| Author |
 Topic  |
|
lorenzo G.
Captain
Italy
Status: offline |
 Posted - June 26 2004 : 6:18:53 PM
|
Please Dark, I have the Barnett book in italian and I have translated it in english.I have no problem at all with italian . Everyone can read that book, the part that I quoted is clear.
In the italian version, don't speak about volley or shoots -about which I know the difference. The translator (sergio mancini)use the generic word "sparatoria" in english "shoot-out" or "firing". I guess then you can't accuse the translator, Mr Mancini, a professional translator and english teacher, employed with the greatest italian publisher(Mondadori) to have a "Martini bad english".
Joseph is fabricating nothing. Barnett statement is clear and said that 1)both testified at the commission they did'nt heard any heavy firing from north. 2) That Reno in his official report of the battle said the contrary and added that words which explains that he knew Custer was trying to supporting him: "we knew could not be others that Custer " (Reno report 1,30)
You can then say that Louise Barnett she's a liar. But there are the mentioned written testimony against this option.
|
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 26 2004 : 7:13:14 PM
|
Lorenzo,
Wiggs says Reno and Benteen heard no firing. But, in the quotes he provides, they say they heard firing. Either the quotes are wrong or Wiggs is. What he's trying to do is insist that because they claim to have heard no volleys that it is in conflict with saying they heard shooting. Of course, it's no such thing.
|
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
joseph wiggs
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - June 26 2004 : 8:12:52 PM
|
| DC, I clearly stated that only two individuals denied hearing the sounds of fire coming from Custer's command, Reno and Benteen. I followed this with a comprehensive list of officers and scouts who did. What other quotes have I provided? Have you confused me with someone else? |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - June 26 2004 : 10:11:57 PM
|
You: "only two individuals denied hearing the sound of shooting coming from the direction of Custer's command, Benteen and Reno."
Also you: "The only firing I heard that I did not see, and which came from the direction Custer had gone was the 15 or 20 shots that seemed to come from about the central part of the village, about at the ford "B". the village was in 2 divisions. I have heard officers disputing about hearing volleys. I heard no volleys." This is Benteen's quote by you. He heard shots from Custer's direction, fifteen or twenty.
Also you, this is Reno: "I heard no firing from down the river till after we moved out in that direction and then only a few scattering shots." That also suggest he heard shots, since he says he heard shots. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
joseph wiggs
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - June 27 2004 : 3:58:04 PM
|
Lie #1- Reno's statement that he did not hear the sound of shots being fired until he moved out negates report after report of heavy volley firing coming from Custers direction while Reno and his men sat on the bluffs.
Lie #2- Benteen's denial that he heard volley firing coming from Custer.
The critical issue is this; volleys fired by over a hundred troopers at the same time was heard by everone on the bluffs except Reno and Benteen. They could have been deaf, I guess. |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - June 27 2004 : 7:27:23 PM
|
No Wiggs, yet again your own quotes betray you, along with your repeated attempts to pass off Gray’s remarks as your own. Reno and Benteen did not deny hearing firing from Custer's direction, they denied hearing volleys. And yes, it is possible Reno didn't hear well: firing your own weapon surrounded by other's doing the same can given you questionable ears for distance listening, and this assumes you weren't doing other things. Godfrey had bad ears, which makes the precision of his memory of those volleys interesting, and he never says "I heard" but "we heard" as if he was melding his memory with that of others. The ones who heard firing were mostly Benteen's men, it seems. Not necessarily cowardice by pretending not to hear stuff with your ears ringing.
In any case, find another comparable action that doesn't have contradictory memories of what was heard when. And we still haven't been provided with the breakout of vocabulary from your sources, which is to say how many used "firing", how many used "shots, how many used "volley." Volley, of course, means different things to different people, including military men. "I fired a volley" obviously does not mean the same thing Godfrey means when he claims "we heard two distinct volleys" - mass firing on order - or what others mean by volleys, which apparently is used for 'whole lotta shootin'. Varnum describes some of this heavy shooting as ‘not exactly a volley.”
Scout Herendeen, who was closer to Custer, didn't note volleys but rather heavy firing in his field report for Custer's battle, which he felt lasted about an hour. Anno 1876.
Anno 1878, his keen scout memory augmented and fluffed into shape by prevailing winds, he recalled heavy firing AND nine – count ‘em: NINE - distinct volleys in a shorter time frame of 45 minutes to an hour for heavy firing only, after which it continued in lesser form. Somehow, that odd resurgence of mental synapse which appears to damn Reno isn't questioned, only the recovered memories that favor him, although you’d think NINE VOLLEYS would have elbowed its way into his first report......
Godfrey, having heard only two volleys, became convinced they were signals of distress, although how a volley of distress can be distinguished from a volley to accomplish something of value, like hitting the odd Indian, rarely accomplished in any case, isn’t clear.
Of course, what the command could do at that point with all the wounded and the train is the key question, one I keep asking to a profound silence of embarrassment, since it’s pretty obvious they could not send a meaningful force to help Custer without denying protection to both train and wounded. That being the case, all the chest beating then and now about riding to the rescue is pretty hollow.
The obvious thing was, they had one chance as cavalry to win the battle, and Custer had blown it. Not out of stupidity but by taking a calculated chance, and he’d done well before. They were anchored to the wounded incurred during a pointless attack at an unnecessary juncture by an insufficient force that was not supported because Custer had no clue where to cross the river till too late, and then – for whatever reason – did not.
An unexciting but final fact to the issue, long known but mentioned as often now as the name “Mary Adams”, a previous contestant in the fabricated evidence against Reno to divert attention from this basic flaw in Custer’s attack: no point in a Plan B because with wounded, you simply have a new Plan A, which Custer apparently could not acknowledge.
|
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - June 28 2004 : 10:28:21 AM
|
Not out of stupidity but by taking a calculated chance,
"Calculated" would indicate some intelligent reasoning applied to this "chance".I can find none, perhaps Dark Cloud you can suggest what part of his plan was based on anything resembling intelligence.
Regards |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - June 28 2004 : 2:48:08 PM
|
He took the chance that he could cross in time to support Reno, and that the rest of the regiment would arrive to augment an on going action. Reasonable assumptions. But because of the rather impressive and clearly unexpected layout of the east bank bluffs immediate to the camp along the LBH - even though several guys with him had been there before - Custer couldn't make a crossing in support till at least an hour later - way too late - and then did not.
We don't know why. Too many Indians? Confusion? Better idea? Wounded?
|
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - June 28 2004 : 3:53:15 PM
|
He took the chance that he could cross in time to support Reno,
Nothing calculated about that DC,it's just a shot in the dark.
Let's just look at this calculated risk he was taking.
1 the chances were evens that the indians would run so he risks splitting his command.
2.If they don't run the chances are evens that they will outnumber his units.Risk is now 4 to 1 against success.
3.If they fight will they be better armed than the 7th.Lets say evens again.Risk is now 8 to 1 against success ,again he risks it.
4/If they they fight ,outnumber us,outgun us,will they actually outfight us?As they are fighting for their families almost certain they will do better man for man.As the 7th are out numbered 3 to 1 odds against success have jumped to 24 to 1 against success.
Would you risk all on a 24 to 1 shot?
|
|
|
|
El Crab
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - June 29 2004 : 03:31:01 AM
|
Custer's Last Campaign, pg. 315-319
The Sounds of Custer's Firing
I'm sure you can find the other sources which have more info on the heavy firing/volleys. But many of the listed are in that portion of Gray's book. And he says Herendeen heard volleys as well.
I'd break it down into quotes and lists of all the sources, but I don't have the time. Maybe later, though you all should have that book. If ya don't, then say so. |
I came. I saw. I took 300 pictures. |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - June 29 2004 : 06:47:36 AM
|
And you should go to The Custer Myth and compare the two not exact tales from Scout Herendeen. In 1878 he says he heard volleys (9!), but in 1876 he did not say more than heavy firing. Herendeen was further north than most, on the river, and had better opportunity to hear what was going on. Gray would have you believe there was only one coherent account from Herendeen. In fact, the 1876 version without the volleys is direct from Herendeen, the later version has benefit of newspaper editing most yellow, complete with section headings that in effect tell you what to conclude without reading the text.
I greatly admire Gray and his work for which he is generally resented, but when he picks and chooses his preferred renditions as he does here he betrays his Custerphile mindset.
Also, as in so much, the later subtle changes of wording are suspicious in all these accounts. Firing and shots become 'volley' later on, not out of intent to lie but perhaps just out of hearing the word applied to certain aspects and shifting between specific and layman meanings. (That isn't to imply there were NOT volleys, but just that as folks got older their stories tended to meld and homogenize somewhat, it seems to me.) |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - June 29 2004 : 07:15:29 AM
|
I greatly admire Gray and his work
Perhaps his work on the time sequence DC but the rest is pure rubbish |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
|
|
El Crab
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - June 29 2004 : 8:05:04 PM
|
So Herendeen said "heavy firing" in one account and "9 volleys" in the other. Perhaps the second account's mention of volleys was prompted by a question? Like maybe "Did you hear any volleys?"
To me, 9 volleys is heavy firing. We're not breaking down an Indian account here. The man spoke English. One account he said "heavy firing" and the other he said he heard "9 volleys". Doesn't mean he changed his story. It most likely means he added more to it at a later date.
Centennial Campaign is the best book on the 1876 campaign. And Custer's Last Campaign is the missing portion of that book, that covers the LBH battle in detail. Both books are among the best in the genre... |
I came. I saw. I took 300 pictures. |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - June 29 2004 : 8:57:29 PM
|
Well, Crab, this is the sort of thing that gets my shorts bunched (#768, if you're counting)up and chafing.
Like, maybe, you haven't read it? Crab, with all due respect, you cannot pass judgement on a genre without having read one of the biggest entries.
Which does not detract from the fact you raise a big issue I haven't seen here, and it should always be before us. The 1876 opinion is written by Herendeen himself, apparently, and is his field report from weeks after the battle. The 1878 is a newspaper piece that is presented as if he wrote it, but he surely didn't add the headlines and other lesser signs of editors, and back then few would think twice about seeing their own sensibilities as higher than a mere 'scout', possibly not all white, surely not anyone you'd have at the newspaper Christmas party. Possibly, he again said 'heavy firing' but the editor, being widely read on the battle, knew he surely meant 9 volleys, because hadn't someone, somewhere said there were volleys?
It happened a lot back then - H. L. Mencken wrote about it - and therefore we ought always to retain a cancerous view of such 'evidence' and 'testimony.'
Whether heavy firing or 'volleys' is important in that Godfrey (who was somewhat deaf) claimed he heard two and that he concluded at a later time they were signals of distress. I don't follow that myself, but others agree with Godfrey.
I really think a combination of realizing they surely COULD have demonstrated some more concern to each other for Custer's fate combined with the uncertainty of whether it mattered and fueled by a critical international audience made worse by a large recent officer corps of Union and Rebs of about Letter to the Editor age made them dearly wish this would all go away. And when it clearly seemed settled in for a long stay, that it could be put in the best possible, perhaps bland, light to encourage that goal.
I doubt there's an action of the Vietnam War where you couldn't drive guys mad or to tears by constant cross examining them and questioning their bravery, smarts, patriotism, and proper level of concern for their buddies under all those horrible situations, and eventually you'd get sets of guys agreeing to a common story just to end it. But if there are three groups of guys who agree to three different stories unaware of the others', then you have problems and in the civvie eye only ONE can be correct and the others suspect and composed of lies and coverups. That's oversimplified, but I think that's what happened here, and if there was a 'meeting' around Reno's Inquest, it was of this nature. In hindsight, you always could have done something better, been less exhausted, been braver here where people could see you shine, rather than that incredible thing you did nobody now living can testify to.
When I think of Reno, Custer, Benteen, and others in this light, I get protective, I admit.
|
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
El Crab
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - June 30 2004 : 01:53:36 AM
|
If you're implying that I haven't read Custer's Last Campaign, you need to pay attention. I've mentioned several times that I got it this past spring, and read it almost immediately.
I OWN AND HAVE READ GRAY'S "CUSTER'S LAST CAMPAIGN". Its in my car now. In fact, I was re-reading some of it today at work.
Its possible that an editor changed Herendeen's story to say 9 volleys, but why? Heavy firing. Nine volleys. What's the difference? Would even the average reader in 1878 know what a volley was? Its much, much, much more likely that Herendeen added this.
DC: Do you believe ANY testimony, regardless of what language it originally came in? I believe Herendeen's 9 volleys story is in first person, as in "I heard 9 volleys...", so why discount it based on the very slight chance an editor decided to change "heavy firing" or words close to that to "9 volleys"? Were volleys in vogue back then? Did readers buy newspapers to read about how many volleys were fired in an engagement? Quite the stretch, if you ask me... |
I came. I saw. I took 300 pictures. |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - June 30 2004 : 08:32:44 AM
|
No Crab, you haven't read, or aren't referencing, The Custer Myth by Graham, because you aren't discussing the two differing stories by the same guy. Herendeen's tales are both in the first person, one suspect. It's the reference Gray used for his books, but he chose the volley story, written in 78, over the more general description written only a few weeks after the incident. Stories that get more specific as the years wear on are suspect, wouldn't you agree? (Not necessarilly false; suspect.)
You're not fully reading my posts, either, certainly more forgivable. The volley over heavy firing issue is important because Godfrey made it important, and Gray and those trying to catch some of the aura of his scholarship make it important by using it as proof positive that those five companies were 'on the offensive' and acting in disciplined formations.
I agree with you that it really isn't a big deal except that we have to keep the mutually supportive - and probably dishonest - templates in mind.
The Custerphile and the Native American fan clubs, long enemies, have in the last few decades found love in their mutual PC goals: smaller village, a doable mission flummoxed by Reno's cowardice and the smugly evil Benteen leaving the heroic Custer (both the NA's and the Philes pant with pleasure that an actual 'Last Stand' can again be claimed and be 'scientifically' supported by achaeology) and the family values wing of the Sioux to fight for home and hearth, all parties especially brave. Like all pat and all too convenient conclusions in history, and especially in military history, we need to retain a blistering cynicism about it and those who promulgate it.
ANYTHING in the newspaper back then ought to be viewed cancerously. And unless quotes from official trial with the person under oath, it ain't testimony anyway. What a lot of people here call 'testimony' is nothing but a story that has appeared in print of unknown heritage with questionable people who weren't at the event or the recording of it assuring us of authenticity. The Black Elk stories, for example. May be all true, but fifth hand by the time you read it at best. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
Edited by - Dark Cloud on June 30 2004 09:46:12 AM |
|
|
|
El Crab
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - June 30 2004 : 9:00:55 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Cloud
No Crab, you haven't read, or aren't referencing, The Custer Myth by Graham, because you aren't discussing the two differing stories by the same guy. Herendeen's tales are both in the first person, one suspect. It's the reference Gray used for his books, but he chose the volley story, written in 78, over the more general description written only a few weeks after the incident. Stories that get more specific as the years wear on are suspect, wouldn't you agree? (Not necessarilly false; suspect.)
You're not fully reading my posts, either, certainly more forgivable. The volley over heavy firing issue is important because Godfrey made it important, and Gray and those trying to catch some of the aura of his scholarship make it important by using it as proof positive that those five companies were 'on the offensive' and acting in disciplined formations.
I agree with you that it really isn't a big deal except that we have to keep the mutually supportive - and probably dishonest - templates in mind.
The Custerphile and the Native American fan clubs, long enemies, have in the last few decades found love in their mutual PC goals: smaller village, a doable mission flummoxed by Reno's cowardice and the smugly evil Benteen leaving the heroic Custer (both the NA's and the Philes pant with pleasure that an actual 'Last Stand' can again be claimed and be 'scientifically' supported by achaeology) and the family values wing of the Sioux to fight for home and hearth, all parties especially brave. Like all pat and all too convenient conclusions in history, and especially in military history, we need to retain a blistering cynicism about it and those who promulgate it.
ANYTHING in the newspaper back then ought to be viewed cancerously. And unless quotes from official trial with the person under oath, it ain't testimony anyway. What a lot of people here call 'testimony' is nothing but a story that has appeared in print of unknown heritage with questionable people who weren't at the event or the recording of it assuring us of authenticity. The Black Elk stories, for example. May be all true, but fifth hand by the time you read it at best.
I own and have read, including recently (I'm boning up for August), The Custer Myth. Its actually one of the first books I bought after SOMS. I use it often. Perhaps you should have mentioned the book you were referring to.
Books I own and have read:
Custer's Luck
Centennial Campaign
Son of the Morning Star
Touched By Fire
The Custer Myth
They Died With Custer
Lakota Noon
The Mystery of E Troop
Custer's Last Campaign
Archaeology, History, and Custer's Last Battle
Archaeological Perspectives on the Battle of Little Bighorn |
I came. I saw. I took 300 pictures. |
|
|
|
joseph wiggs
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - June 30 2004 : 9:25:35 PM
|
To insinuate that the importance of the volley firing, from Custer's battalion, became so only because Godfrey desired it to be, is inconceivable to me. The magnitude of such bizzare thinking is exceeded only by the equally inconceivable allegation that there exists a difference between a volley discharge and a discharge of heavy firing!
What listening device could be calibrated to such a height of sensitivity and accuracy as to be able to distinquish between the two?
The importance of this issue lies in the historical fact that the skirmish line on Calhound Hill fired their weapons heavily because they were ordered by Calhoun and Crittenden to do so! To twart the advancement of the the encroaching enemy; Indians. These orders were not issued to satisfy the abitrary whim of Lt. Godfrey. The men were under attack and fighting for their lives. Godfrey did construe the volley firing as a possible cry for help. So what? It very well may have been. The combined and simultaneous discharging of two companies of troopers would be heard from quite a distance and was.
When the two leaders of the Reno/Benteen conclave deny hearing the volleys, insisting that they heard scattered shooting only, one must question their statements and motive. For over an hour, heavy firing/volley firing was heard coming from the north. How do we know this. From the consistent testimony of numerous witnessess:
Lt. Edgerly - "Shortly after I got on the hill, almost immediately, I heard firing and remarked it-heavy firing, by volleys, down the creek."
Sgt. Davern - "Shortly after reachung the top I heard volley firing from down stream."
Herendeen - "After we had been in there (timber) some time, a half hour or less, I heard firing. It began in volleys."
Moylan - I heard some firing in the direction of the Custer Field, about an hour after reaching the hill. The sound was like volley firing."
Girard - I heard continuous firing clear on down as if there were a general engagement, down to where I afterwards went to Gen. Custer's battlefield. And I heard firing to the left of the village; 3 or 4 volleys as if there were 50 to 100 guns at a volley."
Time prohibits me from listing other witnessess, there were more. The importance in establishing that volly firing occurred is the resultant implication and realization that a group of men were fighting for their lives while others claimed they never heard the destinctive sound of volley firing.
Lastly, the usage of the term "Custerphile" for anyone who dares question the archaic platitudes of yesteryear grows increasingly tiresome.
|
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - June 30 2004 : 11:27:15 PM
|
Crab, I did: 0647 June 29th. First sentence.
Wiggs, you defy comment. Custerphile means someone who likes Custer, as Custerphobe means the reverse. Nothing more, and that's how I use it. Correctly. In any case, there has been no connection between its usage and whatever you mean by archaic platitudes of yesteryear, not to be confused with futuristic platitudes of yesteryear or archaic platitudes of tomorrow. Your retort conceptually could sound impressive, but you just didn't know the meaning of the term.
Second, volley fire indicates order and troops under command. Heavy firing doesn't. You don't read well, because your summation of Godfrey's relationship to the issue is not mine. We all know that people heard firing from the north, you're not revealing anything to anyone, even if your offered quotes are actually correct.
You are, however, correct on one point you haven't anticipated: you can't and they couldn't really be sure if it was volley fire or just shots coming in bunches coincidently. So we can use you to discredit all those who claim that this fire was by volley, or even that of soldiers at all, perhaps? And why did Godfrey think that a volley would be read as a signal of distress? Were there accepted signals, a secret only told to a chosen few? Shave and a haircut, maybe? Naw, too complicated. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
El Crab
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - July 01 2004 : 12:48:07 AM
|
| Perhaps the 7th wasn't in habit of ordering several volleys in a row. Its possible the normal operation was a volley on the initial formation of the skirmish line, followed by independent firing. Perhaps several volleys in a row were not as common... |
I came. I saw. I took 300 pictures. |
|
|
|
benteens brother
Corporal
Australia
Status: offline |
Posted - July 01 2004 : 09:15:03 AM
|
| What were the Indians doing while all this volley firing was going on? I would hazard a guess that they were shooting back. And I doubt it was in volleys. If 1/3 of the Indians had rifles it still gives them over twice the firepower of the cav. I have no doubt that firing was heard but what could they really make out from four miles away. The whole argument is pointless anyway. It's another attempt to discredit Reno and Benteen and call their actions into question. Perhaps they did hear heavy firing. Perhaps they knew that people would be questioning their actions from here to eternity so they decided to claim they heard nothing. Who knows? It's a pointless argument. The decision to sit tight was the right one. Nothing could have been achieved by trying to get through to Custer, except the destruction of the entire regiment. DC made a point in another thread some time ago that there were a lot of 50/50 decisions made and this time Custer got caught. I bet the survivors of the 7th didn't care if they had heard firing or not, they were probably just glad to have kept their scalps. |
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - July 02 2004 : 07:16:48 AM
|
| Controlled volley firing is fine if there is one distinct target on which a fire order can be given and it is usually carried out at ranges over 100 yards.At LBH there were 1500 plus individual targets coming from all directions and I imagine that the troopers were using their pistols. |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - July 02 2004 : 2:15:50 PM
|
| If this was a long range fire fight the Indians were great shots because in less than an hour they had hit them all.If Custer had kept them at long range he could have organised some sort of defence or even an escape. |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Aftermath Question
