| Author |
 Topic  |
|
movingrobewoman
Lt. Colonel
USA
Status: offline |
 Posted - July 03 2005 : 09:50:24 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by wILD I
Crab,Dave
Custer could not perform a U turn in MTC because such a manoeuvre would have resulted in the column passing through the same point over a number of minutes.A manoeuvre which would have been suicidal while under attack.
Wild--
Can you be a little more specific? What "same point?" Reno's battle? From what I've read, mostly in Michno, that there was little fighting actually done at MTC--which of course, following that logic--wouldn't necessitate a turnback. Now of course, if you believe Cloud's version of events and those of a few authors, that there was intensive fighting, I still don't get to what "point" you refer? I figgured he'd haul it back through Cedar Coulee--or maybe NCR, where some writers contend Custer was hanging out, getting visuals whilst E and F probed MTC and the river.
Regards,
|
movingrobe |
  |
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - July 03 2005 : 3:18:39 PM
|
Hi MRW
I'm assuming that Custer descended MTC with his command strung out behind him in column.When he reached the river something prevented him from crossing.The simplist explanation is that there were sufficent Indians to his front to dispute the crossing and prevent him deploying for attack. Faced with this dilemma he could withdraw back up MTC or try his luck further along the East bank.
To withdraw ment manoeuvring the column through a U turn.This would envolve the head of the column withdrawing back up MTC while the rear units were still descending.A fatal manouevre in the face of the growing numbers of Indians.Further he has been fluting around for over a hour knowing that Reno is in dire straits.For the command to see him now race back up MTC was going to do nothing for morale to say nothing of the silly bugger's reputation.So he kept going until he was forced away from the river up Deep Ravine.There is a good chance that Keogh and Calhoun being the rear most units were forced up Deep Coulee which leads directly to Calhoun Hill.From Deep Ravine to LSH it was a running fight with most of Smith's troop being cut off and annilated in Deep Ravine.Smith being at the head of his troop managed to make it to LSH.
Warlord
Your post seemed to indicate that at long range [1200 yards] the rifle was as good as useless.You say Firing at 1200 yards can never be justified.This is inaccurate.
A battery of artillery with ammo waggons and horses will make a big target.Cavalry massing will make a big target.Infantry forming up for attack will make a big target.
Volley firing using a standard production rifle at a range of 1200 yards will probably give a beaten zone of 100 yards by 100 yards.600 rounds per volley hiting atillery,cavalry or infantry formations occupying that area will do some damage.
Further the world record for a long range combat shot was achieved in Vietnam by a marine sniper when he hit an enemy soldier at 2400 yards.I believe this record has been since broken by a Canadian soldier in Afganistan with a hit recorded at 2700 yards.Generally snipers will guarantee hits at 1000 yards.
|
|
|
|
joseph wiggs
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - July 03 2005 : 9:49:36 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by wILD I
Hi MRW
I'm assuming that Custer descended MTC with his command strung out behind him in column.When he reached the river something prevented him from crossing.The simplest explanation is that there were sufficient Indians to his front to dispute the crossing and prevent him deploying for attack. Faced with this dilemma he could withdraw back up MTC or try his luck further along the East bank.
Presuming that Custer was unable to cross the river at this location calls for an assumption that he attempted to make the cross and,as a result,was repulsed by hoards of warriors; how else to explain his failure for doing so? The significant problem with this theory is the assumption that Custer desired, wished, needed, or attempted to cross the river at MTC in the first place; perhaps he did not.
WildTo withdraw meant maneuvering the column through a U turn.This would envolve the head of the column withdrawing back up MTC while the rear units were still descending.A fatal manouevre in the face of the growing numbers of Indians.
Actually a simple command of "about-Face" would have accomplished the feat with a minimum amount of discord or confusion.
WildFurther he has been fluting around for over a hour knowing that Reno is in dire straits.
I disagree with your determination of Reno being in "dire straits."
Reno's situation did not become untenable until his "charge" to the rear without proper notification (bugle calls) to his command. Prior to this incident, he had not suffered a single casualty until his entry into the woods. Once there, one or two soldiers were shot and Reno immediately led a portion of his men out of the palisade in a hurried frenzy.
Wild
For the command to see him now race back up MTC was going to do nothing for morale to say nothing of the silly bugger's reputation.So he kept going until he was forced away from the river up Deep Ravine.
During this time Custer was on the offensive. According to Indian testimony (Cheyenne) only ten or so warriors found themselves at MTC when the troopers arrived at the river. Some investigators believe that Custer may have sent troops "E" and "F" only down the coulée. Perhaps he determined that a military "feint" would induced further panic in the non-combatants who were already fleeing north. Meanwhile, Custer and his staff transversed Luce Ridge, Nye-Cartwright Ridge arriving at Calhoun Hill where they were joined by "E" and "F" troops.
WildThere is a good chance that Keogh and Calhoun being the rear most units were forced up Deep Coulée which leads directly to Calhoun Hill.
There is not much information that we can be sure of, regarding this battle, however most believe that Calhoun and Keogh arrived at their positions in good order. Soldiers in dire stress do not perform military, tactical, positioning well. Yet Calhoun's men went into skirmish in an orderly fashion while Keogh, calmly, held his unit, ("C" troop as well) in reserve in the basin west of Custer Ridge. Such military precession during combat does not gender a feeling of anxiety or "forced" circumstances.
Wild
From Deep Ravine to LSH it was a running fight with most of Smith's troop being cut off and annihilated in Deep Ravine.Smith being at the head of his troop managed to make it to LSH.
Smith's body was recovered on Last Stand Hill which would help to contradict the supposition that he and his command were annihilated in Deep Ravine while attempting to reach Last Stand Hill. There is much Indian testimony (at this juncture the only witnesses who lived to tell the tale) who describe the last moments of the battle. While at the site in 1878, several warriors told General miles that a group of soldiers left Custer Hill, "First started in the direction of a small ravine but, faced with strong Indian fire, swerved toward the head of a neighboring ravine. Archeology, history, and Custer's Last Battle, Page 211. This ravine was in all probability, Deep Ravine. Rather than Smith (commander of "E") reaching the hill alone only to have his entire command sucked into Deep Ravine behind him, it appears that this last moment movement was an attempt by Company "E" to escape. Thus, we have a logical possibility how these men arrived at their final resting place.
|
Edited by - joseph wiggs on July 03 2005 10:16:20 PM |
|
|
|
movingrobewoman
Lt. Colonel
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - July 03 2005 : 11:22:28 PM
|
All--
I think, in regards to MTC, it is helpful to look at the Maguire map in "The Custer Myth" to discern whether GAC led the column going into MTC or whether a column--any column--was dictated by seniority (i.e., GAC and HQ at MTC). From what I remember, I and L are nowheres near the centre on that map ...
hoka hey |
movingrobe |
Edited by - movingrobewoman on July 03 2005 11:23:34 PM |
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - July 04 2005 : 04:18:24 AM
|
To hit a barn door at 1200 yards you would have to hold two barnes over the target!!! GET IT! Ever since firearms have been invented, nearly all practical combat between riflemen has been under two hundred yards!!! I have no idea how many times I have repeated this. Yet I keep getting this 1200 yard baloney. The rifle or carbine were never, I repeat NEVER, sighted in for 1200 yards! It does not matter what the sight indicated! For heavens sake you guys get some books on practical rifle shooting or combat rifles and read them!
Warlord
The above seems to indicate that you are making a statement on musketry in general and if so you are in error.If on the other hand you are discussing the carbine of the 7th then I agree ,1200 yards would be beyond effective range.
Hi Joe
Presuming that Custer was unable to cross the river at this location calls for an assumption that he attempted to make the crossYes.Can't think of another reason why he would he would go to the river.
and,as a result,was repulsed by hoards of warriors; how else to explain his failure for doing so?
Not hoards just sufficent to keep emptying saddles as he tried to form up for attack
The significant problem with this theory is the assumption that Custer desired, wished, needed, or attempted to cross the river at MTC in the first place; perhaps he did not.
I did say I was making an assumption.If we only discussed the known facts there would be little or no discussion.
Actually a simple command of "about-Face" would have accomplished the feat with a minimum amount of discord or confusion.An about face would have put the HQ group to the rear of the Column and all officers to the rear of their troops.The Column would have had to remain stationery until Custer galloped the lenght of it to reach the new lead troop.
I disagree with your determination of Reno being in "dire straits."
Reno's decision making was hampered by Custer non appearance to support him.
Reno's situation did not become untenable until his "charge" to the rear without proper notification (bugle calls) to his command. The entire commands position was untenable the moment they rode into the valley of the LBH.They just did not realise it until too late.
During this time Custer was on the offensive. According to Indian testimony (Cheyenne) only ten or so warriors found themselves at MTC when the troopers arrived at the river. Some investigators believe that Custer may have sent troops "E" and "F" only down the coulée. Perhaps he determined that a military "feint" would induced further panic in the non-combatants who were already fleeing north. Meanwhile, Custer and his staff transversed Luce Ridge, Nye-Cartwright Ridge arriving at Calhoun Hill where they were joined by "E" and "F" troops.
And the purpose of all this "feinting" and manoeuvering?And one has to admire his command and control of these units.And don't tell me he used bugle calls.What's the call for " spread out lads here they come".
There is not much information that we can be sure of, regarding this battle, however most believe that Calhoun and Keogh arrived at their positions in good order.
Yes agreed.
Such military precession during combat does not gender a feeling of anxiety or "forced" circumstances.
Yes I would agree and prefer the scenario of Keogh and Calhoun not descending MTC.
Smith's body was recovered on Last Stand Hill which would help to contradict the supposition that he and his command were annihilated in Deep Ravine while attempting to reach Last Stand Hill.My understanding was that most of his troop were found in DR while Smith himself was found on LSH with most of the officers which to me makes the case of movement towards LSH stronger
it appears that this last moment movement was an attempt by Company "E" to escape.
If company E were on LSH they would have been all jumbled up with the other troops.Just to have a significant group of E troopers leave their officer and make a break for it sounds too neat.[stupid direction to run anyway]
Regards
|
|
|
|
dave
Captain
Australia
Status: offline |
Posted - July 04 2005 : 08:38:33 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by wILD I
To hit a barn door at 1200 yards you would have to hold two barnes over the target!!! GET IT! Ever since firearms have been invented, nearly all practical combat between riflemen has been under two hundred yards!!! I have no idea how many times I have repeated this. Yet I keep getting this 1200 yard baloney. The rifle or carbine were never, I repeat NEVER, sighted in for 1200 yards! It does not matter what the sight indicated! For heavens sake you guys get some books on practical rifle shooting or combat rifles and read them!
Warlord
The above seems to indicate that you are making a statement on musketry in general and if so you are in error.If on the other hand you are discussing the carbine of the 7th then I agree ,1200 yards would be beyond effective range.
I think you would have to say that 1200 yards would have to be on the outer limit of anyones effective range, barring specialist snipers of course. I was reading that at the Gagetown sniper rifle trials (staged in 2002? for the Canadian army), one of the Canadian built bolt actions scored a 99% hit probability at 1200 metres. Which was under optimal or near optimal conditions naturally, but is highly impressive all the same. Longe range shooting seems to have reached its apex during the Boer War, since then no other conflict seems to have regularly involved the same extreme ranges. Of course the Boers had the advantage of using what were essentially modern bolt actions with smokeless powder and small calibre projectiles. Neither of which were available for the 1873 Springfield.
quote:
If company E were on LSH they would have been all jumbled up with the other troops.Just to have a significant group of E troopers leave their officer and make a break for it sounds too neat.[stupid direction to run anyway]
Were all the troopers found Deep Ravine, or near to it, from E company? If they were all from E, then you would have a hard time believing that they had made a break from LSH wouldn't you?
I'd be interested to hear others thoughts on this, but my own opinion (for the moment and subject to change) is that I find it easier to believe that E company might have been detached from the rest of the command (possibly heading back down towards the river), and on arriving in the vicinity of LSH/Deep Ravine, were commanded to dismount and form a skirmish line, Smith remaining mounted, which would explain we he was able to get to LSH and his men weren't.
I'm assuming of course, that an officer may have remained mounted while his men formed a skirmish line, I don't what the practise of the time actually was, does anyone? |
Edited by - dave on July 04 2005 08:40:13 AM |
|
|
|
whistlingboy
Lieutenant
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - July 04 2005 : 6:43:02 PM
|
There seems to be some concensus here on the board, at least by description, that Reno LED a charge to the river and up the embankments. If we put ourselves on a horse, or for some idiotic reason on our knees by our horse in some kind of skirmish line and together see this (going by what's been described) horde of Indians coming at us, whooping it up, firing repeaters and discharging arrows all around us, seeing our buddies heads' getting blown up next to us....well, the phenomenon that occurs is not an orderly retreat but "mass hysteria" which manifests itself in the form of PANIC and involves every trooper, including RENO, now dazed and shocked by what's happened next to him. They aren't retreating, they are running for their lives, crying, screaming and wildly turning around to shoot an errant shot into the air not concentrated and meant to kill anyone but to naively scare some Indian. They scamper for their lives and at that moment the top priority is not killing any other life but saving their own. It behooves me how one can denigrate Custer's leadership under fire and build Reno's character by saying he led a 'charge' to the river. Reno saved himself and more than likely had help doing that...he was not in any condition to save anybody else at that moment. Fair is fair.
Happy 4th of July to all! |
|
|
|
BJMarkland
Colonel
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - July 04 2005 : 7:57:53 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by whistlingboy
...ome kind of skirmish line and together see this (going by what's been described) horde of Indians coming at us, whooping it up, firing repeaters and discharging arrows all around us, seeing our buddies heads' getting blown up next to us....
WB, my understanding from reading survivor's reports are that one, maybe two men were hit by enemy fire while on the initial firing line, i.e., the skirmish line. However, transposing your scenario to the timber fits the reality to a great degree.
Sorry I don't have time to elaborate on it but I think you are on the right track as far as the reactions of untrained men, i.e., those not experienced in receiving enemy fire, whether in training or real combat - in warfare are concerned.
Happy 4th of July to you and yours as well!
Billy |
|
|
|
El Crab
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - July 04 2005 : 9:58:02 PM
|
Stop twisting my words. I said where you can find the list. Its on the Indian Memorial at the battlefield. I have pictures of it, if you'd like to see it. I don't know if its a perfect list, or how it was compiled. I just mentioned it as a possibility. That there is a list of 54 named Indians that were killed. Its very likely not exact, nor is it complete. Its just an example. It sure beats guesswork.
I also never claimed the Springfield was sighted at 1200 yards. My wording was poor. I have heard it had sights up to 1200 yards. Of course, 99% of the soldiers probably couldn't hit a barn from that distance. I didn't mean the Springfield was sighted for 1200 yards.
Bruce Trinque, in a CBHMA article entitled "The Defense of Custer Hill" or something similar, spoke of the Springfield carbine being a flat trajectory weapon. I don't know where he got that or if its entirely true, but I'd guess it was. Trinque isn't exactly a lightweight, and I'd guess that point was researched.
The Springfield carbine did not use the .45/70 because of issues with durability, supposedly. The shorter barrel and overall design of the carbine resulted in a reduced grain cartridge.
The Springfield carbine did have a superior range and stopping power over the .30/30 and various other weapons. It was a fine weapon for what the US Cavalry thought they would need. And it was a fine weapon with a clear, unbroken field of fire, as the surviving members of the 7th showed. The problem with the weapon was its slower rate of fire, when compared to lever actions. I've likened the Springfield v. Winchester to the M-16 v. AK-47 before. I think it still holds up.
You'll be hardpressed to convince anyone that hundreds of warriors were killed. Just because you can't fathom so many shots fired and so few killed, it doesn't mean it didn't happen. The warriors did not provide targets. Gibbon said something about the Indian's style of fighting, how even their displays of bravado were usually held at a safe distance. That they take advantage of every piece of cover they could find. I think you've been watching too many 50s westerns, with warriors dropping left and right. Most of the fights between the US Army and Plains Indians were one-sided or virtually bloodless.
If Custer's battalion had killed 500 warriors, they'd have driven them from the field. The Sioux and Cheyenne aren't using military protocol and structure. They didn't have objectives and acceptable losses. They fought as individuals, and if Custer's troops were picking off hundreds of warriors, they'd have left the field. Same goes for Reno's situation.
Besides, exaggerating the deaths of your enemy is expected. There were not over a thousand killed at the Wagon Box Fight. There were not hundreds killed at Little Big Horn.
The Army didn't know exactly how many soldiers were killed with Custer because the muster rolls were lost and apparently not every body was accounted for. The number was supposedly around 210 (this excludes messengers and stragglers), and the usual body count was around 197. I'm sure they knew exactly who was dead at one point, but the records kept aren't exactly immaculate. Also, look at Reno's methods of casualty reports. He lowered the number killed in his "charge" to the bluffs (hmm, imagine that) and made up for it by adding to the total killed in the hilltop fight. Plus, he never reported the missing and misrepresented his overall battalion strength. This can all be found in Gray's works, by the way. This isn't the modern Army. Numbers manipulation was a lot more common, and if you can't even trust the commanding officer to tell the truth about casualties per incident, how can you expect soldiers to be honest in kill totals? Soldiers exaggerate. Benteen, at one point, claimed they had 10,000 warriors, "regiments" of warriors picnicking on nearby hills, waiting for a chance to fight them. I believe Reno said he thought they were fighting the whole Sioux nation, including renegades and half-breeds. If they were to say "well, we only shot about 20 of them, as far as I can tell", they'd be considered terrible soldiers. Which would not have been far from the truth. The 7th wasn't made up of coldblooded snipers. They weren't the elite fighting force people used to claim they were. They were poor shots, most of them. And combine that with a guerilla force not willing to march up the hill shoulder to shoulder, and Voila! Not many killed warriors. |
I came. I saw. I took 300 pictures. |
|
|
|
joseph wiggs
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - July 04 2005 : 10:03:00 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by whistlingboy
There seems to be some consensus here on the board, at least by description, that Reno LED a charge to the river and up the embankments.
The "charge" you have referred to was, in actuality, an ignominious retreat in which everyman was for himself. All military discipline, at this point, had dissolved into a form of mass hysteria. The referrals to Reno's charge are fictitious in nature and, not meant to be taken seriously.
W.B
lticious remarks If we put ourselves on a horse, or for some idiotic reason on our knees by our horse in some kind of skirmish line and together see this (going by what's been described) horde of Indians coming at us, whooping it up, firing repeaters and discharging arrows all around us, seeing our buddies heads' getting blown up next to us....well, the phenomenon that occurs is not an orderly retreat but "mass hysteria" which manifests itself in the form of PANIC and involves every trooper, including RENO, now dazed and shocked by what's happened next to him.
Soldiers in combat do not run because they are afraid, they become afraid because they run. In other words, wars have been lost because soldiers were allowed to break ranks and flee, becoming more disorganized, panic stricken and, confused with each step taken. The military objective,in combat, and universally understood by the Officer's Corp. is to prevent disorganization in the ranks from occurring in the first place. This is precisely why officers are trained to command and to lead.
Alexander the Great attired himself in highly visible garb for that era (large,white plumage on his helmet for example) and led every assault of his forces against his foes. His men, seeing him in the forefront of battle, were inspired to follow him. Alexander consistently trounced larger forces than his because of the mettle he inspired in his men who did not panic regardless of the superiority of the enemy. Reno's "charge" towards the river exemplified the antithesis of this philosophy and was directly responsible for the ensuing panic of his men. The Reno Inquiry established that at the moment the Major raced from the wooded area towards the river, he had suffered minimum casualties. The horrific casualties his command suffered were a direct result the "run" to wards the river. The Indians, wisely, merely opened their ranks, allowed the panic stricken soldiers to proceed, and picked them off as they fled.
All commanders in all armies must be held to a higher standard than the average soldier. Hence the intensive training and higher pay.
W.B. They aren't retreating, they are running for their lives, crying, screaming and wildly turning around to shoot an errant shot into the air not concentrated and meant to kill anyone but to naively scare some Indian. They scamper for their lives and at that moment the top priority is not killing any other life but saving their own. It behooves me how one can denigrate Custer's leadership under fire and build Reno's character by saying he led a 'charge' to the river. Reno saved himself and more than likely had help doing that...he was not in any condition to save anybody else at that moment. Fair is fair.
You are absolutely correct. This harrowing scenario you so aptly described may have been avoided had Reno utilized prescribed military tactics at his disposal to ensure an orderly withdrawal(if necessary)which may have retained a cohesive, tactical movement to the rear.
There was no "charge" towards the river led by a courageous commander attempting to "cut" his command out of a desperate situation. It was,rather,a disorganized, chaotic, panic derived, and leaderless attempt to escape with no thoughts regarding the faith of his wounded and dying comrades.
Happy 4th of July to all!
|
Edited by - joseph wiggs on July 04 2005 10:13:26 PM |
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - July 05 2005 : 08:20:30 AM
|
Hi Dave
Longe range shooting seems to have reached its apex during the Boer War, since then no other conflict seems to have regularly involved the same extreme ranges.
It wasn't that long range firing was not used it was that this role was undertaken by the machinegun.
Warlord
You contend that the Indians suffered in excess of 500 deaths because instead of there being just 1500 of them there was approx 9000 of them.In using this figure you ignore the fact that you have increased their firepower by a factor of 6.Resulting in Custer's troops falling 6 times faster.
This also means that Custer's troops all 210 of them were outnumbered 45 to 1.The fact that they were not concentrated together under control but scattered over a mile ment that pockets of them were outnumbered 200 to 1.[remember 50 of them were holding horses].You have also made the case here that their weapons jammed.
Picking a figure of 9000 out ot the air does nothing for your case.
Joe
There was no "charge" towards the river led by a courageous commander attempting to "cut" his command out of a desperate situation. It was,rather,a disorganized, chaotic, panic derived, and leaderless attempt to escape with no thoughts regarding the faith of his wounded and dying comrades.
What wounded and dying?
What's the difference between a rearward charge and a chaotic attempt at escape? You can fight or you can run.If the decision is made to run then anything else is a waste of time.There is just one object and that is to get away.Not pretty but effective. |
|
|
|
dave
Captain
Australia
Status: offline |
Posted - July 05 2005 : 09:15:44 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by wILD I
Hi Dave
Longe range shooting seems to have reached its apex during the Boer War, since then no other conflict seems to have regularly involved the same extreme ranges.
It wasn't that long range firing was not used it was that this role was undertaken by the machinegun.
Quite true.
Off topic, whats happening with the weather in Belfast today? I was looking forward to the USA-Ireland match today |
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - July 05 2005 : 12:02:50 PM
|
Golf Dave? Ya mean golf?
I'm trying to get over the pasting we're getting from the All Blacks. |
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - July 05 2005 : 3:23:02 PM
|
Warlord
Do you believe that 210 troopers scattered over a mile of broken terrain with faulty weapons and limited ammo faced 8000 warriors and inflicted over 500 fatalities? |
|
|
|
joseph wiggs
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - July 05 2005 : 9:56:42 PM
|
"THERE WERE NO COWARDS ON THE FIELD THAT DAY."
Under the acute and horrendous stresses of combat,where one's life is on the line, some men manage to perform at a higher level than others while other do not perform as well. History speaks of a myriad of circumstances where some courageous men spit into the eye of death, while others quietly resist to the last, and still others make every attempt to escape death regardless of what the "Status Quo" may expect of them. It is all irrelevant as none of the men on that battlefield are cowards, regardless of the level of their combat skills. Cowards do not make it to the battlefield. They will find a means, method, or excuse to avoid actual combat regardless of what it takes to do so.
Did Reno's performance exemplify the ultimate in what we perceive as a heroic display of intestinal fortitude? Of course not. Does this make him a coward;absolutely not! It makes him a human being who did not perform as well as, I am sure, he wished he had.
No cowards fell on that field, nor did any cowards survive. Men died and men lived. Human beings, both White and Red, fought, died, and survived this battle to the best of their ability. To insist that all men, specifically trained to enhance their martial skills in critical situations, perform to an acceptable standard does not constitute an allegation of cowardice if they fail to do so. |
Edited by - joseph wiggs on July 05 2005 10:11:38 PM |
|
|
|
movingrobewoman
Lt. Colonel
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - July 05 2005 : 10:22:05 PM
|
Warlord--
Have you read the introduction of Michno's "Lakota Noon?" I felt his analysis of the size of the Indian village was quite good.
hoka hey! |
movingrobe |
|
|
|
alfuso
Corporal
Status: offline |
Posted - July 05 2005 : 10:38:39 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by joseph wiggs
"THERE WERE NO COWARDS ON THE FIELD THAT DAY."
Well said. Thank you.
alfuso
|
Deny Everything
Prepare to Panic |
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - July 06 2005 : 04:14:47 AM
|
In fact, I invite the phonies here to not sleep for 3 or 4 nights and then go out and have a few hundred rounds of ammunition and several thousand arrows fired on them. Then try to take a tired horse up a mountain firing from the saddle at dozens of targets firing at you!
And then achieve a prodigious feat of inflicting 500 plus fatalities on the enemy with a faulty single shot carbine.
The indians reported many saddlebags had much ammunition in them, to others that said many were empty! Based on that I would guess at least 50% of the ammunition load was expended!
If your contention is based on what the Indians said then you cannot be selective and must accept their figures of approx 30 dead.
Joe
"THERE WERE NO COWARDS ON THE FIELD THAT DAY."
All very nice Joe but not reality.
Cowardice is a part of human nature.A characteristic which places self preservation above all other considerations.Evan s Connell in his S.O.T.M.S refers to Indian descriptions of men throwing down their weapons and begging for mercy,others breaking formation and running for their lives.DeRudio and a dozen troopers skulked in the timber.Cowardice saved Reno and many of his troopers.One could go further and say the application of cowardice to the situation Benteen found himself in saved many life. |
|
|
|
whistlingboy
Lieutenant
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - July 06 2005 : 11:09:21 AM
|
wILD I:
Joe may have been thinking in a euphoric sense with his statement "...no cowards on the field that day" and that is respectful since we could never know who was or wasn't a coward in the true sense of the word, but I have to agree with you that many situations in life, and certainly this one in particular, strains one's character in the face of hopeless death and, well... self-preservation ideas set in--they did then and they always will.
Dictionaries explain cowardice as showing 'ignoble fear' in the face of death and this certainly implies some form of dishonor. Descriptions of Reno's charge vary by writer and it is difficult to grasp what distance the Indians actually were and how many were in view to cause the panic. Certainly one can fantasize the situation and 'see' an organized 'retreat' to the trees or one can 'see' a frenzied one. The latter is the one that induces the body to self-preservation.
I will never say they were not good soldiers as a group but there are always a few who endanger the rest with their 'ignoble fear' of the situation. A man running for the trees looking at a thousand faces of death is not a coward as I see no honor in standing there waiting to be shot. On the other hand, selfish disregard for one's and your own comrads life only submits and surrenders to the enemy in a dishonorable way. When a person begs for his life because he has lost his 'fight' to survive, one may think of that person as being a coward, especially if it endangers those around him or her. But every situation is unique, don't you think, because hopelessness has got to be the very worst station in life and, at that point, the 'light' of life is but a 'snuff' away. Judgement is nil.
We must be careful of calling a man a coward who is caught in a hopeless life situation where all the options have been exterminated. Avoiding the decision process that leads to such situations is what must be scrutinized.
The study of Jews caught in the extermination process during the Second Great War never focused on whether or not they were cowards but focused on their inability to overcome the mass hysteria feeling of hopelessness. They were humiliated to the point of extinction and calmly and orderly accepted their demise. Tears come at the very mention of this 'station' in life for them and it cautions me to label anyone a coward caught in such a situation. Some start acting as a coward, however, before all the options are gone.
|
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - July 06 2005 : 1:49:24 PM
|
WB
Good reply.
I suppose different societies have different views on what constitutes cowardice.For example the Japs thought all surrendering Allied troops cowards and below contempt while on the other hand it was highly regarded by the Italians.
Warlord
You seem a little confused----Well, first of all to believe, what 600 some heavily armed troopers only killed 30 some indians I think kind of speaks for itself. If you believe that BS, you believe it! So be it!600 "heavily armed troopers" never got into action at one time.And that action consisted of running for their lives.
The indians had no reason to lie about the ammunition! They had a vested interest in lieing about casualties!
500 Dead is an awful lot of dead meat to hide.Funny no mass graves were ever discovered.No piles of bodies lying in front of Reno's position.
Oh, by the by old fellow, could you take one of your examples of cowardice on the part of the 7th and show us how much better you could have done, should you have been in their position?
I have to admit that I could not.Reno's headlong flight from imminent extermination was a brilliantly executed manoeuvre. |
|
|
|
movingrobewoman
Lt. Colonel
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - July 06 2005 : 3:50:51 PM
|
All--
I don't think it is too off-base of some to assume that newly recruited or not-used-to-fighting-yet type soldiers with the Seventh might have not reacted with the steely determination that is so commonly attributed to fightin' men. There is a quote from Custer himself, written in his incomplete memoir, remembering his first 'wartime' experience during the First Bull Run:
"I remember well ... the strange hissing and exceedingly vicious sound of the first cannon shot as it whirled through the air ... a man listens with changed interest when the direction of the balls is toward instead of away from him ..."
--from Wert's "Custer," pg. 44.
It seems all the live training in the world, even when taken at West Point, doesn't adequately prepare one for battle, even the most confoundingly brave of 'em.
(arrrghhh ... I'm on an adverb jab!)
Hoka hey! |
movingrobe |
Edited by - movingrobewoman on July 06 2005 3:58:15 PM |
|
|
|
movingrobewoman
Lt. Colonel
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - July 06 2005 : 3:55:56 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Warlord
MRW:
Yes it is quite well done. I like quite a bit of Michino's writing. But, not all of it I agree with!
I liked the accessability of the text--very, very neatly arranged. Where I felt Michno went wrong was in some of the summaries at the end of each time period. There some assumptions he made that really had me shaking me 'ead. But I think his look at the LBH village is really well-done and credible.
Hoka hey! |
movingrobe |
|
|
|
whistlingboy
Lieutenant
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - July 06 2005 : 3:58:30 PM
|
Thanks, wILD I. Just adding to your practical and true assessment. Running for life is, at times,nothing to be proud about but often a natural reaction.
Warlord:
Glad to see you're feeling "chipper" today. Nothing like a little pizazz to keep a body healthy.
First of all, sir, I'm not after your respect. The only respect I need is from those I love and love me who I have given life to and taken care of. Appreciation is nice but not a bond. Giving or even faking respect is not your way. Getting along is tantamount to nothing, according to your way. You can't help it; it's just you. I have my myriad amount of problems and I'm just me. I'm just not going to insult you or your thinking just because I don't agree. Why would I think your ideas are the only right ones? Give me reason and I will put you in my book as the authority on subject A of the LBH sagas. Insulting me just confuses me because you are talking about something and someone you know nothing about and freely, as if you do. It makes me wonder if you're doing that with the subject matter you post. How could I assume otherwise?
Second of all, I have great admiration for the 7th and you've never read anything I wrote that said I thought they were bad soldiers. Now their tactics, well, that's another story.
Thirdly, you are claiming I have "no experience" in what? If you are going to insult me, first of all, know what you're talking about, learn how to say it, and then do a good job of it. Your halfway insults at me aren't good enough....they make it hard for me to scrutinize what you do know. Be very specific.
Since you and Joe don't have any respect for me, don't respond to my posts and ignore me, as that seems to be the immature standard threat on this board, when people don't agree with you.
And about the "chicken", well, that childish tactic isn't going to work. I don't call people names. It's not my style. You might be a nice guy; just frustrated. I'd bet you'd be great to be around; at least for a little bit! I didn't go to college to learn how to cuss and swear at people. My great father, the ol' Italian, chain-smoked and cussed every other word and I loved him for it. I'm not pleasing you, obviously, but more importantly, I'm not trying. This board should not be about its members, it should be about its subjects. Maybe it's time for Rich to take another look and revamp this site because I'm getting tired of defending myself when I should be defending my position.
I truly hope you have a good day, Warlord. |
|
|
|
Heavyrunner
Captain
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - July 06 2005 : 5:20:17 PM
|
Far be it for me to speculate, but one side gets partly wiped, yet they kill twice as many of the enemy--on the run, no less, and do it in a half hour.
It's like those old B Westerns--the Indians fire dozens of volleys and hit nothing. The white guy shoots once with his pistol and 10 Indians fall from their horses. |
Bob Bostwick |
|
|
|
joseph wiggs
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - July 06 2005 : 9:28:53 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by wILD I
Joe
[i][b] "THERE WERE NO COWARDS ON THE FIELD THAT DAY."
All very nice Joe but not reality.
Cowardice is a part of human nature.A characteristic which places self preservation above all other considerations.Evan s Connelly in his S.O.T.M.S refers to Indian descriptions of men throwing down their weapons and begging for mercy,others breaking formation and running for their lives.DeRudio and a dozen troopers skulked in the timber.Cowardice saved Reno and many of his troopers.One could go
further and say the application of cowardice to the situation Benteen found himself in saved many life.
My friend, I must disagree with you in the strongest sense. Fear is a part of human nature, apprehension, indecision, wrong choices, correct choices, panic, apprehension and confusion, all are a integral part of human nature; of mankind in general. Cowardice is a unique and selective option by a minuscule portion of mankind. So limited is this aberration that it is unfair to straddle all of mankind with this infamous label.
Cowardice is a specific unwillingness to perform any act if the act is perceived as detrimental to the actor. It is a separation from humanity. It is an act of individuality so strong as to render the user, in effect, inhuman. It is an unwillingness to be human. In effect, it states that the preservation of the individualistic "I" is much more important than the welfare of the whole. The "one" versus the "many."
How many humans fall within such a stringent parameter of "humanity?" The vast majority of mankind possess the ability and willingness to render aid when required regardless of the circumstances. How many men, women, and young people have jeopardized their well being to succor aid to their fellow human beings? Cowards would never perform such heroic acts because they are incapable of doing so.
In the psyche of a coward, an intricate part of what makes us human is missing. It is human to care for one another. It is human to make the supreme sacrifice. The exception to this remarkable human quality is the coward! Men who cry out in anguish just prior to death are not cowards, commanders who decide that desecration is the better part of valor are not necessarily cowards, men who surrender because they simply do not wish to die are not cowards;they are humanity.
Last but, certainly not least, reality -like the beauty of a rose- is in the eye of the beholder. |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Responsibility At Little Bighorn
