| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
 Posted - July 07 2005 : 12:27:14 PM
|
This is in response to Markland's posting in the Poll thread which is too cumbersome.
Is heroism the opposite of cowardice? Generally so considered, but I'm not so sure. Cowards can be inadvertant heroes, perhaps. It depends on the viewer more than the participant how the term is applied.
I have some difficulty with the "love and respect" of buddies component, because I read it as having a dark side. Sure, deep friendship in combat units understandably evolves. But if a soldier fails to pull his weight in battle beyond a point, there's ample reason to think deadwood sometimes gets pruned. "Accidents..." "Snipers...."
And that remarkable story of the one man who failed to join Benteen's charge who was the only one killed, and he hiding behind cover, presents itself. Who thinks the Gods of Probability allowed Indians concerned with the attack to somehow at that point put a slug in his head? Who thinks a pissed off soldier or officer did it to absolutely zero complaint on their return? I don't know, but I have my suspicions.
There's been few slapped foreheads of disbelief when it was suggested soldiers trying to kill Custer hit Hamilton instead at the Wa****a. No evidence, but clearly fragging up and down isn't new. If that was accepted, more or less, than shooting non-performers isn't a stretch. And Custer himself ordered deserters illegally shot under arguable battle conditions, if not combat itself.
So, perhaps fear of losing your peer's respect can also be viewed as fear of being killed by your peers in an annoyed moment.
|
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
BJMarkland
Colonel
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - July 07 2005 : 3:15:04 PM
|
DC, interesting take.
"I have some difficulty with the 'love and respect' of buddies component, because I read it as having a dark side. Sure, deep friendship in combat units understandably evolves. But if a soldier fails to pull his weight in battle beyond a point, there's ample reason to think deadwood sometimes gets pruned. 'Accidents...' 'Snipers....' "
But my view is that it happens because of the dark reason, i.e., fear of bodily harm from my comrades, far less than it does because of another fear; whether fear of disappointing your neighbors (witness the volunteer units of the Civil War), bonding with your squad mates, respect for your officer/officers, or ultimately, the fear of having to live with yourself if you find yourself wanting (hint: read The Red Badge of Courage again.) And the above doesn't even count the pure old "if I gotta go, I'm going to take some of those S.O.B.'s with me" attitude, which is not to be discounted.
But, overcoming fear is the epitome of bravery isn't it? I think there were few heroes on that field on June 25, 1876 but that there were many brave men. I simply don't believe that all gave up. Some may have, but I feel the majority did not.
We can sit in our comfortable chairs all day and analyze to our heart's content about their hypothetical behaviour that day but until we have to put our own butts on the line and make the decision for "flight or fight", I suggest that we are merely engaging in rank speculation and we are gaining nothing with the discussion.
Best of wishes,
Billy
|
  |
|
|
joseph wiggs
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - July 07 2005 : 10:33:13 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by BJMarkland
DC, interesting take.
But, overcoming fear is the epitome of bravery isn't it? I think there were few heroes on that field on June 25, 1876 but that there were many brave men. I simply don't believe that all gave up. Some may have, but I feel the majority did not.
We can sit in our comfortable chairs all day and analyze to our heart's content about their hypothetical behavior that day but until we have to put our own butts on the line and make the decision for "flight or fight", I suggest that we are merely engaging in rank speculation and we are gaining nothing with the discussion.
Best of wishes,
Billy
Let us all pay heed to the above and remember how easy it is to judge retrospectively. Bj, overcoming fear is the epitome of bravery! Kudos to you sir. |
|
|
|
movingrobewoman
Lt. Colonel
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - July 07 2005 : 10:48:08 PM
|
My take on bravery. Put an ordinary person in a horrible situation where they overcome circumstance and clearly act above and beyond. For example in modern times, Lori Piestewa.
Whatever happened with Reno, the majority of his men went home to Ft. Lincoln. Whether Benteen was ultimately responsible for the defence at the entrenchment site is whole other can of worms.
Hoka hey! |
movingrobe |
|
|
|
joseph wiggs
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - July 08 2005 : 11:45:51 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by movingrobewoman
Whatever happened with Reno, the majority of his men went home to Ft. Lincoln. Whether Benteen was ultimately responsible for the defense at the entrenchment site is whole other can of worms.
Hoka hey!
Ah, going home. What a wonderful proposition. In fact, one of Reno's men is alleged to have reported that Thank God they were led by a coward, else they would all be there still. If going home is the ultimate goal, regardless of how you get there, who am I to quibble? |
|
|
|
movingrobewoman
Lt. Colonel
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - July 09 2005 : 02:09:50 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by joseph wiggs
quote:
Originally posted by movingrobewoman
Whatever happened with Reno, the majority of his men went home to Ft. Lincoln. Whether Benteen was ultimately responsible for the defense at the entrenchment site is whole other can of worms.
Hoka hey!
Ah, going home. What a wonderful proposition. In fact, one of Reno's men is alleged to have reported that Thank God they were led by a coward, else they would all be there still. If going home is the ultimate goal, regardless of how you get there, who am I to quibble?
I was pretty much in the 'curl your lips at the mere mention of Reno' camp until I met a friend at the battlefield a couple of years back. Now this guy, who used to post on this board, is a genuine out in the field historian, none of this armchair stuff and an expert on Peter Thompson--and he did stress to me the importance of mere survival--aka Reno and Benteen's battalion. So yeah, outfreakage did have a hand in who was saved and who went down--and although it didn't serve Bloody Knife, Hodgson, or stretching it, DeRudio that well, many lived to tell the tale. What is better--bravery beyond ability to read a situation or the lack thereof?
Hoka hey, mi amigo! |
movingrobe |
|
|
|
joseph wiggs
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - July 09 2005 : 11:16:09 PM
|
Ah my friend,the importance of "mere survival" can not be disputed nor over estimated. Faced with the erupt termination of life,if given an option, most of us will chose to live. The problem, however, is the living in good consciousness after the fact. Example, I know can not swim. I observe a small child drowning in the sea. I choose to attempt to save the child. As a result, I drown. Was this not bravery "beyond ability? More importantly, would anyone condemn me for attempting to do so? Bravery has no limitations, nor does it fail to see the essence of reality. Was I a fool to attempt to save the life of another or should I have chosen not to have "tried" based on my inability to swim? Choosing not to make the attempt, what solace would i enjoy in not attempting to do so because I knew I couldn't swim.
Either way one may die. I will exclaim until the "cows come home" that Reno retreated not because of the actual number of Indians he encountered, but because of the amount of Indians he "imagined" he encountered. I will not excuse his conduct as a means to save lives; rather he lost lives as a result of his actions. |
Edited by - joseph wiggs on July 09 2005 11:32:28 PM |
|
|
|
movingrobewoman
Lt. Colonel
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - July 10 2005 : 01:23:05 AM
|
It is rather ironic that when we deal with the circumstances of LBH, out-freakage (or the result of splattered brains)led to life, whereas following Custer's bravery led to death, certain death. In no manner do I mean to honour Reno's erratic behaviour or well as his charge (that was a CHARGE, sir!) into to the hills--with him at the front. But the majority of his men found, despite the battle of the 25th and 26th June, a way home--maybe it was due to Benteen's Trans-Mississippi theatre experiences ...
My nephew, who is twelve, went to Pea Ridge battlefield last weekend. He was amazed by my stories that one of the participants, a native Virginian by the name of Frederick Benteen, not only led one of the battalions at LBH, but actually fought in northwest Arkansas ... "uhh, it was awful nice of those Civil War soldiers to build all those picnic benches ...'
Ya'ta'he'ey, mi amigo!
(p.s. Reno could have imagined the amount of enemy warriors until the cows came home, so to speak ... Bloody Knife's killing seemed to have tossed the major over the edge of anything approaching military logic) |
movingrobe |
|
|
|
joseph wiggs
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - July 10 2005 : 1:40:29 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by movingrobewoman
It is rather ironic that when we deal with the circumstances of LBH, out-freakage (or the result of splattered brains)led to life, whereas following Custer's bravery led to death, certain death.
Ya'ta'he'ey, mi amigo!
(p.s. Reno could have imagined the amount of enemy warriors until the cows came home, so to speak ... Bloody Knife's killing seemed to have tossed the major over the edge of anything approaching military logic)
Touché my friend. Splatter brains and bravery appear to be two essential elements in combat. War is the irony of all ironies. |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - July 11 2005 : 4:21:52 PM
|
Gee, and it wasn't so long ago 'voila' was so unusual to you. Now you use touché. How odd. Now: learn the difference between abrupt and erupt.
In any case, Reno is called a coward for: starting a charge and ending too early, retreating, leading a rout to higher ground in the East (not the highest ground, and pretty much nudged by a gully to Reno Hill. There was some cover.) Custer is not called a coward for: starting a charge and ending it early, retreating, leading a rout to higher ground in the East (highest available to accentuate his men with zero cover), and being wiped out.
Agreed, we don't know what Custer did, but Custer is often visualized as in charge of the defense, and is often portrayed arriving early to run the defense, 'waiting for Benteen' and deploying intricate dance routines of firing lines. And this by those given to denigrating Reno.
I can't validate either officer's decisions, but you cannot have it both ways, one a gibbering idiot, the other an idol. Taking what we know about what Custer did (almost zero), and removing all assumptions and juvenile worship, these actions aren't so far apart. Custer is given every benefit of the doubt, and Reno none. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
Edited by - Dark Cloud on July 11 2005 4:25:02 PM |
|
|
|
movingrobewoman
Lt. Colonel
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - July 11 2005 : 6:55:11 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Cloud
Gee, and it wasn't so long ago 'voila' was so unusual to you. Now you use touché. How odd. Now: learn the difference between abrupt and erupt.
In any case, Reno is called a coward for: starting a charge and ending too early, retreating, leading a rout to higher ground in the East (not the highest ground, and pretty much nudged by a gully to Reno Hill. There was some cover.) Custer is not called a coward for: starting a charge and ending it early, retreating, leading a rout to higher ground in the East (highest available to accentuate his men with zero cover), and being wiped out.
Agreed, we don't know what Custer did, but Custer is often visualized as in charge of the defense, and is often portrayed arriving early to run the defense, 'waiting for Benteen' and deploying intricate dance routines of firing lines. And this by those given to denigrating Reno.
I can't validate either officer's decisions, but you cannot have it both ways, one a gibbering idiot, the other an idol. Taking what we know about what Custer did (almost zero), and removing all assumptions and juvenile worship, these actions aren't so far apart. Custer is given every benefit of the doubt, and Reno none.
I certainly wouldn't consider myself an idoliser of the Custer "brave-beyond-any-semblence-of-common sense" kind of action-commander figure. And since the majority of Reno's guys, well, uhh, lived ... I guess the question is, in which company would you have preferred to have been mustered?
Maybe we should just change your name to wet blanket. |
movingrobe |
Edited by - movingrobewoman on July 11 2005 6:56:32 PM |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - July 11 2005 : 7:25:44 PM
|
When I'm hot, I'm hot. When I'm not, I'm not. But I've never been not. It's a burden, this perfection of mine, like these apostrophes some find too heavy when suggesting a desired verbal contraction. Or, so it seems to us snobby, educated, rich, unbelievably handsome and superior people (vis a vis La Warlord, anyway....) who know how to use contractions and spell charisma as well as profit from an abundance of it.
I'm not sure how your conclusion is relevant to the thread issue, MRW, but if you want to call me Wet Blanket, that's fine. In any case, I think the issue as I set it down is a valid one, and most uncomfortable for people here to face. Judging Reno, Benteen, and Custer by the same criteria, Custer always loses. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
Edited by - Dark Cloud on July 11 2005 7:26:59 PM |
|
|
|
joseph wiggs
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - July 11 2005 : 10:35:26 PM
|
Your bizarre assumption that the collective we are incapable of facing specific issues is not only incorrect and irrelevant, it is also ludicrous. While I have personally posted that Reno's actions fell far short of those of a competent leader in combat, I did not call him a coward. That remark was made by one of his own subordinates.
Absolutely no one has referred, intimated, or suggested that Custer's actions were the epitome of what a leader should do in combat. Your inability to remove your jaundiced spectacles prior to reading these posts is absolutely amazing. Perhaps if you spent less time attempting to be a language instructor and more time offering legitimate and relevant information your efforts would be far more appreciated.
Ironically, even Reno supporters concur that his Charge/retreat to the bluffs was ill conceived and horribly blotched. It is your consistently erroneous and unsubstantiated suggestions that we(everyone except you) are engaged in "juvenile worship" that sickens the majority of this forum.
If you would just once, just once initiate a post without slanderous remarks your stock would "erupt" like a volcano. If you choose to be a miserable contrarian I say more power to you. However, it is your blatantly obvious dislike for one of the principles in this battle that reveal you for the charlatan that you are. I do not have to name a name, everyone knows to whom I refer. Yet, you obnoxiously "crow" insidiously,over and over again "I have never said a negative thing about----!
Last but, certainly not least, I believe MRW called you a wet blanket because you are the most negative individual I have ever had the mis-pleasure to encounter. It is your silly, immature, and tiring attempts to appear superior to others that creates an atmosphere of hostility on this forum. Please get a life, act like a human being or, simple just leave. I know I am not the only forum member who is sicken by your crass innuendos and pathetic attempts at superiority.
I am sure that your response will be livid with my inability to spell, improper grammar, and utilization of nouns, verbs, and adjective. I know this because you are such a jerk that you could not respond otherwise. Please, do not repeat that obnoxious refrain of yours about ignoring you as that is "what adults do." Trust me D.c., your antics are not appreciated nor do they serve you well. Try being a human being for a while, it just may work. |
Edited by - joseph wiggs on July 11 2005 10:44:08 PM |
|
|
|
movingrobewoman
Lt. Colonel
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - July 12 2005 : 01:10:32 AM
|
Well, DC, you did get one thing correct. Custer loses. Always does. Custer durn lost. And man, did he lose! Bit the big one. Kicked the can. You might even say he lost the farm! And that Libbie, the Sanctified Widow, was left bankrupt by her saintly, albeit spendthrift husband and too-gallant hero. Then again, there was always Captain Weir ....
Wait a second, perhaps that is a bit too egalitarian for your lofty viewpoint (given the Denver-ish altitude) ... I did surely mean that brevet Major General, Lieutenant Colonel, one George Armstrong Custer, in regimental command of the Seventh United States' Cavalry, did become separated from this life upon the afternoon of June 25, in the year of our Lord, Nineteen-hundred and Seventy-six, near the Wolf Mountains of the southest Montana Territory.
Oh yeah, DC, as you sooo love to mention, he was durn broke! Couldn't scratch enough together to take that afterlife boat ride to Valhalla, leave enough for Libbie to take a train to Far Rockaway!
Ahh, hell. Just toss a wet blanket on it. |
movingrobe |
Edited by - movingrobewoman on July 12 2005 01:11:49 AM |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - July 12 2005 : 08:59:20 AM
|
| What in the world are you talking about, MRW? The thread about their finances you mention is over a year old and put to bed long ago. This is about the varying glossary of terminology used discussing the LBH. You say I got one thing right. What did I get wrong? |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
movingrobewoman
Lt. Colonel
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - July 12 2005 : 11:44:01 AM
|
Funny you don't recognise your oft-repeated mantra. Take a subject under discussion, spin it around to play with what YOU feel are other posters' weaknesses in the English language (not to mention whatever other languages they might not actually use in their proper nuances), grammar, their lives, or their whatevers. Then with an incredible amount of braggadoccio and fluster, finally you extract some oblique point--which in this case was ...?
I used to think I was the queen of extrapolating something to excess, but it appears that you are.
The discussion, I thought, had reached kind of a point of a tie in tic tac toe. Frankly I don't care whether you feel Reno was a saint or a goat. But through his actions, most of his men survived. As did the oft-maligned Benteen's. The highly faulted, albeit gifted, Boy General took all of that courage beyond logic to the hills and came back in a wooden crate to hang out in some storage unit in Jersey. What there was left of him.
So whilst we are on the subject of terminology, what adjective could be rightly assigned to Benteen? Was HE the element that kept the Seventh alive? |
movingrobe |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - July 12 2005 : 12:56:29 PM
|
Guess we're unclear on the concept. This thread is about the Glossary of Terminology that commonly appears in relation to the LBH. Courage and cowardice are bandied about easily enough. I'm not sure they're opposites, or that they should apply to a person's life based on one day. If Reno is a coward because of his actions this day, I'm not sure how successfully you can avoid the same conclusion about Custer. If Custer wasn't, Reno can't be.
There are other terms that need, once with agreed upon definitions, to be applied fairly: 'charge', 'offensive', and 'mission,' among others. Custerphiles will construct convoluted or blathery explanations to disallow any direct comparison, or define the words differently when applied to each man.
1. If Reno led a rout under the guise of a fake charge and is harped at, why isn't Custer for leading the charge to LSH, where he was 'waiting for Benteen and the train.' It somehow makes perfect sense that Reno be damned for 'waiting for Benteen and the train,' though.
2. Um, yes, it does look like a dog's breakfast of a defense about Cooke, but look! Reno buried officers and didn't run to Custer's rescue! Why didn't Custer come to Reno's? Having said he would and all? Um. Look here, pick a card, any card.....
3. The 7th was on a mission. Custer was assumed by the men and officers of Reno/Benteen's group to have left them and gone on to Terry. Nobody, not even Burkman, not even Carter, has risen in indignation and said "NO! Custer would NEVER leave his men in those circumstances!!!" And Custer, knowing that he had a mission together with Terry, couldn't be totally damned for not supporting his command. Now apply that same grace to Reno and Benteen. But no. They're horrors for not throwing aside the whole mission to rescue one command element at great risk to the whole regiment. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
whistlingboy
Lieutenant
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - July 12 2005 : 2:02:42 PM
|
Isn't there too much emphasis being placed on the 'ya can't blame a soldier boy for wanting to live and go home?' mentality? Since when did the thought of 'selfish' behavior such as 'getting out and saving my own skin' become acceptable options to a soldier? Maybe the army's changed. Since when did 'mutiny' of any level (i.e. just thinking the idea) become an option. Units are disciplined as a team, a force of hopefully duty minded zombies ordered to do a job and I think it is understood to mean 'til death do we part.
Weren't Reno's orders to attack the village? I'm sure he had discretion but it appears he chose too soon to dismount, put men on the ground, send their horses to the trees, and then decide again that well, maybe we still need our horses...there's a lot of Indians coming thisaway.
My problem with Reno is that he did not stay on the offense and complete his charge as was his duty. That would have put pressure on the Indians, many slow to even get up and ride at first. It would have drawn more of them away from the village and, more importantly, farther south down the valley and might have had allowed Custer to make a more credible incursion toward the village. Reno's decision to go on the defense early looms big in my hypothetical world and MAY have cost Custer and the rest their lives.
It is difficult and harsh to scrutinize a person's actions once he has become incapacitated---shock from BKnife's death on him or possibly being inebriated, etc. because he is now emotional and unstable. His duty as an officer is fair game for judgement. That moment when Reno's attitude changes from offense to defense is compelling and pristine in its scope. It is the first 'card' that falls; the first break in the 'circle.' It dispels any chance for victory as it unsuspectingly throws everyone else into a defensive posture.
Where evidence lacks the hypothetical world lives. I apologize for taking license with my 'reality' world. If Custer's unfolding plan was to attack the village from the other end then he must have wanted Reno's force to be a diversion to their front, drawing them away and holding them down while widening his (Custer's) 'window' of opportunity. The timing of Reno's switching postures seems to be critical in the timeline of this battle. |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - July 12 2005 : 3:41:42 PM
|
During the one hour that Reno fought the Sioux alone, Custer was so safe and secure that he had his men dismount and tighten saddles. Then, he starts down MTC. Whoever met Custer's men at MTC had not been fighting Reno; those guys were still there. Only after contact was made, of whatever sort, and the 7th turned north, did the Sioux leave Reno, who was then on his hill. Most apparently were on foot, and didn't get to Custer till it was academic.
As to Reno's stopping, dismounting, and heading for cover, this was exactly what Custer did at the Yellowstone in quite similar circumstances. Custer to await Stanley's promised arrival, Reno to await Custer's promised arrival. But Reno knew the Sioux were advancing on him and not running before he ordered the charge; the scouts had seen them. There was nothing to prevent the command from being surrounded, and after a half hour of no known or effective support, Reno can reasonably be seen as concerned something had happened to Custer, and imbued with the thought something would happen to them if they had to be surrounded near a huge camp.
You say his duty was to complete his charge? What do you mean by "complete?" Achieve a distance? Merely engage the enemy in the camp? Engage the enemy in his camp for an hour? What? Let's say Reno's men were immortal and their horses unexhausted. How many times would Reno get to ride back and forth through the entire camp before Custer started down MTC? Twice, anyway.
His duty is to lead a suicidal charge to certain and pointless death? Okay. What was Custer's duty to Reno, his regiment, the mission? |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
Heavyrunner
Captain
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - July 12 2005 : 4:07:09 PM
|
I have also defended Reno here. It's doubtful, but perhaps I've inspired D.C. to do the same (that's toungue-in-cheek, D.C.). As has been written, compare the actions of the three commanders--on the same criteria--and Custer loses.
As for Reno, I get a little bent over history and individuals suggesting cowardice. I also grimmace when someone suggests he should have kept charging into the village. The fact is, his charge was stopped in its tracks by overwhelming numbers and, more so, overwhelming firepower--literally a hail of bullets.
Does anyone really think he could have gone any farther, taken more ground or actually routed his foe? Reno was an experienced soldier. Bloody Knife's exploding head was not the first one he'd seen, I reckon. Too much is made of that. The man, the commander, regrouped his column and got it the hell out of there, most of them living to fight another day.
Had he very stupidly advanced "against all odds," he, too could be a dead hero of western lore--along with all of the men depending on his leadership. |
Bob Bostwick |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
|
|
Heavyrunner
Captain
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - July 12 2005 : 5:01:29 PM
|
| That's the problem with this board--too much researching and not enough harumping... |
Bob Bostwick |
|
|
|
whistlingboy
Lieutenant
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - July 13 2005 : 11:43:35 AM
|
Do we have a source for Custer's direct orders to Maj Reno? I've never seen any per se. There is evidence however that MAJ Reno held different renditions of the truth, i.e. in his official report about the battle, Reno stated that "Custer intended to support me by moving further down the stream and attacking the village in the flank." And yet at the Court of Inquiry, Major Reno said, "I had no reason to believe that General Custer would support me in other manner than from the rear." If a person wants to defend Reno he adheres to the latter statement, if not, the statement in the report. The statements by Reno are political, no matter the motive, and thus researchers join one of the 'camps.'
How is what Custer did at the Yellowstone relevant? Or the Wa****a? You can't justify someone's actions by somebody else's at some time in their life. If it is a definite M.O. in a person's routine, it could be relevantly followed or dismissed maybe.
Charge to the village? With our luxury of hindsight, practical people will say he did right in saving his life and the lives of others. But he had orders and if he believed that Custer was going to attack at the other end of the village why did he stop prematurely? He had sent a rider to Custer speculating that there could be as many as 800 warriors or up to as many as 1500 in the village. Did the leaving of his scouts spook him? He had no faith in his commander, did he?
One can read where Reno not only left the wounded in the woods but it is reported that he wanted to leave the high ground leaving the wounded there also but got too much interference from Benteen and others. Utilizing hindsight, it is easy to see that Reno had serious character flaws one of which was his inability to command. He had a weak mien and an in-grain selfishness unbecoming of an officer. This weak posture infiltrated his decision process at the first instance of mortal danger and his steadfast, dedication to mission, waned. Nobody wants to die but soldiers accept that risk when they enlist. But if they lead and if the formulated plan takes them into harms way, they are expected to make the best of it and do their duty. The Army expected the hostiles to run, it was practically Army standard thinking, as Terry would concur, and yet Reno assumed they would not. Reno might have gotten wiped out, but, then again, he might not have. Just think if he wouldn't have and would have met Custer at the other end.
Custer's duty to Reno was leadership and displaying confidence and fortitude. He was the Commanding Officer to be obeyed.
According to my thinking and if Custer and Reno were Captains of the Titanic, I KNOW Custer would have gone down with the ship and Reno would have jumped off without trying to save anyone.
That's the difference in dedication and purpose and doing your duty. Is it your duty to die? Probably sometimes if there is a chance you can save other lives. We must all make those decisions and pray that they are the right ones. I have always preached to my son, that once you get married and have a family, your only responsibility is to them and protecting their lives at the expense of yours...no questions asked, nothing to think about; it is your duty as a man.
|
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - July 13 2005 : 12:47:00 PM
|
1. I believe our only source is Reno, but those about him and Custer or who would have reason to know and who survived have never contradicted him and they certainly could have. I'm not at where I can look things up, but I don't believe you quote Reno correctly. Does the sentence begin "Custer intended..." or is there something like 'It now appears that Custer intended....' or the like? Forgive me if wrong, but I don't recall such surety in his report. If I'm correct, however, there is no real conflict, and really there isn't in any case. On reflection, Reno could say that while in the valley he had no reason to think Custer would support except from the rear, a view abetted by his vision of the bluffs. Later, having seen MTC and tracks down and up, he could easily say Custer intended to support by this flank attack. No conflict.
2. You miss the point. It's only relevant that those who damn Reno for his actions at LBH should be aware that what he did (stop an advance, high tail to the trees) was accepted 7th practice. The difference is Custer was saved by Stanley. Reno wasn't by Custer.
3. His orders were to attack while he would be supported. After a certain amount of time, no support, no visual means for Custer TO support him, and a lot of Indians, he did the right thing. It would be a character flaw to sacrifice his men and himself to no purpose.
4. Reno did leave wounded, much like Custer always had and apparently did on this day. (Of the numerous officers who thought Custer had received a defeat and gone on to Terry, who thought he'd taken his wounded with him?) There is only one source for the leave wounded story - Benteen - and it's probably true but hardly the horror it's made out to be. Are you seriously saying that a cavalry unit's duty was to stay with the wounded till food and ammo was gone and die "like men" to no military or rational purpose? At some point, that decision had to be made, and Reno could have done no more than made the unpleasant but necessary observation - it was no more than that - in anticipation of the need. What "others" than Benteen were present to recall this incident, by the way? Hindsight isn't justification for accusations of "character flaws," especially based on such flimsy and hardly objective sources. Reno did not assume they would not run. He was confronted with the reality that they were not running, but attacking him in force. He would not have met Custer at the other end after a ride through a large village extending for, what? Two miles? More? Custer didn't head down the coulee till an hour after Reno attacked. And Custer was prevented from crossing even then, by some sources.
5. Custer's duty to Reno was competence and doing what he said he would do. Grand melodramatic displays went out with the Civil War. It attracted fire to no inspirational purpose.
6. You don't know that, and could not. Custer had a history of leaving men to their own devices for his own convenience and sometimes benefit. He was convicted of it. Reno had no history of that, nor of cowardice. Nor of great leadership, but you need to be fair. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
Benteen
Lt. Colonel
Status: offline |
Posted - July 13 2005 : 2:04:59 PM
|
DC, I think your right about being "fair". To place blame has always been the issue on these boards, and others as well. The problem seems to be that most don't take an 'objectve' view of the people, places and events of that day. Sure, placeing blame in hindsight, I think is easy to do, we all do it. But the real issue in all of these types of discussions is, 'timing'. If the timing of those events were written in stone, there would be no doubt about anything, would there?
I take issue with those who do blame both Reno and Benteen. The simple truth is it was Custer's fault for everything that happened. He was after all the commanding officer. Perfectly clear, concise orders would have alleviated any need for future peoples to criticize his or anyone elses orders. Or for that matter what transpired after.
Much, way to much is placed upon what the participant's said after the battle. It seems like for every positive that one can state, the participant in question, or another, made a statement to the contrary. This has caused alot of confusion and I think is the main reason we have so much fun discussing this. Sadly we can't resolve anything because of same!
I think Gray made an excellent effort to clear through the muck and muddle of the timelines involved. If for nothing else, he has made a contribution to this genre, more than any other. Simply because he understood that 'timing' was the key. Without that, we simply can't make any sense out of any of this!
My efforts have been to clear Benteen of his supposed guilt in this quagmire. To do so I have taken great strides in trying to understand what may have delayed him in his return to the command. I made an effort to try to discuss this when I made the "morass" thread. However my main point was clearly overlooked. Whether intentional or not, I can not say! While I did appreciate what was said there, and more than anyone could ever know. The main theme was not only to discover where, but more importantly to understand the timing! Would it not be reasonable to assume with the number of horses involved. Not only Reno's but Benteen's as well, that we could possibly conclude from this: 1) That, according to Gray it took Reno and his men *20 minutes* (timing), to water his horses there. That... 2) It also within the limits of understanding and reason. That we should also then conclude that it would take about the same time (timing), *20 minutes*, for Benteen's horses to have done the same? I think this is much more important in possibly understanding his delay! Most people harass his notions and statements, twisting them into what they desire. And I think falsely claim that he took his old sweet time. Based upon what? What others have said? Could they themselves have had some issue with Benteen? All we are really left with, is what could have happened, and certainly not what others have said, would you not agree?
Umm.. okay, I am hesitant to say this. But I can't in all conciousness and sympathy just leave this without saying something.
whistlingboy ~ quote:
I have always preached to my son, that once you get married and have a family, your only responsibility is to them and protecting their lives at the expense of yours...no questions asked, nothing to think about; it is your duty as a man.
I am so sorry that you feel this way. And I suppose that you feel the same way about women. That they have their place!? And it is their duty as a woman, right? His only duty to his family should be to ~love~ them. If he loves them, then he won't have to be so restricted by your old age ways and their imposition upon his will. And if he loves them, he will instinctively know what to do, isn't that right?
|
Edited by - Benteen on July 13 2005 2:10:15 PM |
|
|
|
Heavyrunner
Captain
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - July 13 2005 : 4:36:25 PM
|
Benteen,
I would argue that Reno did not stop short. Rather, he WAS STOPPED short. I recall one description from the other side that said (something to the effect)it appeared as if his charge smashed into a wall. It was simultaneous fire from who knows how many hundreds of defenders.
Support from Custer? He was stopped even shorter, not to mention a couple miles away. Custer's approach was, in fact, very similar to that at the Wa****a. Had it been, as at the Wa****a, a village of 150, or so, his plan would have worked.
As for the Titanic, yeah, Custer would have gone down with the ship--he'd have refused, first of all, to believe his scouts that there was an iceberg. Secondly, he'd have refused to listen to his subordinates as they told him the ship was sinking. |
Bob Bostwick |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Glossary of Terminology Regarding LBH
