| Author |
 Topic  |
|
joseph wiggs
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
 Posted - September 21 2005 : 10:17:11 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Benteen
. Ask yourself DC. Should I put up with it?
Yes, because your posts represent a substantial contribution to this forum. Benteen, you care, that is why this forum needs you and every contributor like you. I, personally, have enjoyed every post you have offered. I may not agree with everything you say but, I enjoy your thought provoking messages. Please do not be discouraged, you have individuals who appreciate you. |
  |
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - September 22 2005 : 08:28:18 AM
|
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?
Most certainly not,particularly when you use your valueless opinion to condemn a man.
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!
There are no bugle calls to communicate the action Reno was about to take.There was no chance of forming up.There was no time to brief the officers on what the plan was.There was no possibility of forming a rearguard.They were cornered with only one hope of salvation and that was "lets get the f*** out of here".And I'v never heard that tune on a bugle.
If one man died because of his failure to perform a fundamental duty then that is one life to many!You Joe of the valueless opinions can now tell the board that officers should be capable of judging the consequences of their actions down to a single casualty.
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.Was this before the HQ group performed a military two step?
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."
When a rout is in progress you stop for nothing.You get clear of the danger first then and only then do you start to regroup anything else is just sentimental piffle.
Let me get this straight, your condemnation of Custer is based on what?My main purpose in these recent exchanges is the defence of Reno.The condemnation of Custer is covered on many other threads but if you have some specific point I would be only too delighted to reply to it.
All the officers agreed that Reno was excited and throughout their testimony they make it plain that he was rattled and discomfited.
There were a million actions in the civil war where behavior such as Reno's was par for the course.Officers ran for their lives in the morning but were back leading attacks in the afternoon.Circumstances have put the spotlight on Reno and examined his every bowel movement.Similar actions at Bull Run ,Fredericksburg or Cold Harbour would have gone unnoticed.In condemning Reno with your onfounded allegations you condemn the entire officer corps of the US army.
|
|
|
|
whistlingboy
Lieutenant
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - September 22 2005 : 5:39:52 PM
|
Insofar that this site is interesting to listen in on, it is unfortunate that the discussions turn sour so often over, of all things, opinions. What else is there in these posts? No individual should have to tolerate being verbally bashed for his opinion by someone who thinks his or her opinion is better. If a fact can be substantiated and agreed upon by all as being a bonafide fact then we should establish a thread for 'substantiated facts'-- case closed. If not, I certainly hope a more honorable and respectful treatment of all members can be established
so we can become an 'honorable' disagreeing contingent on the internet. If there is a person out there who knows the facts, then he or she should lead this forum. Otherwise, let us all have our opinions to offer that might, by some miracle, lead to a sustainable fact.
Sides don't have to be drawn; compromises have to be addressed. What's so hard about that and doing it in a respectable manner?
I have lauded, as others have, the interesting personalities and seemingly intelligent individuals conversant with the many subjects presented on this forum and yet many of them could not and would not be permitted to sit in on many a college forum or discussion group in the same manner they persist on presenting themselves here on this site.
Personally, I had never, in all my years, been treated with such disrespect for my opinions as when I first came to this site. Worse, however, was the treatment that many, if not all, members seemed to receive from one another. I had to stay to try and understand the behavior of individuals over a subject area that thrives on opinion. The honest fact, however, was that I liked many of the personalities and saw potential in the site "cleaning up its act." Unfortunately, the site is going to have to be mandated that way for that to happen. While the rhetoric speaks of respect, the message being sent, does not.
I truly hope for better days so that we may attract new and younger perspectives on these subjects so as we can all grow together in our attraction to the LBH battle and others like it. |
|
|
|
whistlingboy
Lieutenant
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - September 22 2005 : 6:32:05 PM
|
wILD I: If I read you right, when the 'charge' by Reno's soldiers out of the woods, across the river, up the bluffs, etc. in a disconcerted fashion, every man for himself, no leadership, commander first one out of there not looking back, no military decorum enforced, leaving human beings behind, etc.---if I read you right, then you say that this action is acceptable military behavior? In what, the Irish Army? Not in the United States military. No one forced Reno to be an officer who wanted to be in charge. Americans have won many a battle against overwhelming odds because it was their job and duty to be there and to do it. If you've never been in the American military camp, you have no idea. The first objective is for the government to seize your mind and your obedience before it instills in you the rich traditions that must be upheld and maintained and when I say 'with your life' that is a gross understatement. There are no exceptions and if you, or anybody else, can produce any exception, so printed by the government, allowing such freedom, I would certainly love to read it. And I mean that sincerely. I invite you to that search, sir.
Mr. Wiggs, I feel, is not condemning Reno as a man but as a failure to uphold military code. Your argument that the Civil War produced situations where "...behavior such as Reno's was par for the course."...is certainly not relevant to anything. If it was, his behavoir would not be a subject of concern, now or then. I have not read positive thoughts about Reno by his contemporaries, during that flight from the woods, in any of the books yet. I have read personal accounts to the contrary, however.
I don't want to sound like I would have done anything better, given his exact conditions. But I do hope I would have done my duty and would have tried to save one individual from his death, no matter. Reno's losses were amplified while running. Please find me one instance in US military history, anywhere, where US soldiers have turned and run to live another day AND have been lauded and praised for that action by the US military. Good luck. Whether you like it or not, Major Reno deserted his command and every man in it, when he decided to run. If he was truly incapacitated by being in shock, then that is forgiveable. But to forsake his rank and position and allegiance to his command is not. Custer saved him from a fate 'worse than death' by dying.
Custer was bigger news and (of course this is all my opinion, sorry) raking Reno over the coals would have been anticlimatic and would have stolen the limelight from Custer making him less a hero. The government always has a plan and they got their hero.
|
|
|
|
joseph wiggs
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - September 22 2005 : 10:27:07 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by whistlingboy
wILD I:
Mr. Wiggs, I feel, is not condemning Reno as a man but as a failure to uphold military code. Your argument that the Civil War produced situations where "...behavior such as Reno's was par for the course."...is certainly not relevant to anything. If it was, his behavior would not be a subject of concern, now or then. I have not read positive thoughts about Reno by his contemporaries, during that flight from the woods, in any of the books yet.
W.B., I am humbled. Your ability to discern the essence of a personal perspective, while maintaining an objective stance, is enviable. You have capitulated the very core of what I have been trying to say. God bless Reno, faced with the horror of an insurmountable task he failed to perform adequately. This factor does not make him evil, it makes him human, as you and I. Having said that, to vehemently defend his actions is to disregard a historical mandate of acceptable performance by a commander. I accept Reno as man who failed, as we all may fail, I do not accept his actions as reasonable nor acceptable. Thank you W.B. for your understanding that this perspective is not personal, simple factual. |
|
|
|
whistlingboy
Lieutenant
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - September 23 2005 : 08:32:58 AM
|
My apology about sounding harsh in this subject I find so fascinating. I have no personal vendetta against the Major, God rest his soul. None of us would have liked to have been in his predicament, I hope. When speaking on this battle to arouse interest, whether in schools or clubs, I can only address the facts as they are 'generally' known and accepted; in Reno's case that simply means his initial charge, his halt and deployment of the skirmish line and his retreat 'charge' up the bluff. Disparaging Major Reno or any other individual serves no purpose and is unfair given only an array of opinions. The hypothetical world affords a playground for opinions and is a haven for interesting 'what if...' scenarios, but just that.
I understand your opinion on this episode, wILD I. I obviously disagree with you that Major Reno performed within the parameters of acceptable military standards. It is all too easy to see how, once death is by your side and in your presence, how panic is present also and can bend a man to do things he may or may not have thought he could or would do. When becoming incapacinated, some human beings are calm, collected and manageable while others become defensive, angry, volatile and unmanageable; hence, unpredictable. Major Reno's military training, dedication and experience should have commandeered his every attention and helped him maintain his military mien. Why didn't it? If he had been through many a Civil War battle unnerved, why did he fail to maintain his berings now when he was most needed? I merely proffer that given the extreme heat, the wind, the dust, the dryness, etc., he may have consumed too much alcohol due to thirst or nerves, putting his mental mien in a compromising position. I realize that this is preposterous to your thinking but what else would have made him 'crack' under this duress which a seasoned soldier would have been use to?
Joe, your protocol is admirable and also enviable. You are our resident diplomat.
|
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - September 23 2005 : 11:12:46 AM
|
WB
A most timely and welcome intervention.Joe and I have had a few exchanges over the past year or so and they have always been nothing less than civil.If I have introduced a sour note then of course my apologies.Perhaps I over reacted to an unflattering description of my efforts.
Mr. Wiggs, I feel, is not condemning Reno as a man but as a failure to uphold military code.
Well then let us examine this "military code".Lt General Douglas MacArthur's army was the only American army to surrender to a foreign enemy in the field.The army had not been defeated but surrendered to avoid the massacre of the garrison on Corregidor.Of course before this came about MacArthur was withdrawn to Australia abandoning his army to enjure the Battan death march and 3 years of captivity.
The price of honour was the lives of a garrison ,prisoners, wounded and civilians and it was too high a price.At the LBH the price of honour was the lives of Reno and every one of his men.The same difference don't you think?Don't use the "military code" to condemn Reno for it is nothing more than a code for expediency .
"It rained. The procession of weary soldiers became a bedraggled train,despondent and muttering,marching with churning effort in a trough of liquid brown mud under a low,wretched sky.Yet the youth smiled,for he saw that the world was a world for him,through many discovered it to be made of oaths and walking sticks.He had rid himself of the red sickness of battle.The sultry nightmare was in the past.He had been an animal blistered and sweating in the heat and pain of war.He turned now with a lover's thirst to images of tranquil skies,fresh meadows,cool brooks-an existance of soft and eternal peace.
Over the river a golden ray of sun came through the hosts of leaden rain clouds."
Let a good soldier rest in peace. |
|
|
|
joseph wiggs
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - September 23 2005 : 7:29:21 PM
|
Wild, apparently I touched a nerve. This was not my intent. Your assiduously echoing of my "valueless opinion" speaks volumes. Unfortunately, such a remark may produce the false impression that you opinions, on the contrary,do have value.
I noticed in your heated response to my last post that you neglected to make comment of the section, by Col. Graham, whose opinion of Reno's tactical departure was similar to mine. Since his opinion is similar to mine does your logic automatically render this astute historian's opinion "valueless" also?
I have never intentionally made light of the efforts of any member of this board (with one well known exception.) I can only assume that you became irritated regarding my reference to some of your comments being "ludicrous" and made in "jest". I said these things because I found (what I perceived to be) a cavalier attitude about "tail end Charlie's" which I found to be particularly distasteful. Such remarks were so atypical from your normally sensitive posts,this should have been my first clue that you were upset with me. I apologize for my remarks.
However,your unsubstantiated assumption that I have nothing more to do in life than spent valuable time condemning Reno to death is puzzling. I simply reiterated know and accepted information regarding Reno's actions which were discerned from several, competent sources. When required, I quoted some of those sources. I do not condemn Reno, Benteen, or Custer. I read, digest information, and rationalize that data to the best of my ability. When called upon, I share the information with any who wish to share; the very purpose for us being here.
I am neither a Custerphile nor a Custerphobe, I have repeatedly posted over and over again, that the responsibility for this fiasco should be shared by the entire cast of players. I have and always will respect and enjoy your posts for their informative, well versed, and, appreciated contents. |
Edited by - joseph wiggs on September 23 2005 7:50:18 PM |
|
|
|
whistlingboy
Lieutenant
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - September 23 2005 : 7:50:20 PM
|
wILD I: Appreciate the response, as always. At the risk of a lengthly discourse on Bataan and Corregidor, let me respond this way. As intelligent as you seem, I am certain you are not serious that there is a comparison between that 'surrender' in Corregidor and Major Reno's situation at the LBH. Gen. MacArthur was ordered out, no doubt because he was a 5-Star and privy to sensitive information. The fact that it might be possible to get him out weighed high in the mind of President Roosevelt, who must have figured sparing his capitulation in front of the troops would be a morale booster. Those men did not want to surrender; they were surrendered. It is always about the spirit. Many commanders did not want to surrender either but were threatened with court-martials for not obeying lawful orders. But, although the conditions were better on Corregidor than Bataan, in the end they were surrendered to prevent a "slaughter," the history books say, because they were out of food, medication to fight the malaria cases was exhausted, ammunition was ready to run out, most every soldier was weak, diseased or starving and therefore lacked the physical strength to mount any counter attack.
Reno's troops had gone a while without water and probably hadn't eaten a lot either but they certainly weren't emaciated, wreaked with disease, weak and physically incapable of mounting a shocking blow to the enemy. I know you won't buy these rampaging thoughts but the soldiers on Corregidor were already defeated by conditions and the commanders reacted not out of panic but out of respect in a hopeless situation. You might be able to find another good comparison but do you really think this was a good one?
It is easy to defend Reno because of what eventually happened to Custer. But what if Custer would have been successful?
|
|
|
|
joseph wiggs
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - September 23 2005 : 11:55:14 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by whistlingboy
wILD
It is easy to defend Reno because of what eventually happened to Custer. But what if Custer would have been successful?
Instead of a Court of Inquiry, Custer would have insisted upon, and obtained a General Court Martial for one or more of his subordinates. During the trial, he probably would have testified to his plans of battle (those very same plans that many today insist never occurred)and the failure of specific parties to carry out these orders.
Custer's mental state, which is of such paramount importance to many critics today, probably would not have been open for discussion. Most importantly, had Custer survived, the incredible half truths and mis-information proffered by some of the survivors would not have occurred. There would have been no enigma, no interest, and no forum (such as this one)that would have provided a soapbox of speculation and accusations that we fling, so easily, at each other. Just my opinion. |
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - September 24 2005 : 3:02:31 PM
|
Unfortunately, such a remark may produce the false impression that you opinions, on the contrary,do have value.
You have hoisted yourself on your own petard Neither perspective has an ounce of valueYou touched no nerve Joe I was just responding to an appeal by WB not to take such a robust position to your debating blunder.I thought you might have accepted the apology in the spirit it was given[I was handing you back your sword]but unfortunately you prefare to score points.
Col. Graham, whose opinion of Reno's tactical departure was similar to mine.No,the other way around Joe your opinion maybe similar to his.There is a difference.
Since his opinion is similar to mine does your logic automatically render this astute historian's opinion "valueless" also?No it is your logic that would suggest that Graham opinion is valueless
All the officers agreed that Reno was excited and throughout their testimony they make it plain that he was rattled and discomfited. What officers?De Rudio who remained in the timber,Moylan who was seen crying?Or the surviving officers of the rout who ran just as fast as everyone else?
However,your unsubstantiated assumption that I have nothing more to do in life than spent valuable time condemning Reno to death is puzzling.Did I state that anywhere on this board?
I simply reiterated know and accepted information regarding Reno's actions No you go further and make a judgement that he failed to uphold the military code.
Instead of a Court of Inquiry, Custer would have insisted upon, and obtained a General Court Martial for one or more of his subordinates.Well I suppose as Col Graham agrees with you,there is no problem enlisting the late lamented Custer to your cause
I have and always will respect and enjoy your posts for their informative, well versed, and, appreciated contents.A bit rich to gently withdraw the knife.
WB
As intelligent as you seem, I am certain you are not serious that there is a comparison between that 'surrender' in Corregidor and Major Reno's situation at the LBH.
You miss the point.The Japanese would not accept the surrender of Corregidor unless all American forces in the philippines surrendered.Thus the price of honour [military code]was the lives of the garrison on Corregidor.And expedience was shown to be paramount with the abandonment of the army by its commander.
As you pointed out American forces would have been defeated anyway so further resistance was futile.Reno did not have the luxery of the surrender option.To have remained in the timber would have resulted in the death of all his men.Was he entitled to waste the lives of his men to uphold some nebulious code?
I have pointed out the consequences of trying to form up in the middle of a firefight.You cannot go from skirmish line to mounted column in the immediate presence of the enemy. Reno's action was the only way the unit was going to get out.
|
Edited by - wILD I on September 24 2005 3:08:49 PM |
|
|
|
whistlingboy
Lieutenant
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - September 25 2005 : 2:40:32 PM
|
wILD I: Reading your post a little closer, you're right; I did miss your point. I see where you were coming from now. I do agree with that about the Japanese. As for Reno, sure, once he dismounts, he invites trouble by allowing it time to develop. I say that because the researchers are too vague in their books about what it was in his immediate wake. There is no concensus; some say 50 to 75, some say 500 to 1500. The point is, he now only has one recourse and that is fleeing or trying to shoot indians off their horses from his knees; a position he put his command in. Personally, it is my opinion that at the moment he orders the dismount, he does not see an insurmountable amount of Indians. Otherwise, why does he not blow bugles and continue his charging group in the direction of the trees. Surrender is not an option to him, as it often isn't to many commanders. It has to be quickly surmised whether surrender would mean certain death to the troops anyway. Gotta go; I can feel the breath of 'Rita.' Have a good day.
|
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - September 25 2005 : 4:36:54 PM
|
WB
In Scotland they have a verdict in court cases which is "not proven"[our resident celt DC might just confirm this]in this exchange with your good self and Joe I have tried to show that the case against Reno is not proven and I would just like to draw together the points I have made as a form of closing statement on behalf of the defence.
Reno charged the village as ordered.On his approach the indications were that the village was enormous way beyond anything he could handle there was also no promised support.Remember Custer with 5 troops seeing the size of the village called for Benteen.So we cannot fault Reno for halting his command.In halting where he did perhaps with no more than 50 warriors in front of him allowed him to form a good skirmish line and withdraw his horses to the cover of the timber.
The forces in front of him grew in strenght and threatened to outflank him.And as yet no promised support so he withdrew in good order to the timber.There was no point in waiting for the inevitable to happen and have his left flank collapse.
He now has his back to the river with more and more Indians joining in the fire fight.He is sourrounded with still no promised support.His force is so small and outnumbered that if his line is penetrated anywhere he won't last pissing time.He has to get out.Now it is written in military stone that you cannot change formation while under attack.It would be suicide.He might as well stay put as attempt to form his command into column.He does not have the option of surrender.He is not entitled to waste the lives of every man in his command in a futile last stand.There is nothing at stake here other than their own lives.All that now remains is to run.
You and Joe are free to use speculation to judge Reno but such a position is unfair to a good soldier and reduces the discussion to the level of a Punch and Judy confrontation [oh no he didn't oh yes he did]and the verdict will always be not proven.
Good luck with Rita.
Regards
|
|
|
|
hunkpapa7
Lieutenant
United Kingdom
Status: offline |
Posted - September 25 2005 : 7:46:02 PM
|
Wild1,
I know where to find a top notch barrister when I need one[of course in Scotland]
I have read on the LBH board such things as betrayal,drunkeness,Coward,cause of Custers demise,not obeying orders and many such accusations.
But like you the options open to him after the size of village was seen,and nobody doing a runner in sight,but willing to fight,I think Reno's options were very limited.With his left wing practicaly gone [REES]Cavalry are not meant to fight like infrantry,so the move back to the timber was the only option open to him.Some have argued he could have maintained that position for a hour or more,but IMO I doubt it.He was 3/4 surrounded,with Indians verging on his only escape route the river.It would soon deterioate into hand to hand fighting,which would more than likely than not spell the end.
The river crossing was his and there's only escape route,the rest is history.
Can you imagine what was going through Renos mind when he turned to see NO support.
I also believe that when they "charged to the hill"and quite a number of Indians disingaged[to fight custer]this was a coincidence,no plan as many have said.
IMO also I dont think Reno faced anything like half the number of Indians that has been stated,my reason being,by the time the whole village got its act together,Custer was appearing on the scene and that is why there response at MTC was immediate and in numbers. |
wev'e caught them napping boys
Aye Right ! |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - September 26 2005 : 1:10:34 PM
|
The case against Reno is not only not proven, there isn't much of a case to present. Of course, an unproven case in the US is called "not guilty."
Whether or not Reno saw an insurmountable number of Indians, his responsibility was to save his guys. He is a delicate walk from a huge village, the promised support not only hasn't happened but has waved goodbye from the distant bluffs as it heads north, and he can see small opportunity for a crossing from where he is. He has no clue where the train or Benteen are. He knows, regardless of fire control and ammo, he can't survive a sustained and organized attack. He can assume they'll try to burn him out. Badly done, but it was the right thing to do to rush the bluffs and get out of there. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
Edited by - Dark Cloud on September 26 2005 1:12:21 PM |
|
|
|
joseph wiggs
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - September 26 2005 : 8:55:11 PM
|
The above threads, all of them, are essentially correct and I agree with their content. I am not judging Reno's option to retreat to the bluffs. It is the manner in which he employed this maneuver that is questionable. Is it not reasonable to expect the commander of a unit to do everything possible to ensure the safety of his men?
The opposition has made no attempt to justify Reno's failure to utilize an essential military component that would have gone far to communicate the "retreat" to all; the trumpet. This glaring failure was simply ignored. Could it be that such an inexplicable omission can not be explained in a positive manner, only in a negative light?
The opposition has failed to proffer a realistic explanation detailing why the Commander of this unit was the first to achieve the monumental goal of being the first man to conquer the "bluffs" while his men were being killed on the river banks. Wild's reference to "Tailgate Charlie's" is not an explanation.
The opposition has failed to explain, nor comment upon, why one of the most prestigious historians of this genre,(Col. W.A. Graham p.370) a devout supporter of Reno who refused to condemn him, clearly wrote, "What I did say was that he (Reno) broke out of the timber, the men following 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."
What is to be made of the following memorandum by Captain Robert G. Carter, dated July 6, 1923:
General D.S. Brainard told me this date that he has often heard Capt. Whelan and Lt. C.F. Roe, both of the second U.S. Cavalry and of Terry's command, say that when they reached Reno's defensive line on the bluff all of Reno's officers talked wildly and excitedly about the fight, and of Reno's cowardice, etc. A little later they shut their mouths like clams and would not talk." (Custer Myth P.336)
The Story of the Little Big Horn:
"From the foregoing resume, it appears that in the opinion of his own officers Reno exercised proper discretion and good leadership up to the time his retreat to the hills began, and that the disposition and movements ordered by him were correct and requisite to meet the military situation. from that time on, however, it seems evident that he lost his head, and, with it, all control over his men. When Bloody Knife was killed at his side, he became startled and unnerved. His formations were made in undue haste, and many men were left behind." Page 150
Let us review comments by those who were there:
Sgt. F.A. Culbertson - "I only saw Major Reno a second while the skirmish line was being formed. He was riding towards the woods. I did not see him again till we got on the hill. I heard no order to charge and bo bugle calls, I don't know where the order came from."
Reno Inquiry, page 123
Capt. Godfrey - "Major Reno's hesitation in accepting Capt. Benteen's suggestion did not, in my opinion, indicate cowardice; nor did his dodging bullets when he said he did not want to be killed by Indians indicate fear. I probably thought it was nervous timidity."
F.F. Girard - I did,t see the movement (charge) made. I was at the extreme right (skirmish line)Reynolds next, and then Lt. Varnum. We stayed there 4 or 5 minutes and fired about seven shots, when somebody gave the order "Men to your horses- the Indians are in our rear. Charlie Reynolds looked at me and I said: What damn fool move is this?
Reno Inquiry page, 39
Capt. French - "What made Reno run away when he did I cannot positively know, and he did not tell me. To turn ones back on Indians without being better mounted (better than the Indians) is throwing away life.
Custer myth p. 341
In summation, My intent was never to condemn anyone. I do not question Reno's decision to leave the timber. I do question the manner in which he did so. More importantly, to be portrayed as an some kind of ogre, because of my position, has nothing to do with honest debate. Personal slams do little to solidify a position. Apparently heart felt apologies do not mean anything either. I have learned a valuable lesson here.
To classify one's perspective as a "Punch& Judy" scenario is totally devoid of rationality and maturity. It is merely an emotional "burp" of total inconsquence. To research historical information, by competent historians, post that information, yet be labeled as one who is insensitive towards the needs of a "good soldier" is beyond the pale.
One last earnest request, please do not respond with unsubstantiated remarks against the credibility of my sources. Respond, as I have, with documented data. This continued smear campaign is needless and crass. |
Edited by - joseph wiggs on September 26 2005 10:00:12 PM |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - September 26 2005 : 10:44:31 PM
|
Your own remarks over this forum condemn you, Wiggs. You tried to defame Benteen, and then lied about it. You don't know what you actually posted, you didn't give credit when you quoted others and tried to pass it off as your own, you misquoted/misread that which you presented. It's all in the Benteen Order thread you started. You've also pretended to status of occupation you did not have. I direct all who doubt to that thread. It's all there, Wiggs. You can't deny it with success.
|
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
Benteen
Lt. Colonel
Status: offline |
Posted - September 26 2005 : 11:49:23 PM
|
quote:
The opposition has made no attempt to justify Reno's failure to utilize an essential military component that would have gone far to communicate the "retreat" to all; the trumpet. This glaring failure was simply ignored. Could it be that such an inexplicable omission can not be explained in a positive manner, only in a negative light?
Joseph was it possible the trumpeter had been killed or wounded? I don't know, I don't have the resouces at this time to check. It's just a thought.
There is also some indications from the warriors that the troopers never stopped. I posted one of them a while back. Would this also explain why? Was it a full retreat from the beginning? When they abandoned the skirmish line? Some stopped to fire while the others continued on? I don't know, it's just a thought. And the indian statements seem to support this.
quote:
Yes, because your posts represent a substantial contribution to this forum. Benteen, you care, that is why this forum needs you and every contributor like you. I, personally, have enjoyed every post you have offered. I may not agree with everything you say but, I enjoy your thought provoking messages. Please do not be discouraged, you have individuals who appreciate you.
Thanx for your kind words Joseph It's easy for me to get discouraged. Much to easy, I'm afraid. |
Edited by - Benteen on September 26 2005 11:50:56 PM |
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - September 27 2005 : 04:08:58 AM
|
The opposition has made no attempt to justify Reno's failure to utilize an essential military component that would have gone far to communicate the "retreat" to all; the trumpet.
To sound retreat would have sent half the command back into the timber and attempting to cross the river.It would have caused confusion in the ranks.There is no proof that anyone remained in the timber because they failed to realise the unit was withdrawing.Those who might have said they did not hear the order saved their lives by remaining behind so their evidence is very suspect.
The opposition has failed to proffer a realistic explanation detailing why the Commander of this unit was the first to achieve the monumental goal of being the first man to conquer the "bluffs"
I have never read this.Where does it come from the trooper who was second to conquer the bluffs?
The opposition has failed to explain, nor comment upon, why one of the most prestigious historians of this genre,(Col. W.A. Graham p.370) a devout supporter of Reno who refused to condemn him, clearly wrote, "What I did say was that he (Reno) broke out of the timber, the men following 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."
On the contrary I have used the term "rout" time and again.Anyway what is to misunderstand about "let's get the f*** out of here?
General D.S. Brainard told me this date that he has often heard Capt. Whelan and Lt. C.F. Roe, both of the second U.S. Cavalry and of Terry's command, say that when they reached Reno's defensive line on the bluff all of Reno's officers talked wildly and excitedly about the fight, and of Reno's cowardice, etc. A little later they shut their mouths like clams and would not talk." (Custer Myth P.336)
Did they actually know who Reno's officers were.Like any names Joe?Or is this heresay from officers who were not there repeting gossip from unknown officers?
His formations were made in undue haste, and many men were left behind." Page 150Who claims they were left behind those who saved their lives by not venturing out of the timber
Sgt. F.A. Culbertson - "I only saw Major Reno a second while the skirmish line was being formed. He was riding towards the woods. I did not see him again till we got on the hill. I heard no order to charge and bo bugle calls, I don't know where the order came from."
Reno Inquiry, page 123Contradictory evidence.Did he or did he not get an order to follow Reno?
Capt. Godfrey - "Major Reno's hesitation in accepting Capt. Benteen's suggestion did not, in my opinion, indicate cowardice; nor did his dodging bullets when he said he did not want to be killed by Indians indicate fear. I probably thought it was nervous timidity."How many officers and troopers who had broken out of the timber were in this state?Was Godfrey in the timber?Were Godfrey's blues slightly stained with brain matter when he made this observation?
Charlie Reynolds looked at me and I said: What damn fool move is this?This only supports my view that those who were "left behind" choose to be left behind.
Capt. French - "What made Reno run away when he did I cannot positively know, and he did not tell me. To turn ones back on Indians without being better mounted (better than the Indians) is throwing away life.Very true.Leaving the timber gave perhaps a 60/40 chance of surviving remaining gave none.
Personal slams do little to solidify a position. Apparently heart felt apologies do not mean anything either. I have learned a valuable lesson here.Go and read your own posts Joe and stop playing sanctimonious Sally you are well able to dish it out yourself.
One last earnest request, please do not respond with unsubstantiated remarks against the credibility of my sources. Respond, as I have, with documented data.
Ya mean only the dead have credibility?Are you telling the board that logic ,reasoning and intellect have no place here? |
|
|
|
whistlingboy
Lieutenant
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - September 27 2005 : 10:00:21 AM
|
wILD I: Fact: My "speculative" comments are wrong; Fact: Your "speculative" comments are right. In your opinion, you are 'Punch' then and I am 'Judy.' But you don't justify your opinions anymore than I do and that makes it all speculative. But everyone avoids my question...why did Reno stop and deploy a skirmish line at the time he did? I would appreciate your strong hearted opinion. If there is only a few Indians to his front, why dismount? If there are 'tons' of charging Indians, why dismount? I understand the tactic as it was used in Civil War battles where some discipline was apparent in the ranks of both sides. But the fact remains, that this tactic against wildly charging, insanely acting Indians was misused. Reno had no experience fighting such savages who had the propensity to attack in droves. What idiot would order his men off their horses in the face of charging mounting, wildly, yelling Indians.
So, the question remains, why did he set up the skirmish line when he did. What was his expectations at that point? What did he see? What was his timetable? Why give up his momentum?
You can say what you want but what Major Reno feared was fear itself, because the enemy was not acting the way he expected them to after his fatal decision to deploy the skirmish.
Major Reno, once in the woods and if he was in total charge of his capacities, could have gone ahead and placed troopers across the river on the bluffs to cover his flank. I've been there many times. IMO he could have held the position in the woods. I like my positon; I don't like running. Because in hindsight, he was not wiped out, does not substantiate his military bering, which was rattled and rendered useless. His personal act was self-serving as a commander and it is an unfair stretch to say he personally saved lives. I agree to disagree. |
|
|
|
movingrobewoman
Lt. Colonel
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - September 27 2005 : 11:14:28 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Cloud
Your own remarks over this forum condemn you, Wiggs. You tried to defame Benteen, and then lied about it. You don't know what you actually posted, you didn't give credit when you quoted others and tried to pass it off as your own, you misquoted/misread that which you presented. It's all in the Benteen Order thread you started. You've also pretended to status of occupation you did not have. I direct all who doubt to that thread. It's all there, Wiggs. You can't deny it with success.
Dark Cloud--
Stop it! You've clearly crossed the line; you're no longer a constructive contributor to this thread. If and when you have something of historical merit to add to the discussion, by all means speak up, but I'll bet the vast majority here could care less about your opinion of Wiggs or anyone else who posts here.
Regards, |
movingrobe |
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - September 27 2005 : 2:37:26 PM
|
why did Reno stop and deploy a skirmish line at the time he did?
Once Reno was in doubt about the wisdom of charging into that village unsupported he had two options.1 He could have retreated back towards the pack train or he could have formed a skirmish line and awaited the promised support.
You cannot change formation while under attack so to have tryed to do so much closer to the village would have been foolish in the extreme.Forming skirmish line where he did allowed this manoeuver to be carried out in a text book manner.
You must allow Reno this decision.You cannot use speculation to judge this action.And I'll repeat it again when Custer saw the size of the village he called for Benteen and knowing what Reno was charging into left him to fend for himself.
What was his expectations at that point
The support he was promised.
You can say what you want but what Major Reno feared was fear itself, because the enemy was not acting the way he expected them to after his fatal decision to deploy the skirmish.
No it was Custer who was not acting the way he expected him to.
could have gone ahead and placed troopers across the river on the bluffs to cover his flank.
He wasn't leading the Waffen SS.He had a handful of poorly trained raw troopers and one mistake in that environment and he and all his men were dead meat.
Because in hindsight, he was not wiped out, does not substantiate his military bering,Which is more important military bearing or survival? |
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - September 29 2005 : 10:39:35 AM
|
Just an observation of Custer's handling of the battle which may not have come up in earlier posts on this thread.
There is a system used by all militaries the world over when in contact with the enemy.It is called fire and movement.This system means that you always have a detachment in a defensive position covering your movement forward.It is sometimes refered to as keeping one foot on the ground.All Custer had was movement.In other words all his units not only were they out of supporting distance of each other but they themselves were in the "air".
Take into consideration the movement forward to Weir Point.There was no attempt to hold a defensive position or cover this movement forward.Was it that the officers were incompetant or was it that the regiment being cavalry and thus an auxilery unit and never practiced in the skills of acting independently[Custer even refused the Gathlings which could have been used in this role]were tactically out of their depth? |
Edited by - wILD I on September 29 2005 10:41:24 AM |
|
|
|
joseph wiggs
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - September 29 2005 : 8:36:26 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Cloud
Your own remarks over this forum condemn you, Wiggs. You tried to defame Benteen, and then lied about it. You don't know what you actually posted, you didn't give credit when you quoted others and tried to pass it off as your own, you misquoted/misread that which you presented. It's all in the Benteen Order thread you started. You've also pretended to status of occupation you did not have. I direct all who doubt to that thread. It's all there, Wiggs. You can't deny it with success.
You are such a bore. Unable to present rational argument based upon substantial sources you continuously, assiduously,and inexplicably resort to personal innuendos. This is exactly why you can not be taken seriously.
|
|
|
|
joseph wiggs
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - September 29 2005 : 9:03:35 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Benteen
quote:
The opposition has made no attempt to justify Reno's failure to utilize an essential military component that would have gone far to communicate the "retreat" to all; the trumpet. This glaring failure was simply ignored. Could it be that such an inexplicable omission can not be explained in a positive manner, only in a negative light?
Joseph was it possible the trumpeter had been killed or wounded? I don't know, I don't have the resources at this time to check. It's just a thought.
Each troop was assigned a, minimum, of one trumpeter. The ability to communicate orders and/or tactical employment was essential. In the din of war, the bugle could be heard above the clashing sounds of combat.
quote:
There is also some indications from the warriors that the troopers never stopped. I posted one of them a while back. Would this also explain why? Was it a full retreat from the beginning? When they abandoned the skirmish line? Some stopped to fire while the others continued on? I don't know, it's just a thought. And the Indian statements seem to support this.
The movement from the skirmish line to the timber was in a orderly manner. Indian testimony refer to their surprise at this movement, many of them assumed that their position was in dire straits and, were shocked when the impetus of the charge suddenly ceased. the flight from the timber to the bluff was described by Indian testimony:
Mrs Spotted Horn Bull - "The man who led these troops must have been drunk or crazy. He had the camp at his mercy, and could have killed us all or driven us away naked on the prairie.
But when they began to run away they ran very fast, and dropped their guns and ammunition. Our braves were not surprised by this time, and killed a good many when they crossed the plain to the river, while they were fording and on the hill beyond. I saw boys pull men from their horses and kill them on the ground."
When we allow for exaggeration and understandable enthusiasm we are still left with a picture of absolute panic and chaos.
quote:
Thanx for your kind words Joseph It's easy for me to get discouraged. Much to easy, I'm afraid.
True gentlemen may debate with each other and maintain some semblance of respect. Only the crass reduce intelligent conversation to its lowest denomination by utilizing personal attacks in an immature attempt to win an argument. You sir, are a gentleman. |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Responsibility At Little Bighorn
