to the encroaching soldiers. Conversly, What if a sudden, and totally unexpected event occurred that gave the warriors renewed hope, the soldiers inexplicably and abrupt termination of a mounted, military charge. In stead, forming into a skirmish line and firing ineffectively towards the village. Aggresive tactics suddenly becoming submissive. What if the warriors viewed this totally, unanticipated halt as a positive sign from their God, a further confirmation of Sitting Bull's prediction that the soldiers would fall (die) head first into the Indian village. What if a drunken Reno fled towards the bluffs even though he had, thus far, sustained minor loss, freeing up hundreds of warriors to meet Custer who now approached the northern part of the village. What if Custer waited on Cemetery ridge for assistance, that would nerver come, while his opportunity to escape deminished with every passing second. With all of these "what if's," so many other variations may have occurred. Who then was wrong?
Exactly which part of your scenario is a new contribution? And what is your evidence that what you define as the "fatalistic approach" is so deeply entrenched? If anything, the trend in recent Little Bighorn books has been to steer away from Custer being responsible, and to fix it all on Benteen, Reno, or whoever is otherwise convenient.
R. Larsen
|
|
|
|
El Crab
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - May 16 2004 : 5:58:56 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by El Crab
One thing I have never understood is the leaving of sabers at the Powder River camp. Granted, they did make noise on the march and were somewhat heavy, but how can you sustain a charge into a camp with pistols and carbines? Trying to load a gun on a horse so you can defend and attack seems much more difficult than slashing and thrusting with a saber. Also, the soldiers in close quarters had little to no chance against hatchets and lances and knives. They did not have hand-to-hand combat training, and they were up against a tough close quarters opponent. Not to mention that many indians feared the "long knives". I read somewhere the effect of the threat of being stabbed with a bayonet was more valuable than the actual bayonet attack itself. Humans prefer shooting and being shot. When faced with a bayonet charge, the results are rather bloodless in history. And many soldiers with bayonets fixed would hit with the butt of the rifle instead. There just aren't that many records of bayonet wounds, at least in US history.
quote:
Originally posted by Anonymous Poster8169
[quote] Wasn't there one guy who suggested that if they'd only brought sabers along, they might have pulled it out?
No, but there was my questioning of the sabers being left behind. But I never said the sabers "might have pulled it out" for the 7th. |
I came. I saw. I took 300 pictures. |
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - May 17 2004 : 06:16:09 AM
|
Hi Joe W
Is it possible that another turn of events occurred, a different twist, a spin as it were, that would tell a different tale.
So Custer calls his officers together to give his final orders.
Gentlemen there is an Indian village up ahead it is my intention to attack it.How big it is I don't know.How many hostiles there are I don't know.I am basing my plan on the assumption they will panic and run.
Reno you will take 3 troops and attack the South of the village and I will support you.How I don't know but I'm sure something will pop into my head.
Benteen you will take 3 troops and take youself off on a spot of valley hunting don't worry about us.
No need to issue extra ammo we don't want to alarm the men.
I know the pack train will lag behind so take your whiskey with you now.
Now one last thing we will be communicating in Italian.
Right so, lets give Uncle Sam a day he will remember.
Slan |
|
|
|
Anonymous Poster8169
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - May 17 2004 : 12:01:58 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by El Crab
quote:
Originally posted by Anonymous Poster8169
[quote] Wasn't there one guy who suggested that if they'd only brought sabers along, they might have pulled it out?
No, but there was my questioning of the sabers being left behind. But I never said the sabers "might have pulled it out" for the 7th.
I was actually thinking of something I remembered, vaguely, reading in one of the 19th century/early 20th century articles. Some officer; I think it might have been in one of Brady's books. I don't remember exactly what he said either, but I can't see how sabers would have made any difference whatsoever. Some Indians did think they had them (flashing gun barrels, presumably) but with no obvious impact on their spirits.
R. Larsen
|
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - May 18 2004 : 04:12:13 AM
|
You get 6 chances with a revolver you don't have to reload a sabre.
A troop or two with lances at full gallop can look very impressive. |
|
|
|
Brent
Lt. Colonel
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - May 18 2004 : 06:31:48 AM
|
Looking impressive possibly.
But my guess would be that the saber "training" they had was about as much good as the marksmanship training they had.
Doubt seriously sabers would have made any difference.
Wild1:
Not bad!! But the "running village" assumption is one that Custer really can't be blamed for--I think most any cavalry commander would have assumed the same. Custer had no knowledge of what happened to Crook. His attack "plan" seems to have been based on keeping the Indians from fleeing--getting away. At some point in time, it must have dawned on him that they were ready and willing to fight. |
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - May 18 2004 : 10:18:38 AM
|
Hi Brent
Doubt seriously sabers would have made any difference.
Sabres instead of carbines would have made this difference.Reno would not have dismounted to fight it out and would have probably continued to charge the village or he might have ordered a retreat and kept going.Likewise Custer would not have made a stand and perhaps a few troopers might have outrun the hostiles and survived.
|
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - May 18 2004 : 10:31:04 AM
|
You know, comparing the LBH to Kildeer Mt. in Mnst. is sorta interesting. We keep repeating the mantra that Indians ran and the cavalry knew this and expected this.
At Kildeer, against the same Sioux in 1864, another huge village of 8k didn't run and fought and attacked a large force of 2200 men with artillery and the village did NOT move till the last moment. That's about the closest comparison to LBH and it indicates the opposite of what the supposed cavalry mindset was. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - May 19 2004 : 05:17:16 AM
|
hI Brent
But the "running village" assumption is one that Custer really can't be blamed for
I don't blame Custer for making assumptions.I blame him for the tactics he used in response to his assumption.
There is no military situation I can think of that justifies the fragmentation of a regiment,confronting the enemy with no coherent plan,confronting the enemy in such a manner as to allow him to defeat you in detail and using mounted infantry as cavalry. |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - May 19 2004 : 10:25:14 AM
|
Mounted infantry? You mean dismounted cavalry as infantry, don't you?
A rose by any other name would smell just as sweet Dark Cloud.
The main armament of the regiment was the carbine for which they carried 100 rounds as opposied to the pistol and 24 rounds.
The carbine single shot could only be fired effectly on foot and then only with volley fire and proper fire control could it be really effective.When Custer abandoned the sabres he turned what was a cavalry unit into mounted infantry.
The carbine gave the regiment a defencive element which Custer fell back on but I believe that because he never had as much as local control there was no controlled volley firing and thus no real defence.
A case could be made that perhaps the carbine doomed the regiment.
Slan |
|
|
|
Anonymous Poster8169
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - May 19 2004 : 10:57:32 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by wILD I
You get 6 chances with a revolver you don't have to reload a sabre.
If Custer's men were in such close contact with the hostiles that they had to use sabers, then they were already doomed. We're not talking about skilled swordsmen here, and at any rate, once the Age of the Repeating Rifle dawned the saber became obsolete. And it looks like the Indians had plenty.
R. Larsen
|
Edited by - Anonymous Poster8169 on May 19 2004 11:00:24 AM |
|
|
|
JakeW
Private
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - May 19 2004 : 11:37:23 PM
|
Actually Wild I, I seem to recall reading accounts of troops atop Reno hill reporting about hearing some volley fire from up the valley. Not much, but some. Most likely this was Calhoun and Keogh would be my guess.
Also, I would personally be much more content to have my sweaty palms gripped around the stock of a Sprinfield, or squeezing the butt of a Colt revolver opposed to weilding a saber. If the troopers got into individual combat with the indians on the little bighorn, they were screwed. A vastly outnumbered, regular fighting force, going hand to hand with an irregular force would have been very bad indeed.
The reason for there being more carbine ammo is because of the fact that due to the extended range of the rifle over the pistol, it will be used more. It's pretty difficult for the average person to hit a man sized target 50 yards away with a hand gun, much less a green trooper who had probably only fired a handfull of rounds out of his weapon before.
I believe the troops were adequetly armed, just maybe lacking enough ammo (as was seen with Reno's men quickly depleting their ammo supply in the valley fight.) I know this was also helped along by the uncontrolled fire of the troopers.
In my opinion, a saber would have probably posed more of a threat to the trooper using it and his horse more than to any hostile he was likely to encounter.
Jake |
"We've Caught 'em Napping Boys!" - Custer's Last Phrase |
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - May 20 2004 : 04:55:14 AM
|
Hi Anony
If Custer's men were in such close contact with the hostiles that they had to use sabers, then they were already doomed.
600 charging horsemen armed with sabres against the surprised disorganised residents of the LBH ? I think the outcome might have been different.
Hi Jake W
Also, I would personally be much more content to have my sweaty palms gripped around the stock of a Sprinfield, or squeezing the butt of a Colt revolver opposed to weilding a saber.
Sure, but it all depends on what mode your unit is in.No point giving sabres to infantry or carbines to cavalry.
The reason for there being more carbine ammo is because of the fact that due to the extended range of the rifle over the pistol, it will be used more.
Not on horseback.
If the 7th were going to be used as cavalry they should have had sabres.Cavalry action is close quater shock action.Firearms are ineffective and unsafe[kill more of your own men]on horseback.
In my opinion, a saber would have probably posed more of a threat to the trooper using it and his horse more than to any hostile he was likely to encounter.
Being untrained as cavalry and armed as infantry and used as sandbags just goes to confirm my opinion that Custer had his head up his horse's backside.Sorry I cant be as poetic as Joe W.
|
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - May 20 2004 : 12:13:17 PM
|
Why can't carbines be used from horseback? They surely were, in any case.
You're hallucinating if you think a swordsman - especially one inexperienced - could take a Sioux who used his ax or knife or hatchet everyday, never mind the Cheyenne lance. The cavalry had long given up the sword in the age of the repeating pistol. They were back to being dragoons.
There is no evidence one way or the other that anyone stopped a rout or 'organized' a stand. There is no evidence that if one was attempted, that it was Custer who did it. The people who saw the field two days after were only vaguely impressed by Calhoun's area. LSH was a mess and showed no signs of an organized defense, underlined by the number of officers there and not with their companies.
There isn't any evidence that horses were intentionally killed, either, just supposition. There were standing on a hill, surrounded by guys with guns. How could the horses not get hit where they stood? All this arose as an attempt to elevate Custer, who could not be seen to have been quickly wiped out where he stood without a clear idea of what was going on.
Could be true, just no evidence. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
JakeW
Private
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - May 21 2004 : 12:25:12 AM
|
These troopers were deffinately well armed as they were. What if Reno's detachment had been armed with sabres and charged into the village? I think the outcome would have been very different to be sure. Instead of one last stand, there would be two.
It was shown during the CW that cavalry used as dragoons, (mounted infantry type) was much more effective than cavalry making constant sabre weilding charges. I'm not saying it didn't happen, it was just cut back quite a bit.
If the 7th had been mixed up with the indians on horseback with sabres, they would have been in serious trouble. No doubt they would have been pulled from their mounts and been clubbed to death, that is unless they got passed the afore mentioned cheyenne lance.
And yes the carbine was used on horse back occasionally. The troopers did not have to be dismounted to fire it. As short and quick handling as it is, it wouldn't have been too much of a problem to reload. Easier in fact than the colt revolver.
If the numbers were changed, and the troopers had been issued 24 rounds of carbine ammo and 100 rounds of pistol, there would have been another horrific outcome. Can you see dismounted troopers engaging targets past fifty yards with their side arms? The results would have been laughable. They were already bad enough shots with their carbines for the most part.
Jake
|
"We've Caught 'em Napping Boys!" - Custer's Last Phrase |
|
|
|
Anonymous Poster8169
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - May 21 2004 : 02:45:25 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by wILD I
Hi Anony
If Custer's men were in such close contact with the hostiles that they had to use sabers, then they were already doomed.
600 charging horsemen armed with sabres against the surprised disorganised residents of the LBH ? I think the outcome might have been different.
I don't. If Custer's 600 men had actually managed to coordinate their assault to start with, then tried to take out a village of a few odd thousand with sabers, it would have been entertaining in a Keystone Kops kind of way, though I don't think you or Custer would be laughing.
It was Custer's decision to leave the sabers behind for dress parade, since he realized that it didn't make any sense to run after somebody swinging a sword when the other guy could unload six shots at you by himself in just a few seconds. Sabers were used rarely, if at all, by cavalry after about 1870.
R. Larsen
|
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - May 21 2004 : 08:31:57 AM
|
Dark Cloud
Why can't carbines be used from horseback? They surely were, in any case.
I believe the troopers could get off 4/5 aimed rounds on foot per minute.How many would they get off from the back of a galloping horse in close contact with the enemy and their own comrades?
In the first world war when the troops were going over the top with the bayonet they were not allowed to load their rifles because the natural inclination is to stop and take aim thus halting and fragmenting the advance.Same point applies to cavalry.
The main object of a cavalry charge is to break up concentrations of enemy troops,to impede the organisation and to ride down and scatter the enemy.As cavalry the 7th totally failed, as infantry some of them survived.
You're hallucinating if you think a swordsman - especially one inexperienced - could take a Sioux who used his ax or knife or hatchet everyday, never mind the Cheyenne lance
Not talking about individual combat.If custer had attacked from the South with the regiment deployed ,with sabres and going full gallop against unorganised surprised Indians just the weight and momentum of the charge would have taken him over any individuals who choose to stand.
There is no evidence one way or the other that anyone stopped a rout or 'organized' a stand.
Agreed,but surely there is enough evidence to make educated assumptions.
A rout would have resulted in the regiment being scattered in all directions and this is not the case.Although the lead troops were jumbled up on LSH, Keogh's and Calhoun's maintained some form of organisation.Indian accounts speak of the troops fighting on foot someone must have given the order to dismount.If it's a rout you would expect the troops to have remained mounted and fleeing.
LSH seems to have been the rallying point to which the troops fought their way.Grouping of HQ and officers from the lead companies at this location would indicate a halt and some attempt at defence.
Your scenario of Custer being wounded and some form of paralysis befalling the unit just does not stand up to close scrutiny.
1 little or no resistance at MTC yet Custer manages to get
shot.Not killed but just wounded enough to throw the command into
confusion and indecision.
2 This calamity now results in these hardbitten civil war cavalry
officers wandering aimlessly northwards into dreadful cavalry
terrain knowing that 3 troops of the regiment were heavely engaged
and depending on them.
3 The rear of the column has no idea what happened.Keogh the 2/ic
is completly oblivious to the danger the unit is.
4 Now out of nowhere Crazy Horse and hundreds of Indians[they were
nowhere to be seen at MTC???] appear.
5 Ambushed they now manage to get the wounded Custer to the high
ground and stop what must have been headlong flight.
Slan |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - May 21 2004 : 1:41:19 PM
|
Your summation of my vague theory is incorrect.
1.Custer was always towards the front of a movement - to his credit; it wouldn't be surprising if he was therefore the object of fire. There are tales a guy with buckskin was shot near the river, the column pulled up and carried him off. At this point, his brothers - who periodically gave orders (Tom brought up the regiment against Custer's wishes at Crow's Nest; Tom sent Kanipe)- and nephew might easily be expected to be concerned and drag him quickly away from danger.
2. Hardbitten may apply to elements, but competent is the adjective we seek. They weren't wandering, I don't suggest that, they kept together as best they could and ended up on high ground for a breather not granted.
3. Yates was senior to Keogh and second in command - I'm told on this forum.
4. the crossing area is relatively narrow and if it stops and the companies pull up in confusion, Keogh may well have taken his troopers (the last three companies in line) to where they ended up. The ground doesn't lend itself to much different activity: either charge or turn around but don't get caught in low ground.
5. if they're being attacked on the way to the high ground and met at the top with more Indians, it in no way conflicts with the body distribution or timelines and would offer a possible explanation of officer placement (Custer hurt but conscious and nobody has the balls to override him. Would you and have it backfire and face him later? Or his brothers? Or the Army?) If Yates was killed early, then word has to be got to Keogh, where is he? What's going on? Who is in charge with family and officers giving different orders, not that it matters at this point. Terrifying confusion.
Zippo proof. It's just the simplest explanation that doesn't violate the known evidence or produce a Custer new to history.
Go to the Friends of the Little Bighorn page and look at the illustration of the land seen north from Weir Point. That's one horrible sight to a cavalry officer fighting Indians. I truly don't think an officer of the seventh would willingly choose to go there. Custer would only go to the crossing, I'd think. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
JakeW
Private
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - May 21 2004 : 4:01:58 PM
|
Hey Wild I,
Your thoughts on cavalry are of those used more during the Napoleonic era. Here, cavalry was in it's prime. With the advent of revolvers and breech loading rifles, the cavalry was able to beter arm itself.
For the close up action were you believe a sword would be handy, a revolver would be great! It would also give a good deal of confidence to the trooper using it, as he would not have to be at arms length from his opponent.
Jake |
"We've Caught 'em Napping Boys!" - Custer's Last Phrase |
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - May 23 2004 : 1:44:36 PM
|
Hi Jakew
Your thoughts on cavalry are of those used more during the Napoleonic era
Yes very true but that's the only way to use cavalry.
Cavalry are really only an auxiliary arm and it is very rare that they can bring about a conclusion to a battle on their own.
In fact if the 7th had been a horse artillery unit they could not have fared any worse.Custer should have waited for the arrival of the infantry.
Dark Cloud
If your assumption is correct and Custer was wounded it highlights another failing on Custer's part.His failure to appoint an effective 2/ic.
Another failing is surely the way he split the regiment.He kept his family and his friends with him obviously to share in the glory while sending Benteen off on a very dubious scout and using Reno as bait.
It is very interesting to compare the reaction of his friends--Weir and Godfrey with that of Reno and Benteen.I think the friends were motivated by loyalty rather than the military situation.
Slan |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - May 23 2004 : 3:50:48 PM
|
Wouldn't call Godfrey a friend of Custer's. He was a good soldier and reticent to say anything bad about anyone, even Reno.
I'm also unwilling to say that Custer kept his family with him for the glory. Tom, a great soldier by his own, is one thing. Boston and Reed another. He kept them for their protection, I'd think (and think with appreciation of the irony). If any of them got hurt bad and what was best for the mission was in conflict with what was best for brother or nephew, who knows what decisions would get made, especially if Custer is the one hurt? Who would tell Tom "He's good as dead, leave him and save the command...." for example? It was wrong for Boston and Reed to be there at all. Absurd. But this stuff was common up till the Juneau took down the Sullivans.
In tennis, the cliche laugh is that the problem with your second serve isn't the way you hold the racket or toss the ball; the problem with your second serve is your first serve. The problem of Custer wasn't that Keogh wasn't effective (he did better than Custer, it looks like) but that Custer had no damned business leading charges anymore specifically for this reason. But he did, always.
The very fact that it fell apart so quickly and completely without a mass movement back south speaks to no unit command above company anyway. These other explanations of feints and skirmish line manuevers seem really forced beyond common sense.
Further - and kicking this dead horse is becoming abuse - but I don't think anyone planned to get caught or to stop on that awful land. I think Custer meant to cross, but they got pushed back in some disorder. The particular photos of what is visible from Weir Point were taken in fall or winter and the brown smooths it out, but look at the painting which catches some of the mess before them, if not entirely accurate. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - May 24 2004 : 03:21:09 AM
|
Hi Dark Cloud
Further to this Custer family/Friends thing I have never seen Reno in a photo with Custer.I'v seen Benteen in one but it's large group shot.Any books I'v got on the subject show Custer with family and Cooke,Calhoun,Keogh,Smith,in fact if you appeared in an informal photo with Custer you probably ended up dead with him on LSH.
As regards his attacking manuevers he had every thing "in the air".He did not use any of his troops in a defensive/fire support role.He had no plan "b" nothing to fall back on if things went wrong,no troops in position to cover a retreat.
Further to the use of Sabres.The Brits used Sabres and lances to great effect at Omdurman [1889]and also in the Boer War 1990.
I have read that instead of being surprised by Custer the Indians were well aware of his approach and that in fact they were tracking his march north along the LBH.What they did not realise was that Reno had dropped out of the column and was approching the South end of the village.But they soon realised that Reno's attack was not the main assault that is why they headed back North so quickly after repulsing Reno.I would also say that in their haste to get back to defend against Custer they did not see the approch of Benteen.With hindsight we could say this offered a great opportunity to Reno to counter attack.
One of the main differences between the two forces that day is that nowhere were the 7th prepared to push home their attacks on the other hand the Indians showed in all the actions their fighting spirit and aggressiveness.
Slan |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - May 24 2004 : 09:23:17 AM
|
Okay, we should get out of the habit (I violate it as well) of using the term "the Indians" because it connotes a commander or some osmotic ability to react as one to events, which didn't exist. "Some" Indians may at certain times known thus and so, but the Indians as a whole probably had no clue what was going on start to finish. It was later when common stories got integrated together that their erroneous conclusions went through the internal gossip machine just like the white's did.
Seven hundred men and their animals including braying mules in broad daylight came down Reno Creek from Crow's Nest - perchance, a wisp of dust or two? - made to the Lone Teepee where they scared off Indians, none of whom alerted the camp but just their friends, apparently, and in the HOURS between, when all the ponies could have been mounted and protected and the full force of the camp thrown at the 7th, nothing remotely like that happened, and different sections of the camp were slapped into wakeup at different times, and women and children at the south end got killed by surprise. If someone tracked Custer it was by those auditing a tracking class of their boy scouts, because it doesn't seem to have done them any good. So much for the As One with Nature Native American Team: Home to Great Warriors. Let's just fold up and retire that garbage....
Well, I'm not all that familiar with Kitchener's Revenge of Gordon, so I looked it up and find reference to 25k soldiers, gunboats, howitzers, but no cavalry charge that made this reference page: http://pw1.netcom.com/~reincke/omdurman.html. Second, even if they used them, would a Dervish notice or care?
The Boer War of 1899 to 1902 revealed the British Army to be a joke, and in order to elevate their reputation of competence at home they had to make the Boers - a bigger joke - into Great Warriors and shots and Sneaky, none of which they were. So if the Brits used loofahs or butter knives at various battles, they stand not as evidence of the effectiveness of loofahs or butter knives but to the exhaustion and incomptence of the defenders, who had notional understanding of command structure and really were primarily farmers of dubious martial skill. In any case, the British incompetence was such that Germany started thinking well of itself.
I also call attention to General SLA Marshall's Crimson Prarie, wherein he laughs aloud at the concept of an exhausted force with 50% casualties suddenly going on the offense again an hour after a losing battle. The wounded weren't moving, how many people do you assign to them? How many does that leave to 'attack?' Your horses okay and able to attack? And where do you go to attack? Slowly traverse down the retreat trail under fire? Return to Ford A? And what time would this all be in place? At which point, what difference does it make?
The facts are that in these wars, you had one chance to win the battle, because once the cavalry had wounded, you were screwed and had to retreat if you hadn't won already. There wasn't enough manpower to care for the wounded and go on the offensive again. Custer knew this and screwed it up in error of assumptions. A lot of 50-50 calls went wrong this day; on another, he'd have been a hero again. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Did Custer do anything right?
