| Author |
 Topic  |
|
|
joe wiggs
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
 Posted - December 10 2009 : 9:06:15 PM
|
I have long believed that Mr. means was a radical "warrior" who insisted that the 7th. Cav. was wiped out by less than 800 warriors.
Right, I often said to myself, Let's me real! 800 warriors? I now without qualms or reservation vehemently disagree with Mr. Means. It did not take 800 warriors to annihilate the 7Th cavalry, it occured with even less warriors.
Undoubtedly there were 1500 or more able bodied warriors available for the battle but, such a number was not required to achieve victory. Between the terrain that enabled the Indians to creep upon the soldiers and the sensibility they displayed by utilizing long distant fire, I believe a couple of hundred warriors would have been sufficient to do the task.
As men were decimated by the Indian weapons fire, they panicked, fled and were hunted down like buffalo. Raised to believe that all Indians were savages, the soldiers were not about to allow themselves to be captured and, as a result, quite a few committed suicide.
This U.S. Military debacle was so overwhelmingly embarrassing for the American Government that something had to be done to "whitewash" the entire affair.
American history is fraught with episodes such as the battle of the Little Big Horn wherein government policy resulted in the deaths of many of its military. While this is the greatest and most moralistic Country in the world, to deny the past is to fill the Future with the same mistakes of past eras.
|
|
|
Benteen
Lt. Colonel
Status: offline |
Posted - December 10 2009 : 10:20:46 PM
|
I cannot deny what Russel Means said. And perhaps we should not try. Reno was the only one that I know of who actually saw all those Indians in the "ditch" at the time and was what caused him to stop the charge and fight on foot. I know of no other soldier who testified to seeing them. If it was, it was hearsay evidence or 2nd hand testimony.
The odds throughout history will show that when a force comes up against an overwhelming number, it will be overran. It should come as no surprise then if say 1/2 of the number of reported repeaters the Indians had were employed that day along with their other multi-use weaponry should acquire 3-1 odds, that it would have been sufficient to have destroyed Custer's battalion. That number is 675 warriors. And if, just if it was 4-1? The number, 900 warriors.
The numbers of warriors Reno faced was infinitely smaller than anyone this day could believe, perhaps, just perhaps as small as his own, not to exceed say 125? And the total force? And Russell Means? Who knows maybe he did know.  |
  |
|
|
AZ Ranger
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - December 11 2009 : 11:39:47 AM
|
If Reno only faced 125 warriors and some remained according to De Rudio it doesn't say much for the theory that Custer was overwhelmed when Reno didn't hold his less than 125 warriors. That would only increase the the odds against Custer by say .5 warriors per trooper at max and since some say they never went toward Custer or were to late or could not find a good shooting position it might be as low as .25 warriors per trooper or less.
By the way is there any estimates by individuals other than with Reno's command on the number of warriors opposing Reno? |
“ An officer's first duty is to his horses.”
SEMPER FI |
|
|
|
joe wiggs
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - December 11 2009 : 8:50:35 PM
|
When you add a critical element, the gross underestimation of the Indians' willingness to fight it becomes apparent that desperation and craftiness save the day for the Sioux and Cheyenne.
While there were many subsequent allegations by warriors of "charges" on their behalf, we should analyze what was actually meant by the term. A solitary Indian dashing across the field of combat on his stout little pony, dodging the Wacishu's bullets made for great songs and dance. However, the "runs" at the enemy had very little to do with the outcome of the battle.
Long distant firing from Greasy Grass Hill may have broken the "C" company charge at Calhoun Coulée to clear encroaching Indians that threatened the "led" mounts.
Broken, the soldiers may have quickly retreated to Calhoun Hill were cross fire from Crazy Horse (east of Custer Ridge) and Gall's men (Henry ville)resulted in further panic and dismay among the troops.
Once the chaos was in full swing, mental debilitation from combat shock resulting from close proximity of the warriors sealed the faith of Custer and his men. This is just a theory of course... |
|
|
|
joe wiggs
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - December 12 2009 : 8:45:46 PM
|
| The primary reason for the Sioux wars and, other wars that tear Nations apart, destroy good will among men and, plant universal seeds of discontent is that mankind has forgotten a wonderful truism: MITAKU OYASIN...(we are all relatives.) |
|
|
|
Benteen
Lt. Colonel
Status: offline |
Posted - December 13 2009 : 09:36:10 AM
|
Joe,
There was that other crucial element that most quite simply overlook in favor of Major Reno's "support" statement. They tend to look upon it as a failure of Custer to support Reno, which is what Reno wanted. Yet, whatever was said about "support" to him by Custer was not intended to mean a "direct" support of his (Reno's) actions. The closest anyone could come to that was Benteen's failure to say "exactly" where he had been ordered to, which according to some was to be on "Reno's left" during this battle.
Major Lemley's statements concerning things Wallace did admit to, brings these things into sharper focus. It does tell us that Custer was of an "offensive frame of mind" at the time, which is much more believable than merely trying to "defend" Reno's single battlefield position, as if it was the only significant one on the entire field of battle. It does tell us that Custer was trying to coordinate an action between the battalions to bring it to a successful conclusion, and with their only means at hand being revolvers and Single shot rifles, it would have had to have been resolved quickly, also another factor Custer would have realized.
Therefore, "His attack (Custer's) was to be the signal for Reno, just as soon as the latter "saw or heard" him (Custer's attack), "to press forward, in the reasonable expectation that the combined pressure would stampede the Indians out of the village." The underlined portion of this explains it all. Custer fully expected Reno to be engaged at the time with the Indians, which does explain Custer's "we've got them now statement". Reno was to "Bring them to battle", and then when he, Reno "saw or heard" Custer's engagment, he was supposed to "press forward, in the reasonable expectation that the combined pressure(of all elements, including Benteen's battalion) would stampede the Indians out of the village." But, Benteen was not where he was supposed to have been, Reno retreated the opposite direction at the very moment that he was supposed to have been applying the needed pressure and everyone knows the rest of the story. And does anyone really believe that it would have taken any more than 675 warriors that day to have done the job on Custer, when viewed in this light? Benteen wasn't there. He wasn't in the position Custer wanted him to be. Reno retreated at the very moment that he was supposed to be charging the Indians. Reno knew he was supposed to be charging them, thus the unusual "charge" order to the rear, which in reality was more of a 'stampede' as evidenced by the slaughter of his men. And it all came down to "Custer's Plan" which both Reno and Benteen spoke of as saying, that 'he had none'.
The truth is, is that nothing made sense of this for over 135 years. And perhaps it still doesn't to some. But the truth is there, easy enough for all to see, and it didn't take a ditch full of indians to stop Reno.
|
|
|
|
joe wiggs
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - December 13 2009 : 11:27:39 AM
|
In concert with your findings, how could anyone believe that an aggressive commander such as Custer would have attacked in anyone's wake, let alone Reno's. In his official report, Reno admitted as much stating that Custer would respond by flanking. Isn't it amazing that Reno's contradiction of his official report was brought out at the Inquiry but was not used against him in the findings. Why would a man who either committed perjury in his official report or at the Inquiry testimony (you can't have both) not be brought to task for such an offense? Does the term "whitewash" ring a bell?
You are absolutely right on regarding Custer, a general who would never have committed a major portion of his troops without his mutual commitment; would be insanity do so.
Finally, several officers saw Custer on the bluffs and would have known instantly what his plan was; a flank attack. These men were trained soldiers not boy scouts and recognized the necessity and appearance of tactical deployment. |
|
|
|
Benteen
Lt. Colonel
Status: offline |
Posted - December 13 2009 : 5:05:53 PM
|
Joe,
You have exposed the "whitewash" the Inquiry committed. Those on the panel knew alot more, and knew if they prosecuted Reno on those charges that not only would he have been found guilty, but others would have gone down for the distaster as well, namely Frederick Benteen. It was to be "whitwashed" from the beginning, and that is evidenced by whom they chose to lead out with, none other than Lt. Wallace.
Custer's reputation over the years suffered because of these lies, and the myths that grew from them. It wasn't his failure that day that caused that disaster, it was Benteen's and Reno's actions and reactions that caused it. And it was neatly swept under the proverbial rug at the COI.
Perhaps one of the finest examples of the whitewash was the cross examination of Martin, where he supposedly gave two different versions of travel times from Custer with his dispatch back to Benteen. Only one could have been correct, yet still to this day there are those that believe it took him 45 minutes to 1 hour to get back to Benteen. What they forget is what Benteen said to the court that he believed Custer to have been dead by that time, and the contradictory statement later on the Weir advance where he posted the banner, believeing at that time that they were all alive. Anyone see the two tales in each case? Yet only one could have been correct.
What is difficult for most to believe is Curley's accounts. Yet Curley did state that when Custer did approach the ford, that he, Curley did believe that Custer would have to stop or do something different because there were hundreds of mounted warriors coming up from the village at that time. Custer did "quarter back" up on a ridge according to Curleys account. Just what did Martin see when he turned around about 5 to 6 minutes after departing Custer? This same action that Curley described.
These actions as well as others are explainable. Yet most to this day do not believe in them because of the lies and myths perpetrated by Reno and Benteen and their loyal followers.
Many of the Indians did state that it took no longer than 20 to perhaps 25 minutes to finish off Custer's battalion. Even Benteen and other officers stated the same, "about a half hour". And if it only took Martin say 20 to 25 minutes to get back to Benteen, then one thing did stand out in Benteen's statement to the court: Indeed, Custer and his whole outfit was dead, wounded or dying by the time Martin arrived. And how pray tell did Benteen know that? Luck, mere chance, or something entirely different?
What also continually amazes me is how can one change the fact that Gen. George Armstrong Custer was firmly in control of the 7th U.S. Cavalry that day. How could one possibly interpret any order given to either Reno or Benteen as an order that was NOT to be obeyed as interpreted? "Come on" "Be Quick" "Bring the pacs"? Who the heck does anyone think he meant that for? Of course he meant it for himself. He wanted Benteen to do all three, "Come on" to Custer. "Be Quick" to Custer. "Bring the packs" to Custer. Anything else just doesn't make any sense. None, absolutley none at all. Yet Benteen did what? Reno did what? And the final answer, WHY?
|
Edited by - Benteen on December 13 2009 5:36:57 PM |
|
|
|
AZ Ranger
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - December 14 2009 : 09:08:49 AM
|
| According to Martin Custer was repulsed before Reno. If one reads Rosser it would be expected and included in a plan that either one or both could be expected to be repulsed. There is no indication that Custer moved to a preplanned location once repulsed. Whereas Reno did move to place where Custer could have easily reached as Martin describes his view of Custer be driven back without the help of the 125 Indians, poster Benteen's estimate, if Martin could make it near Weir and Reno Hill so could have Custer. Seems like there was no plan for dual repulsion to meet anywhere. Rosser believed an essential part of plan. |
“ An officer's first duty is to his horses.”
SEMPER FI |
Edited by - AZ Ranger on December 14 2009 09:21:01 AM |
|
|
|
joe wiggs
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - December 16 2009 : 9:04:00 PM
|
You do not stand "amazed" by yourself. According to some, Custer was the epitome of goofy ignorance with no concept of military tactics and, so intent towards achieving personal glory that he he would sacrifice himself, and four members of his family to achieve "stardom." not to mention personal friends of his who were as important as family.
A man who attended West point, performed admirably during 4 years of the Civil War, became the youngest General at 23 years in the Union Army, who became a writer, whose fame qualified him as one of America's first "celebrities" suddenly, became massive idiot during the battle. Hell, he couldn't,t even write a simple command, "Come On" with out a million, armchair idiots, telling us why he chose the incorrect wording to be understood by Reno and Benteen. How about this scenario, neither one of the two gentlemen wanted to "understand" Custer's "order" because it may have meant they might have gotten their own butts singed! |
|
|
|
joe wiggs
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - June 23 2011 : 7:48:30 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by AZ Ranger
According to Martin Custer was repulsed before Reno.
quote:
I do not recall where it was written that Martini stated that Custer was "repulsed" before or after anyone. Could you or dc kindly share that source with the forum?
If one reads Rosser it would be expected and included in a plan that either one or both could be expected to be repulsed. There is no indication that Custer moved to a preplanned location once repulsed.
quote:
I had the pleasure to read Rosser in "The Custer Myth" but do not recall any expectation to be "repulsed",also,Fox shows (and others) that the terrain was was evaluated by troopers sent out in advance of the command. In addition, the command was able to "discover" various plateaus from various elevations, thus the necessity to "pre-plan" movements were adhered to
.
Whereas Reno did move to place where Custer could have easily reached as Martin describes his view of Custer be driven back without the help of the 125 Indians, poster Benteen's estimate, if Martin could make it near Weir and Reno Hill so could have Custer. Seems like there was no plan for dual repulsion to meet anywhere. Rosser believed an essential part of plan.
quote:
Reno rushed to a place that was impossible for Custer to reach (nor be aware of) as he had already moved forward while Reno "charged" to the rear. Reno was unable to continue in his flight for sanctuary as the warriors pressed upon Reno's right flank and forced him to cross at the point wherein he crossed the river;an undesirable crossing!. In this crossing, men were shot in the back, clubbed from behind, and generally slaughtered in a river crossing that was totally non-conducive to egress. These soldiers were reduced to an aggressive mob of panic, every one for himself, deliriously demoralized fugitives. Sadly, their "leadership" where occupied with an intense desire to lead the pack and save themselves.
?
|
Edited by - joe wiggs on June 23 2011 8:06:18 PM |
|
|
|
AZ Ranger
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - July 12 2011 : 10:22:17 AM
|
| Joe again you insert quotes within a quote of my post. How dishonest is that or is it ignorance? |
“ An officer's first duty is to his horses.”
SEMPER FI |
|
|
|
AZ Ranger
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - July 12 2011 : 10:33:59 AM
|
Joe's question
I do not recall where it was written that Martini stated that Custer was "repulsed" before or after anyone. Could you or dc kindly share that source with the forum?
http://www.astonisher.com/archives/museum/john_martin_little_big_horn.html
Camp interview of Martin
"When Martin got to top of ridge he looked down in village and saw Indians charging like swarm of bees toward the ford, waving buffalo hides. At the same time he saw Custer retreating up the open country in the direction of the battlefield."
AZ Ranger
|
“ An officer's first duty is to his horses.”
SEMPER FI |
Edited by - AZ Ranger on July 12 2011 10:37:12 AM |
|
|
|
joe wiggs
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - July 16 2011 : 7:47:33 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by AZ Ranger
Joe again you insert quotes within a quote of my post. How dishonest is that or is it ignorance?
It's ignorance! |
|
|
| |
Topic |
|
|
|
Russell Means
