| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
 Posted - September 14 2005 : 4:23:18 PM
|
Reno saw more action than Custer?
Reno went into action at 3.00 pm on the 25th and was relieved by Terry sometime on the 27th.Custer went into action at 4.00pm on the 25th and 5 minutes later according to you was shot.So you do the math. |
  |
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - September 14 2005 : 5:51:07 PM
|
Duration, Wild, isn't quality. LSH is a more exciting movie than Reno Hill whatever happened.
But I don't think he was killed five minutes later, just wounded. Dying, surrounded by his adoring family, shills, and nepotistic hangers on, later that afternoon at battle's end emoting memorable and brilliant words which, most unfortunately, are not fit for children, clergy, or this board. We have Indian testimony and, of course, that .22 shell casing.
|
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
Edited by - Dark Cloud on September 14 2005 5:53:31 PM |
|
|
|
joseph wiggs
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - September 14 2005 : 9:41:52 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by wILD I
[Sure we know all that WB,but you see running from the enemy is regulation.As a general rule 50% of combatants will run from the enemy in combat.Most West Pointers who went through the civil war will have participated in that sort of thing but they lived to fight another day just as Reno did.Naw he was ok WB.He saw more action that day than any of the other senior officers and stuck to his task.
Running from the enemy is not regulation. No army,in either hemisphere of this planet, could be recognized as an organized, body of soldiers, utilized for waging war if it accepts, condones, or fails to rectify "running" among its troops. Running is the antithesis of organization.
Do men (soldiers),on occasion, run from the enemy? Yes, when, morale, panic, and chaos runs amok among the troops. Whereupon a army is then utterly transformed from an organized unit into an undisciplined mob of lost souls. Either way Wild, "running" is not "regulation", it is the terminus of order and the birth of disorder.
Your general rule of "50%" of combatants running in a battle is a little suspect. You see, I find it hard to imagine 50% of a unit remaining entrenched in a hard core resistance, to the encroaching enemy, when 50% of their comrades are dashing away to safety without the remotest care for their comrades. According to the sources I have perused,elements that would facilitate panic in 50% of a force would,in all probability, reduce the entire unit into a disorganized mob of men doing everything they could to get away.
Yes, men(soldiers) sometimes run, but there is absolutely nothing regulation about it. Also, military support does not necessarily have to come from the rear. Military tactics also call upon "flank" attacks when appropriate. To assume that Custer failed Reno because he did not bring up the rear calls upon an equal condemnation of Reno who failed to move forward towards Custers "flank" support. |
Edited by - joseph wiggs on September 14 2005 9:50:17 PM |
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - September 15 2005 : 05:15:07 AM
|
OK Joe let's deal with this Custer "support".There are three factors governing this military maneuver location , time and method.Custer somehow neglected to inform Reno when and from where and how he could expect this support.You have stated here that you don't know how many men Reno required to successfully carry out the attack as ordered by Custer.You don't know how many men could sustain the attack until at some unspecified time, at some unspecfied location and by some unspecified method support would miraculously materialize.And on this bases you condemn Reno.Great judgement Joe.
Running is the antithesis of organization.
Of course it is and there are times when organization gets you annihilated.Keogh and Calhoun might just have gotten away if they had run.A case could be made that the Union was saved because it's army broke and ran at Bull Run.condones, or fails to rectify "running" among its troops How about among it's generals?McArthur the very manifestation of the West Point Spirit ran.Which is better running or surrendering? Surrendering is nice and neat and regulation but is terminal.Running is untidy but temporary.
Duration, Wild, isn't quality.
Got to agree with you there DC.Two days of sporadic gunfire just does not compare with one good shot to the temple.
|
|
|
|
whistlingboy
Lieutenant
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - September 15 2005 : 10:08:44 AM
|
Joe W: A great post! It's indispensable clarity quite rewarding.
How far away do you surmise Reno was when Custer decided to make his right turn to the north? Why would General Custer not have sent a rider forward to inform Reno of his intentions, do you suppose? I have not found any information to the contrary in the literature and most everyone seems to accept the fact that Major Reno was oblivious to the why. Why would Custer want to leave Reno in the dark about his whim? Did Reno send a rider back to see what Custer was up to? There must have been more to the order from Custer than history knows.
Surprising the enemy is good but not your own team. It is only logical that there was more to the discussion and order from Custer to Reno than the 'support' statement we read about. Reno had to question the 'specifics' of the support issue and Custer had to 'imply' some of his intentions as to the type of support he was referring to. Was this casual talk as in passing meaning '....we won't be too far away...' etc.? This 'fuzzy' area doesn't seem to fit Custer's
organized, methodical approach to battle. Did he deceive or not communicate his plans to subordinate officers in other battles, i.e. the Civil War? And if he was certain where the village was, as some would contend, not I, it would have been his true nature to lead the initial assault on the village himself, up front. That's basically how he always did it.
There are too many missing words either between Terry and Custer or Reno and Custer that 'politically' affected this battle. Research must be done. I'll hop right to it. hehe
Again, great post, Joe. |
|
|
|
joseph wiggs
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - September 15 2005 : 9:04:47 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by wILD I
OK Joe let's deal with this Custer "support".There are three factors governing this military maneuver location , time and method.Custer somehow neglected to inform Reno when and from where and how he could expect this support.
Your assertion that Custer may have neglected to provide Reno with sufficient information regarding support may be incorrect. In the aftermath of the battle, when the need to "scape-goat" was paramount over truth,Reno said a lot of silly things. It is Generally believed that either Custer or his adjutant (Cook) advised Reno that, and I paraphrase, "Reno, charge the village at as fast a gait as you deem prudent, and the entire command will support you." In my research (which is limited) I can find no source that confirms the fact that Custer informed Reno that he would "follow" the Major in his wake. This was a reasonable assumption on behalf of Reno which I find no fault with. However, It is inconceivable, to me, that a West Point graduate was incapable of comprehending that support could be as quick and effective coming from the flank as from the rear, dependent upon specific circumstances.
quote:
You have stated here that you don't know how many men Reno required to successfully carry out the attack as ordered by Custer.You don't know how many men could sustain the attack until at some unspecified time, at some unspecified location and by some unspecified method support would miraculously materialize.And on this bases you condemn Reno.Great judgment Joe.
You asked me a legitimate question for which, unfortunately, I had no legitimate answer. No one can possibly know how many troopers would have been necessary to carry out Custer's command because Reno did not attempt to do it. No one did. Therefore I proffered a possible result.
Your insistent contention that the charge was required at an "unspecified" location is puzzling. How about the southern portion of a very real and specific village? Wild I do not condemn Reno for anything other than his failure to do everything possible to ensure the safety of his command. The failure to use trumpets and the failure to utilize some type or rear-guard protection is simply inexcusable. The argument that no one would have volunteered for such a job is invalid. We don't know what responses he may have gotten from volunteers as he he did not try.
We, the people, accept the deaths (begrudgingly) when we feel that every possible recourse was attempted for our soldiers.
quote:
Running is the antithesis of organization.
Of course it is and there are times when organization gets you annihilated.Keogh and Calhoun might just have gotten away if they had run.A case could be made that the Union was saved because it's army broke and ran at Bull Run.condones, or fails to rectify "running" among its troops How about among it's generals?McArthur the very manifestation of the West Point Spirit ran.Which is better running or surrendering? Surrendering is nice and neat and regulation but is terminal.Running is untidy but temporary
.
An army that runs subjects itself to complete annihilation. This has been true for eons. You are correct when you say that there have been exceptions to that rule but, that's exactly what they are;exceptions. When the enemy becomes superior through better weapons, more manpower, and/or a better capacity to fight, orderly withdrawal may become necessary. Many armies, historically, have used this maneuver to quite the field when the odds are against them. To loose more men in a "charge" away from the enemy then when you actually fought them is a little odd, wouldn't you say? Your perspectives on military behavior are legitimate, I simply disagree with you.
|
|
|
|
joseph wiggs
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - September 15 2005 : 9:42:37 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by whistlingboy
Joe W: A great post! It's indispensable clarity quite rewarding.
How far away do you surmise Reno was when Custer decided to make his right turn to the north? Why would General Custer not have sent a rider forward to inform Reno of his intentions, do you suppose? I have not found any information to the contrary in the literature and most everyone seems to accept the fact that Major Reno was oblivious to the why. Why would Custer want to leave Reno in the dark about his whim? Did Reno send a rider back to see what Custer was up to? There must have been more to the order from Custer than history knows.
Thanks W.B. for your kind words. Needless to say I have no facts to support my supposition to your inquiry but, I will speculate. I believe that Custer, originally, had every intention to follow Reno into the southern end of the village. However, two significant events occurred that forced him to change his mind.
A. Reno sent two couriers to Custer saying that the warriors were showing a strong force in his front in an apparent determination to make a "stand." A typical Indian maneuver, when caught by surprise, was a rear guard action which would enable the noncombatants to escape;
B. Approximately 50 warriors were observed, on what to was become Reno's bluff, fleeing north. My theory, heaven help me, is that the combination of these two factors encouraged Custer to believe that the village was fleeing north away from Reno. Custer realized that Reno was being confronted by a Indian "feint." Custer's movement north would garner critical intelligence at a critical time for further development in his plan.
quote:
There are too many missing words either between Terry and Custer or Reno and Custer that 'politically' affected this battle. Research must be done. I'll hop right to it. he
Again, great post, Joe.
You sir are the epitome of correctness. Missing words have affected so much. Again, thank you.
|
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - September 16 2005 : 09:30:44 AM
|
Your assertion that Custer may have neglected to provide Reno with sufficient information regarding support may be incorrect.Well unless you know for certain that Custer did in fact give explicit information to Reno regarding his intention to support him you are in no position to judge Reno.
I can find no source that confirms the fact that Custer informed Reno that he would "follow" the Major in his wake.
Or for that matter flank support or when or how.But Reno with his classical military education must somehow sustain his small force on nothing more than a promise.
It is inconceivable, to me, that a West Point graduate was incapable of comprehending that support could be as quick and effective coming from the flank as from the rear, dependent upon specific circumstances.
Well the specific circumstances here were that the only possible support was to the rear.There was no indication of support materilizing from anywhere else.
No one can possibly know how many troopers would have been necessary to carry out Custer's command
Well then Custer who ordered the attack did not know.So here we have Custer ordering an attack not knowing how many men were required to sustain the attack or when ,where or how he would support the attack.
The time element was also not considered.Because the force was so small time passed into the hands of the Indians.This half arsed attack ordered by Custer left Reno in control of nothing.The initiative passed into the hands of the Indians and all Reno could do was to react.In my opinion too late.
Wild I do not condemn Reno for anything other than his failure to do everything possible to ensure the safety of his command. And you are the one complaining that he failed to charge overwhelming numbers with his handful of troopers.
The failure to use trumpets and the failure to utilize some type or rear-guard protection is simply inexcusable.
Of course the rearguard could have surrendered after fulfilling its mission?
he argument that no one would have volunteered for such a job is invalid. We don't know what responses he may have gotten from volunteers as he he did not try.
How many men should he have left?Is it morally exceptable to leave men to their certain horrific doom?
An army that runs subjects itself to complete annihilation.
In "civliized warfare"troops can fight to the last bullet and then seek terms.What terms were on offer at the LBH?
To loose more men in a "charge" away from the enemy then when you actually fought them is a little odd, wouldn't you say?
not when the alternative is total annihilation.
Thank you for your replys Joe.
|
|
|
|
joseph wiggs
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - September 19 2005 : 9:07:31 PM
|
Wild, I returned from the O.U./U.C.L.A,game, Sunday around seven o"clock (Okie time), I checked the site before retiring and saw your post. Although sorely depressed over O.U's loss, suffering from jet-lag, and contemplating suicide,I instead opted to respond to you. After about 40 minutes of doing so, I lost every word of my response. I then went to bed. Battered but not vanquished, I'm back!
quote:
Originally posted by wILD I
Your assertion that Custer may have neglected to provide Reno with sufficient information regarding support may be incorrect.Well unless you know for certain that Custer did in fact give explicit information to Reno regarding his intention to support him you are in no position to judge Reno.
Wild, you are right. In my enthusiasm for the subject I know I have appeared to judge all of Reno's actions harshly. However, the fact that Reno separated himself from Custer's command, trotted to ford "A", regrouped his three platoons, then galloped towards the souther end of a real village is Primi Faci evidence that he was, in fact, acting under somebody's orders.
I can find no source that confirms the fact that Custer informed Reno that he would "follow" the Major in his wake.
Or for that matter flank support or when or how.But Reno with his classical military education must somehow sustain his small force on nothing more than a promise.
No argument here, however, many a commander has entered the field of battle on no more than that;some even less.
It is inconceivable, to me, that a West Point graduate was incapable of comprehending that support could be as quick and effective coming from the flank as from the rear, dependent upon specific circumstances.
Well the specific circumstances here were that the only possible support was to the rear.There was no indication of support materializing from anywhere else.
The"flank"support is not only possible, it occurred. Troops "E" and "F", under Custer's direction, descended Medicine Trail Coulée to ford "B". As a result, the entire warrior force(sans a few warriors to guard the bluffs)abruptly evacuated Reno's military front and, hastily responded to this new and even more severe threat to the village. This movement saved Reno's command.
No one can possibly know how many troopers would have been necessary to carry out Custer's command
Well then Custer who ordered the attack did not know.So here we have Custer ordering an attack not knowing how many men were required to sustain the attack or when ,where or how he would support the attack.
The time element was also not considered.Because the force was so small time passed into the hands of the Indians.This half arsed attack ordered by Custer left Reno in control of nothing.The initiative passed into the hands of the Indians and all Reno could do was to react.In my opinion too late.
My statement was in response to a very legitimate inquiry, by you, and an equally legitimate attempt, on my part, to be honest. No one can ever know this answer. We can only speculate. However, to check the charge before suffering any casualties, to metamorphosis the ultimate Calvary tactic into that of an infantry movement (skirmish)is senseless. Reno made these decisions before he knew of the overwhelming force he was to be confronted with.
Wild I do not condemn Reno for anything other than his failure to do everything possible to ensure the safety of his command. And you are the one complaining that he failed to charge overwhelming numbers with his handful of troopers.
To expect any man to charge"overwhelming" odds is a contradiction in rationality. It is an oxymoron. I complained because he withdrew his forces prior to determining the disposition of the enemy and, failing to withdraw in an orderly fashion to reduce the loss of life while doing so.
The failure to use trumpets and the failure to utilize some type or rear-guard protection is simply inexcusable.
Of course the rearguard could have surrendered after fulfilling its mission?
It would not have been necessary for the rear-guard to needlessly sacrifice their lives. In every situation where the soldiers stood their ground and fired their weapons in accordance with military technique, they were successful. For example, Godfrey forced his men to stand in prescribed skirmish (no bunching)and fire their weapons with coolness when Weir, and the others, wildly retreated from Weir's Point. Hotly pursued by the embolden warriors, Godfrey's fire sent them reeling back in shock and confusion. They must have thought that this was a "different bunch of soldiers, one with balls."
Calhoun maintained his position for over an hour with no problem until company "C" (or a portion thereof) were driven from Calhoun Coulée in a chaotic rout. Unfortunately, their mental debilitation quickly affected the men of "L" troop. Then all was lost.
he argument that no one would have volunteered for such a job is invalid. We don't know what responses he may have gotten from volunteers as he he did not try.
How many men should he have left?Is it morally acceptable to leave men to their certain horrific doom?
See above
An army that runs subjects itself to complete annihilation.
In "civilized warfare"troops can fight to the last bullet and then seek terms.What terms were on offer at the LBH?
My point exactly, this was not "civilized" warfare, if such a thing truly exist. You do not run from Indians! The only available "terms" are fight or die.
To loose more men in a "charge" away from the enemy then when you actually fought them is a little odd, wouldn't you say?
not when the alternative is total annihilation.
If the only alternative is total annihilation then you certainly have a valid point. Looking at the outcome of this battle it is difficult to disagree with you. However, an argument can be made that this was notthe only alternative.
Thank you for your replys Joe.
Thank you for being a gentleman and posting comments that are consistently rationale, thought provoking, and difficult to disagree with.
|
|
|
|
joseph wiggs
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - September 19 2005 : 9:23:50 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by joseph wiggs
Wild, I returned from the O.U./U.C.L.A,game, Sunday around seven o"clock (Okie time), I checked the site before retiring and saw your post. Although sorely depressed over O.U's loss, suffering from jet-lag, and contemplating suicide,I instead opted to respond to you. After about 40 minutes of doing so, I lost every word of my response. I then went to bed. Battered but not vanquished, I'm back!
quote:
Originally posted by wILD I
Your assertion that Custer may have neglected to provide Reno with sufficient information regarding support may be incorrect.Well unless you know for certain that Custer did in fact give explicit information to Reno regarding his intention to support him you are in no position to judge Reno.
Wild, you are right. In my enthusiasm for the subject I know I have appeared to judge all of Reno's actions harshly. However, the fact that Reno separated himself from Custer's command, trotted to ford "A", regrouped his three platoons, then galloped towards the souther end of a real village is Primi Fachi evidence that he was, in fact, acting under somebody's orders.
Originally posted by Wild I
I can find no source that confirms the fact that Custer informed Reno that he would "follow" the Major in his wake.
Or for that matter flank support or when or how.But Reno with his classical military education must somehow sustain his small force on nothing more than a promise.
No argument here, however, many a commander has entered the field of battle on no more than that;some even less.
originally posted by Wild I
It is inconceivable, to me, that a West Point graduate was incapable of comprehending that support could be as quick and effective coming from the flank as from the rear, dependent upon specific circumstances.
Well the specific circumstances here were that the only possible support was to the rear.There was no indication of support materializing from anywhere else.
The"flank"support is not only possible, it occurred. Troops "E" and "F", under Custer's direction, descended Medicine Trail Coulée to ford "B". As a result, the entire warrior force(sans a few warriors to guard the bluffs)abruptly evacuated Reno's military front and, hastily responded to this new and even more severe threat to the village. This movement saved Reno's command.
Originally posted by Wild I
No one can possibly know how many troopers would have been necessary to carry out Custer's command
Well then Custer who ordered the attack did not know.So here we have Custer ordering an attack not knowing how many men were required to sustain the attack or when ,where or how he would support the attack.
The time element was also not considered.Because the force was so small time passed into the hands of the Indians.This half arsed attack ordered by Custer left Reno in control of nothing.The initiative passed into the hands of the Indians and all Reno could do was to react.In my opinion too late.
My statement was in response to a very legitimate inquiry, by you, and an equally legitimate attempt, on my part, to be honest. No one can ever know this answer. We can only speculate. However, to check the charge before suffering any casualties, to metamorphosis the ultimate Calvary tactic into that of an infantry movement (skirmish)is senseless. Reno made these decisions before he knew of the overwhelming force he was to be confronted with.
Originally posted by Wild I
Wild I do not condemn Reno for anything other than his failure to do everything possible to ensure the safety of his command. And you are the one complaining that he failed to charge overwhelming numbers with his handful of troopers.
To expect any man to charge"overwhelming" odds is a contradiction in rationality. It is an oxymoron. I complained because he withdrew his forces prior to determining the disposition of the enemy and, failing to withdraw in an orderly fashion to reduce the loss of life while doing so.
Originally posted by Wild I
The failure to use trumpets and the failure to utilize some type or rear-guard protection is simply inexcusable.
Of course the rearguard could have surrendered after fulfilling its mission?
It would not have been necessary for the rear-guard to needlessly sacrifice their lives. In every situation where the soldiers stood their ground and fired their weapons in accordance with military technique, they were successful. For example, Godfrey forced his men to stand in prescribed skirmish (no bunching)and fire their weapons with coolness when Weir, and the others, wildly retreated from Weir's Point. Hotly pursued by the embolden warriors, Godfrey's fire sent them reeling back in shock and confusion. They must have thought that this was a "different bunch of soldiers, one with balls."
Calhoun maintained his position for over an hour with no problem until company "C" (or a portion thereof) were driven from Calhoun Coulée in a chaotic rout. Unfortunately, their mental debilitation quickly affected the men of "L" troop. Then all was lost.
Originally posted by Wild I
he argument that no one would have volunteered for such a job is invalid. We don't know what responses he may have gotten from volunteers as he he did not try.
How many men should he have left?Is it morally acceptable to leave men to their certain horrific doom?
See above.
Originally posted by Wild I
An army that runs subjects itself to complete annihilation.
In "civilized warfare"troops can fight to the last bullet and then seek terms.What terms were on offer at the LBH?
My point exactly, this was not "civilized" warfare, if such a thing truly exist. You do not run from Indians! The only available "terms" are fight or die.
Originally posted by Wild I
To loose more men in a "charge" away from the enemy then when you actually fought them is a little odd, wouldn't you say?
not when the alternative is total annihilation.
If the only alternative is total annihilation then you certainly have a valid point. Looking at the outcome of this battle it is difficult to disagree with you. However, an argument can be made that this was notthe only alternative.
Originally posted by Wild I
Thank you for your replys Joe.
Thank you for being a gentleman and posting comments that are consistently rationale, thought provoking, and difficult to disagree with.
|
|
|
|
joseph wiggs
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - September 19 2005 : 9:36:13 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by joseph wiggs
Wild, I returned from the O.U./U.C.L.A,game, Sunday around seven o"clock (Okie time), I checked the site before retiring and saw your post. Although sorely depressed over O.U's loss, suffering from jet-lag, and contemplating suicide,I instead opted to respond to you. After about 40 minutes of doing so, I lost every word of my response. I then went to bed. Battered but not vanquished, I'm back!
[ quote:
quote]Originally posted by wILD I
Your assertion that Custer may have neglected to provide Reno with sufficient information regarding support may be incorrect.Well unless you know for certain that Custer did in fact give explicit information to Reno regarding his intention to support him you are in no position to judge Reno.
quote]Wild, you are right. In my enthusiasm for the subject I know I have appeared to judge all of Reno's actions harshly. However, the fact that Reno separated himself from Custer's command, trotted to ford "A", regrouped his three platoons, then galloped towards the souther end of a real village is Primi Faci evidence that he was, in fact, acting under somebody's orders.
quote:
I can find no source that confirms the fact that Custer informed Reno that he would "follow" the Major in his wake.
Or for that matter flank support or when or how.But Reno with his classical military education must somehow sustain his small force on nothing more than a promise.
No argument here, however, many a commander has entered the field of battle on no more than that;some even less.
quote:
It is inconceivable, to me, that a West Point graduate was incapable of comprehending that support could be as quick and effective coming from the flank as from the rear, dependent upon specific circumstances.
Well the specific circumstances here were that the only possible support was to the rear.There was no indication of support materializing from anywhere else.
The"flank"support is not only possible, it occurred. Troops "E" and "F", under Custer's direction, descended Medicine Trail Coulée to ford "B". As a result, the entire warrior force(sans a few warriors to guard the bluffs)abruptly evacuated Reno's military front and, hastily responded to this new and even more severe threat to the village. This movement saved Reno's command.
quote:
No one can possibly know how many troopers would have been necessary to carry out Custer's command
Well then Custer who ordered the attack did not know.So here we have Custer ordering an attack not knowing how many men were required to sustain the attack or when ,where or how he would support the attack.
The time element was also not considered.Because the force was so small time passed into the hands of the Indians.This half arsed attack ordered by Custer left Reno in control of nothing.The initiative passed into the hands of the Indians and all Reno could do was to react.In my opinion too late.
My statement was in response to a very legitimate inquiry, by you, and an equally legitimate attempt, on my part, to be honest. No one can ever know this answer. We can only speculate. However, to check the charge before suffering any casualties, to metamorphosis the ultimate Calvary tactic into that of an infantry movement (skirmish)is senseless. Reno made these decisions before he knew of the overwhelming force he was to be confronted with.
quote:
Wild I do not condemn Reno for anything other than his failure to do everything possible to ensure the safety of his command. And you are the one complaining that he failed to charge overwhelming numbers with his handful of troopers.
To expect any man to charge "overwhelming" odds is a contradiction in rationality. It is an oxymoron. I complained because he withdrew his forces prior to determining the disposition of the enemy and, failing to withdraw in an orderly fashion to reduce the loss of life while doing so.
quote:
The failure to use trumpets and the failure to utilize some type or rear-guard protection is simply inexcusable.
Of course the rearguard could have surrendered after fulfilling its mission?
It would not have been necessary for the rear-guard to needlessly sacrifice their lives. In every situation where the soldiers stood their ground and fired their weapons in accordance with military technique, they were successful. For example, Godfrey forced his men to stand in prescribed skirmish (no bunching)and fire their weapons with coolness when Weir, and the others, wildly retreated from Weir's Point. Hotly pursued by the embolden warriors, Godfrey's fire sent them reeling back in shock and confusion. They must have thought that this was a "different bunch of soldiers, one with balls."
Calhoun maintained his position for over an hour with no problem until company "C" (or a portion thereof) were driven from Calhoun Coulée in a chaotic rout. Unfortunately, their mental debilitation quickly affected the men of "L" troop. Then all was lost.
quote:
he argument that no one would have volunteered for such a job is invalid. We don't know what responses he may have gotten from volunteers as he he did not try.
How many men should he have left?Is it morally acceptable to leave men to their certain horrific doom?
See above
quote:
An army that runs subjects itself to complete annihilation.
In "civilized warfare"troops can fight to the last bullet and then seek terms.What terms were on offer at the LBH?
My point exactly, this was not "civilized" warfare, if such a thing truly exist. You do not run from Indians! The only available "terms" are fight or die.
quote:
To loose more men in a "charge" away from the enemy then when you actually fought them is a little odd, wouldn't you say?
not when the alternative is total annihilation.
If the only alternative is total annihilation then you certainly have a valid point. Looking at the outcome of this battle it is difficult to disagree with you. However, an argument can be made that this was notthe only alternative.
[quote]Thank you for your replys Joe.
Thank you for being a gentleman and posting comments that are consistently rationale, thought provoking, and difficult to disagree with.
|
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - September 20 2005 : 11:19:26 AM
|
Wild, I returned from the O.U./U.C.L.A,game, Sunday around seven o"clock (Okie time), I checked the site before retiring and saw your post. Although sorely depressed over O.U's loss, suffering from jet-lag, and contemplating suicide,I instead opted to respond to you. After about 40 minutes of doing so, I lost every word of my response. I then went to bed. Battered but not vanquished, I'm back!Are we to take it then that the result of the game was not to your liking.You poor man anyone can see from the above post that you are not yourself atall atall.In fact instead of loosing it you inflicted it on us three times.Well here's hoping you will be restored to your full faculties before long.
So I'll go very easy on ya.
The"flank"support is not only possible, it occurred. Troops "E" and "F", under Custer's direction, descended Medicine Trail Coulée to ford "B". As a result, the entire warrior force(sans a few warriors to guard the bluffs)abruptly evacuated Reno's military front and, hastily responded to this new and even more severe threat to the village. This movement saved Reno's command.The point at issue was support for Reno's attack.Now the "activities"[speculation]of Custer in the vicinity of MTC occured at approx 4.00 just as Reno was scrambling up the bluffs.This activity at MTC had as much to to with support as DC's butterflies had to do with the unfortunate happenings in New Orleans.
Your main difficulty with Reno is as stated by yourself his method of withdrawing from the valley.
By all acounts the fight in the timber was up close and personal with the command surrounded with their backs to the river and the position being infiltrated.An ordered withdrawal would have taken time and the intention would have been signaled to the Indians.Also a nice neat column makes a great target.And those troops at the rear would have had to had nevers of steel.On the other hand the sudden burst of troopers from the timber took the Indians by surprise in fact they are reported to have fallen back given those vital seconds to most of the command to get away.
As regards rearguards a rearguard action is not feasable when you are surrounded.How would a rearguard have stopped the Indians chasing after the command? |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - September 20 2005 : 1:42:00 PM
|
Okay.
"Lose" or "losing" refers to failing or misplacing. "Loose" or "Loosing" means unleashing. Olde school, perhaps, but Christmas night.
The Brazilian butterflies are not mine, but a traditional illustration of the theory that everything affects (not "effects") everything else. Lorentz, part of chaos theory. Unproveable, because there is no baseline of objective intent.
Yates didn't make it to the river till 1618, according to Gray, who also has supposed that the village wasn't aware of Custer's intent or numbers till the attack due to his dust suppression speed, if it happened at all. Try to imagine a reasonable amount of time for the info to make it to the warriors around Reno, to be digested, and for those who chose to act on it. They're two miles away, about. They had not shown huge interest in attacking up the bluffs even before the Custer diversion.
Again, given the descriptions we have, this prissy and pointless series of precision rear guard defenses wouldn't have had enough fire power to survive to remount, if they had anything to remount. Panic or insight, I think Reno's 'charge' probably didn't cost any more men than the by the book method and likely saved more. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
hunkpapa7
Lieutenant
United Kingdom
Status: offline |
Posted - September 20 2005 : 6:41:16 PM
|
IMO the number of Indians that took a liking to Reno and his command was nothing near half the warriors in the village.
How long would it take for the news that they were being attacked to reach all corners of the village.
The distance alone from the Hunkpapa circle to the Cheyenne end of the village was to far for warriors to gather horses,get themselves ready,make sure there families etc,etc,before even thinking of Reno.
Again IMO that hour it took Custer to make whatever move they did at MTC played right into the Indians hands as a great many of them would then be ready and be near enough to Ford B,hence they started to pour over almost immediately the soldiers turned.Then of course most of Reno's attackers disengaged and sought out Custers command.
I also believe that there were Indians already on the other side of MTC,Martini heard shots and saw Indians waving blankets when he turned round to see the company go in the direction of MTC.And we also know that a party of 50 led by Wolf Tooth were already North of Custer's men
Just a opinion
|
wev'e caught them napping boys
Aye Right ! |
|
|
|
7th Trumpeter
Recruit
Status: offline |
Posted - September 20 2005 : 7:49:00 PM
|
| I believe Custer is to blame here for the defeat. He should have waited for Terry-Gibbon columns to arrive. So what if the Indians escaped? There were still 4 good months left to locate them again. Plus, had he waited, he would have eventually learned of the Indians battle at the Rosebud, and a good idea of how many Indians they were going to be going up against. It is easy to look back and play arm chair stategist, but I wonder what we would have done in Custers' place? I doubt if I would have waited, but I would have kept the whole command together and approached slowly. And then I would have probably got all 12 companies slaughtered. |
"God, please bless our Troops and may we learn from history so we don't repeat it." |
|
|
|
joseph wiggs
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - September 20 2005 : 9:34:11 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by wILD I
Wild, I returned from the O.U./U.C.L.A,game, Sunday around seven o"clock (Okie time), I checked the site before retiring and saw your post. Although sorely depressed over O.U's loss, suffering from jet-lag, and contemplating suicide,I instead opted to respond to you. After about 40 minutes of doing so, I lost every word of my response. I then went to bed. Battered but not vanquished, I'm back!Are we to take it then that the result of the game was not to your liking.You poor man anyone can see from the above post that you are not yourself at all at all.In fact instead of loosing it you inflicted it on us three times.Well here's hoping you will be restored to your full faculties before long.
I don't know what happened. I do know that no one on this post has done anything to warrant three posts of drivel from me. I humbly plead your indulgence, and the indulgence of the forum, in excusing a computer Idiot Savant for this mishap.
quote:
I'll go very easy on ya.
The"flank"support is not only possible, it occurred. Troops "E" and "F", under Custer's direction, descended Medicine Trail Coulée to ford "B". As a result, the entire warrior force(sans a few warriors to guard the bluffs)abruptly evacuated Reno's military front and, hastily responded to this new and even more severe threat to the village. This movement saved Reno's command.The point at issue was support for Reno's attack.Now the "activities"[speculation]of Custer in the vicinity of MTC occurred at approx 4.00 just as Reno was scrambling up the bluffs.This activity at MTC had as much to to with support as DC's butterflies had to do with the unfortunate happenings in New Orleans.
I disagree, any activity on the behalf of Custer that enabled Reno to escape is support! Had the warriors not turned about at approximately 4:00, they would have undoubtedly wiped out Reno's command. To assume that Custer made no effort to succor Reno's dilemma is to assume too much.
[quote]Your main difficulty with Reno is as stated by yourself his method of withdrawing from the valley.
By all accounts the fight in the timber was up close and personal with the command surrounded with their backs to the river and the position being infiltrated.An ordered withdrawal would have taken time and the intention would have been signaled to the Indians.Also a nice neat column makes a great target.And those troops at the rear would have had to had never of steel.On the other hand the sudden burst of troopers from the timber took the Indians by surprise in fact they are reported to have fallen back given those vital seconds to most of the command to get away.
Your eloquent supposition of a total "surround" of warriors, impossible odds, and great targets are indisputable truths. Thus, a debate against your position is extremely difficult. Nevertheless, with conviction and an earnest amount of faith in my conviction, I say to you the following. Until the day I depart this earth, I will believe with my heart and soul that a commander who fails to utilize a rudimentary, tactical ploy of sounding trumpets to ensure (as much as possible) that his men are aware of a withdrawal is a commander who has lost it. Also, to anticipate that the inexplicable failure to perform some type of action to ensure that as many men as possible may escape is not deplorable stuns me. Do you not find it a little unsettling that the "Leader" of this battalion was the first to arrive on Reno's bluff while a portion of his men were still struggling to cross the river and desperately seeking help?
Last but certainly not least, thank you. My mistake was like an open wound awaiting the insertion of "salt", you chose not to do so. |
Edited by - joseph wiggs on September 20 2005 9:39:54 PM |
|
|
|
joseph wiggs
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - September 20 2005 : 9:58:37 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by 7th Trumpeter
I believe Custer is to blame here for the defeat. He should have waited for Terry-Gibbon columns to arrive.
Ironically he did wish to wait. His plan was to place his men in close proximity to the village on the afternoon of the 25th and attack on the dawn of the 26th. This action would have placed Terry closer to Custer's command.
Unfortunately, for Custer, incorrect "signs" convinced him that the Indians were on the "jump." Their escape would have been held accountable to Custer who possessed the swift, 7th Calvary. Therefore escape was not a consideration of possibility by the high command. Today, you and I, can not fathom the haste to capture these Native Americans. Then, however, it was perfectly understandable that the Indians must be punished as quickly as possible. By the way, welcome to the forum. |
|
|
|
7th Trumpeter
Recruit
Status: offline |
Posted - September 21 2005 : 12:42:52 AM
|
| Thank-you Wiggs, for the welcome. I just happened to stumble across this site while doing some research on the Fetterman battle. I am very impressed at the vast amount of knowledge of the members who post here. I am almost reluctant to write anything for the fear of appearing unknowledgable on the Custer subject. So I am probably going to sit back and read the terrific insights to the battle that you and the other fellow members have. I am just glad that I found this site. Thanks again for the welcome! |
"God, please bless our Troops and may we learn from history so we don't repeat it." |
|
|
|
Benteen
Lt. Colonel
Status: offline |
Posted - September 21 2005 : 01:28:11 AM
|
Welcome 7th Trumpeter. Don't mind the high kaflutin babble here. Most are pretty nice when they want to be.
Good discussion Wild/Joseph.
quote:
"Your main difficulty with Reno is as stated by yourself his method of withdrawing from the valley. By all accounts the fight in the timber was up close and personal with the command surrounded with their backs to the river and the position being infiltrated."
May I offer a version that may just provide the answer?
Tall Bull, Northern Cheyenne Indian Reservation, Montana, 1898; Grinnell
"...All the lower village people heard this and rushed up to where the soldiers were. Back of the village that was fired was a high hill, and the Indians all ran up on it and then charged down on the soldiers who retreated into the timber. They did not stop there, but ran right through it and out on the other side. I was present there...."
If it was a full retreat with no halt, then the point is moot about the trumpets, right? Tall Bull saw it that way. I'm wondering how close to the truth it is, and you? |
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - September 21 2005 : 10:00:47 AM
|
I disagree, any activity on the behalf of Custer that enabled Reno to escape is support!
Oh no it's not.To suggest that a byproduct is support is to attribute intention to coincidence.And Joe you cannot offer this board one shred of evidence that any of Custers maneuvers were intended as support for Reno.
Until the day I depart this earth, I will believe with my heart and soul that a commander who fails to utilize a rudimentary, tactical ploy of sounding trumpets to ensure (as much as possible) that his men are aware of a withdrawal is a commander who has lost it.You base this on the assumption that the men who remained in the timber did not hear the order.Herendon who remained in the timber had this to say ""Just as I got out, my horse stumbled and fell and I was dismounted, the horse running away after Reno's command. I saw several soldiers who were dismounted, their horses having been killed or run away. There were also some soldiers mounted who had remained behind, I should think in all as many as thirteen soldiers, and seeing no chance of getting away, I called on them to come into the timber and we would stand off the Indians.
I think the actual number who failed to get away was 17 but as you see from Hereendon's report this was for various reasons.Many of the troopers deciding it was just too risky to make a run for it.And of course the oldest excuse in the book is "we never heard the order sir"
Do you not find it a little unsettling that the "Leader" of this battalion was the first to arrive on Reno's bluff while a portion of his men were still struggling to cross the river and desperately seeking help?And by the same token was it not a little unsettling that Custer was first to reach LSH while his troops were being butchered in Deep Ravine?
If the troops are to have any chance of rallying then the leader has got to be in front not nursemaiding the tailend Charlies.
Really your condemnation of Reno does not stand up based as it is on speculation and guesswork.
Regards
7th T glad to have you .New blood is always welcome as it can get a bit incestuous here at times.
The Brazilian butterflies are not mine,Ah what a pity DC and to think I was crediting you with at least one original thought.
Good discussion Wild/Joseph.
Thank you Benteen but I'm only the straight man in this comic duo.
|
Edited by - wILD I on September 21 2005 10:03:23 AM |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - September 21 2005 : 3:02:30 PM
|
It's not only not original with me, it's common knowledge, Wild. Somewhat depressing, given that even reactionary, slow-witted Hollywood named a movie the "Butterfly Effect."
So how many hours after Reno's ordered attack can Custer's moves be interpreted as "support" for that attack? No more than thirty minutes, I'd say. Anything after is only support for an attack in the sense of that Brazilian butterfly causing a Texas tornado. Yes, but only if your baseline is the Big Bang, everything affects everything else.
Also, beware participants who appear at emotional need and vanish later. I suspect the number of IP's participating on Custer boards is about 1/3 the user names appearing. Only the site master would know, of course. Still, just as strange punctuation habits cast suspicion, a word parse generally suggests the actual authors. Just saying. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
Edited by - Dark Cloud on September 21 2005 3:15:07 PM |
|
|
|
Benteen
Lt. Colonel
Status: offline |
Posted - September 21 2005 : 4:27:39 PM
|
Please DC, can't you just be nice for once? Why would you want to do this? To impress the new person? This was one of the reasons that I didn't want to come here. I was persuaded by another member to join. My only regret is sadly that most of the time people like you make posting here unbearable. Ask youself DC. Should I put up with it?
You are a crude, rude and totally out of control unrational person. That doesn't care about the feelings of others. Much less of what they think! It's all about you, isn't it DC? What you know. What you think.
Sure i've been to other boards. Who hasn't? I'm not two faced. And no I don't pretend to be someone that i'm not. Can the same thing be said of you?
And just for your information. I do agree with you that it took Custer too long to support Reno. Please next time. Don't presume to know what a person is thinking or what they will say. |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - September 21 2005 : 9:00:46 PM
|
Terri,
In answer to your PM. I was waiting for an email, but I don't want to lose it and write again.
You wrote recently: But I don't think he was killed five minutes later, just wounded. Dying, surrounded by his adoring family, shills, and nepotistic hangers on, later that afternoon at battle's end emoting memorable and brilliant words which, most unfortunately, are not fit for children, clergy, or this board. We have Indian testimony and, of course, that .22 shell casing.
Could you elaborate on this? What Indian testimony? 22 shell casing? INTERESTING. Please tell me more about this.
I've always thought Custer shot himself when finally knowing all was lost. This seems to explain why his body was not mutilated--Indians did not like to touch suicides. Thanks, very curious.
I was being sarcastic. We have long memories on this board, and I was referencing past claims.
I can't explain, or have much interest in, Custer's actions after MTC. Once he turned north, he was cooked. The land is pretty awful for horses, he would see that (although it's worse than it looks from Weir) the land was cut with east to west gullies going to the river, so I don't think he planned heading north to get the civvies at all. I think that silly, actually.
Still, why did he turn north. NO clue, but if a Custer was wounded, the actual command structure, as opposed to the professed command structure, would swing into action. Cooke is rather a faceless ADJ, wouldn't you say, compared to Bourke and others? Tom is the real ADJ, push come to shove. Family and friends first was the pretty standard Custer fare.
Relatives, in-laws, and nepotistics would focus on saving their patron (if Custer himself was wounded) and see the need to get him to where the surgeon could work. After a short fight at the river where the Custer is wounded, the run down MTC is blunted to the north. The last two or three companies, seeing the jam, ride parallel to the Yates group providing covering fire unclear what's happening till too late.
They have found .22 shells on the field, and Fox and Scott think the field was pillaged early on of large artifacts. So, we know firing occured on the field without mention after the battle, and it would be suprising if it were limited to .22 longs or shorts. I have no doubt that for years, and especially that first year, Indians returned to desecrate the Army dead, who were poorly buried if at all. Firing into the exposed bodies, leaving the casings.
When the trains came in a few years, they stopped at MTC for picnics and tourists just pillaged the place. At one point, it was mentioned that VIP tourists couldn't find any artifacts to take home. Later, shell casings were more easily found on the field, hard to say how.
No proof, but there is reason to suspect the field was salted with shells, and these, now found, are claimed as Indian shells since they aren't Springfield casings for forensic need. I don't think you can base anything on shell casings at all, really. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
joseph wiggs
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - September 21 2005 : 9:56:58 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by wILD I
I disagree, any activity on the behalf of Custer that enabled Reno to escape is support!
Oh no it's not.To suggest that a byproduct is support is to attribute intention to coincidence.And Joe you cannot offer this board one shred of evidence that any of Custer's maneuvers were intended as support for Reno.
Excuse my ignorance but, you have me utterly confused. Your assertion regarding my failure to provide "one shred of evidence" has rendered me nonplussed. When did I ever allege, intimate, imply, or indicate that I possessed evidence to support my allegations? My perspective, like yours, is merely opinion. Neither perspective has an ounce of value other than speculative. We can agree on this salient point, can't we?
quote:
Until the day I depart this earth, I will believe with my heart and soul that a commander who fails to utilize a rudimentary, tactical ploy of sounding trumpets to ensure (as much as possible) that his men are aware of a withdrawal is a commander who has lost it.You base this on the assumption that the men who remained in the timber did not hear the order.Herendon who remained in the timber had this to say ""Just as I got out, my horse stumbled and fell and I was dismounted, the horse running away after Reno's command. I saw several soldiers who were dismounted, their horses having been killed or run away. There were also some soldiers mounted who had remained behind, I should think in all as many as thirteen soldiers, and seeing no chance of getting away, I called on them to come into the timber and we would stand off the Indians.
What does this statement have to do with the price of Tea in China?The amount of soldiers who may or not have been effected by Reno's lapse of military protocol in irrelevant. If one man died because of his failure to perform a fundamental duty then that is one life to many!
quote:
Do you not find it a little unsettling that the "Leader" of this battalion was the first to arrive on Reno's bluff while a portion of his men were still struggling to cross the river and desperately seeking help?And by the same token was it not a little unsettling that Custer was first to reach LSH while his troops were being butchered in Deep Ravine?
Wild, you have neatly skirted the issue to no avail. Custer and those very same troops you referred to as "butchered" in Deep Ravine arrived upon LSH at approximately the same time, unlike the situation involving your stalwart Reno. When the "L" troop skirmish collapsed, these men,and a portion of "C" troop, fell back to "I" troops position, slightly west of Custer Ridge. These men, in turn, fell back to LSH. This fall back was covered by "E", "F" and Headquarters staff. Unlike your appointed hero of this battle, Custer was, in all probability, dead when "F" troop entered Deep Ravine. He died after doing everything possible to save as many men as possible.
quote:
If the troops are to have any chance of rallying then the leader has got to be in front not nursemaiding the tailend Charlies.
This statement is so ludicrous that I can only assume you spoke in jest. Should you be given the opportunity (in another existence perhaps) to speak to the mis-fortunates who were left behind, Please inquire of them as to their opinion of your sobriquet,"tailend Charlies."
quote:
Really your condemnation of Reno does not stand up based as it is on speculation and guesswork.
Let me get this straight, your condemnation of Custer is based on what? One of the most respected authors regarding this battle,Colonel W. A. Graham (the Custer Myth)engaged in a serious debate with Captain Carter (a supporter of Custer)that was as long, convoluted, and annoying as ours. Graham refused to condemn Reno. His contention was that Reno did as best he could under the circumstances given to him. However,this respected supporter agreed that Reno's "charge" to the bluffs was indicative of excitement. Let me quote a portion of his testimony:
All the officers agreed that Reno was excited and throughout their testimony they make it plain that he was rattled and discomfited. I never said that he "coolly" formed his column outside the timber for his gallant charge etc. What I did say was that he broke out of the timber, the men followed him, and that they hastily formed into column-so hastily, indeed, that many of them were left behind" not having heard or understood the order.
[/quote] |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Responsibility At Little Bighorn
