| Author |
 Topic  |
|
joseph wiggs
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
 Posted - September 29 2005 : 9:41:34 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by movingrobewoman
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,
MRW, thank you for your elegant support, you not only speak for me but, every other forum member who wishes nothing more than to express his or herself with dignity and a freedom from unwarranted malicious innuendos. Unfortunately, there are social miscreants who thrive on ridiculing and demeaning the efforts of others. In the past I have,regrettably, replied in kind to such a personality. Your stance is an inspiration to me. After listening to the "mouth that roared" for over a year, I exclaim Hoka hey!!! |
  |
|
|
joseph wiggs
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - September 29 2005 : 9:58:28 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by whistlingboy
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.
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 position; I don't like running. Because in hindsight, he was not wiped out, does not substantiate his military being, 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.
WB, your stance, I believe, is rationale and comprehensive. I do not make this statement because your opine is similar to mine. I make this statement because you, obviously, have an intelligent propensity of utilizing comprehensive speculation based on legitimate sources without, I may add, relying to cheap clichés. Your final statement, "I agree to disagree" is a code of honor that I hold most dear. It exemplifies true debate and intelligence. Without a doubt, the true indicator of a loosing argument is the last ditch effort of "calling names."
It is an honor to agree to disagree with you, my fellow forum member. |
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - September 30 2005 : 04:39:38 AM
|
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.
Of course Reno had the camp at his mercy if he had had 600 men with him.Did the wife of Spotted Horn Bull know how many men Reno had?Had she such a low opinion of the fighting qualities of 1500 of her menfolk?Was Spotted Horn Bull's wife a calm unemotional trained military observer?
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.
The trumpeters were with their companies.There is no evidence that Reno had one assigned to himself. |
|
|
|
prolar
Major
Status: offline |
Posted - September 30 2005 : 6:59:22 PM
|
| Well if he didn't he should have. Your defence of Reno isn't quite as bad as Mari Sandoz, who said Reno couldn't use trumpet calls because Custer had forbidden them at the start of the march. |
|
|
|
joseph wiggs
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - September 30 2005 : 10:38:01 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by prolar
Well if he didn't he should have. Your defence of Reno isn't quite as bad as Mari Sandoz, who said Reno couldn't use trumpet calls because Custer had forbidden them at the start of the march.
Good point, dear Mari wrote a very entertaining book about Crazy Horse that was fanciful, to say the least. I also believe she is responsible for creating the myth of Custer's desire to be the next President of the U.S.,ergo his insane need to attack the village.
It is important to transcend fantasy and seek reasonable conclusions to salient portions of this battle. In referring to the Reno Court of Inquiry, Recorder Lee's summation regarding "Custer's Orders" and "Reno's retreat/Charge" is worth noting here.
Mr. Lee regarding Reno's orders:
"When we take into consideration the lapse of time-over two years-since these events occurred, it is reasonable to believe that the witnesses who heard this order, have stated its purport as correctly as it is possible to state it in the nature of human recollection; and it is explicit direction to Maj. Reno to attack the Indians, with no provision expressed in words for a retreat at the discretion of that officer. The only allowance for discretion as stated by Maj. Reno himself, was to the reference to the rapidity of the advance-"at as fast a gait as you think prudent." In all other respects the order was positive and peremptory."
Mr. Lee regarding Reno's "Charge" from the timber:
"The manner of leaving the timber and reaching the hill is a matter of dispute among the witnesses. The companies of Capt's. French and Moylan seem to have left in column of fours, headed by Major Reno; but "G" company, which was originally on the right flank of the skirmish line appears to have received no definite orders to mount, beyond a rumor that the balance were leaving the timber. Maj. Reno states that he gave the order for "G" company to Lt. McIntosh, but there is no evidence to show that it was properly communicated to the company except by rumor, the result being that many of the men of that company did not succeed in mounting and joining the column.
All the witnesses agree that there was confusion at some part of the column, that it suffered heavily in the rear, that all the killed and wounded on the left bank of the river were abandoned to the enemy; that nothing was done to cover the crossing."
Finally, "Major Reno took the responsibility of disobeying Gen. Custer's order. He left the timber not on account of the losses that had occurred, but of what might occur. His casualties did not occur in charging the village but in going away from it."
To me, the most fascinating aspect of this on-going argument is that I have been accused of "defaming a good soldier." In days of yore, ambassadors were often executed for delivering bad news. Thus the birth of the adage. "Don't kill the messenger." I have nothing personal against Major Reno, however, I refuse to exonerate him to pacify the beliefs of others. All of us will be held accountable for our choices in life. |
Edited by - joseph wiggs on September 30 2005 10:50:35 PM |
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - October 01 2005 : 11:32:36 AM
|
Prolar
Well if he didn't he should have. Your defence of Reno isn't quite as bad as Mari Sandoz, who said Reno couldn't use trumpet calls because Custer had forbidden them at the start of the march.
Nice to see you putting your head above the parapet.
Just the man to answer this question.There were at least 8 manuevers carried out by Reno in his action in the valley.Which of those manuevers if any were carried out to the sound of bugle/trumpet.Post sources please.
There were 5 trumpeters attached to Reno's command.Why is it that not one of them thought of sounding retreat/mount when Reno gave the order.Why is it that not one of them asked what should they sound.
There were 5 other officers besides Reno who could have ordered a trumpeter to sound.They did not.Now that is 10 men who could have had retreat/mount/anything sounded.But nothing was sounded why?Was it that is was pointless or would have alerted the Indians to some possible movement of troops or was it that Custer had forbidden the use of the trumpet?Was the non use of the trumpet a pivotal moment in the action or is that all you can accuse Reno of?
Wild I do not condemn Reno for anything other than his failure to do everything possible to ensure the safety of his command.
And
and it is explicit direction to Maj. Reno to attack the Indians, with no provision expressed in words for a retreat at the discretion of that officer.
Someone posted Joe that you don't know what you post.From the above it is very apparent that you just pick sources at random without any thought as to their meaning.You now post in support of your condemnation of Reno that he had no latitude to use his discretion.It seems that you want him to charge into overwhelming numbers and bring about the total annihilation of his command.Now how can he do that and ensure their safety???? |
Edited by - wILD I on October 01 2005 11:39:57 AM |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - October 01 2005 : 12:07:20 PM
|
If Reno HAD used trumpets, the same people who currently condemn him for not would suddenly understand that the trumpets alerted the Indians to something or other (I'm guessing the catchy rhythms of "Feelings") and it was a stupid thing to do because Custer didn't use them. Surely the dulcet tones of a trumpet call at any point from Weir to LSH would have caught the attention of those Indians, eh?
Yet, oddly, along with no mention of the Slaughter of the Innocent Horses there is no mention of trumpet calls either, is there? I know the image appears in paintings and assumption and later stories, but did it happen? And if a single Springfield carbine can be heard in dead silence on Reno Hill from LSH, what is the range and aural trajectory of a trumpet? Perhaps if the Army hadn't been conspiring with illicit international trumpet dealers and had gone hog wild and purchased the newer Souza M987 Cavalry Trumpet (Range Extender by separate purchase...)this battle would have turned out different. Surely, this crucial key to the mystery of Custer's Last Stand deserves scientific study. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
joseph wiggs
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - October 01 2005 : 2:41:08 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Cloud
If Reno HAD used trumpets, the same people who currently condemn him for not would suddenly understand that the trumpets alerted the Indians to something or other (I'm guessing the catchy rhythms of "Feelings") and it was a stupid thing to do because Custer didn't use them. Surely the dulcet tones of a trumpet call at any point from Weir to LSH would have caught the attention of those Indians, eh?
If I'm not mistaken, the Indians already knew Reno's position. The trumpets would have alerted them to anything new?
quote:
Yet, oddly, along with no mention of the Slaughter of the Innocent Horses there is no mention of trumpet calls either, is there?
There is Indian testimony that trumpet calls were made from Custer Hill. It is possible that officers utilized the trumpet just prior to the movement from LSH to Deep Ravine. "Two moon recalled that a trumpeter (his account says a bugler) blew commands" before this movement.
[quote] I know the image appears in paintings and assumption and later stories, but did it happen? And if a single Springfield carbine can be heard in dead silence on Reno Hill from LSH, what is the range and aural trajectory of a trumpet? Perhaps if the Army hadn't been conspiring with illicit international trumpet dealers and had gone hog wild and purchased the newer Souza M987 Cavalry Trumpet (Range Extender by separate purchase...)this battle would have turned out different. Surely, this crucial key to the mystery of Custer's Last Stand deserves scientific study.
No one is suggesting that the usage of trumpets would have altered the outcome of Reno's situation. It was, however, a viable option that was not used. |
Edited by - joseph wiggs on October 01 2005 2:44:18 PM |
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - October 01 2005 : 3:33:30 PM
|
I think DC that is game set and match.The moral high ground is looking rather exposed now.
I have never laughted so much.I'll have a word with our Irish mullahs and have that fatwa rescinded. |
|
|
|
prolar
Major
Status: offline |
Posted - October 02 2005 : 7:50:07 PM
|
| Wild I, I thought that you would appreciate the humor in Sandoz's claim that because Custer had forbidden trumpet calls during the march while hoping to be undiscovered, they were forbidden even during battle. Obviously I overestimated you. You claim a military background, but don't understand why trumpteer's did not sound calls without orders to do. The claims by you and DC that Custer did not use trumpet calls are ridiculous. According to Godfrey, Custer's first move after deciding they had been discovered , was to have officer's call sounded. No one claims that a trumpet call would have changed the outcome of Reno rout. It might have given some of the men that Reno abandoned a better chance. |
|
|
|
joseph wiggs
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - October 02 2005 : 7:55:34 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by wILD I
I think DC that is game set and match.The moral high ground is looking rather exposed now.
I have never laughted so much.I'll have a word with our Irish mullahs and have that fatwa rescinded.
Thus was created the old adage: Politics make for strange bedfellows
|
|
|
|
joseph wiggs
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - October 02 2005 : 8:27:04 PM
|
quote:
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.[/i]
And
and it is explicit direction to Maj. Reno to attack the Indians, with no provision expressed in words for a retreat at the discretion of that officer.
Someone posted Joe that you don't know what you post.From the above it is very apparent that you just pick sources at random without any thought as to their meaning.You now post in support of your condemnation of Reno that he had no latitude to use his discretion.It seems that you want him to charge into overwhelming numbers and bring about the total annihilation of his command.Now how can he do that and ensure their safety????
That someone who said that was D.c, did you forget that? He has been saying it for over a year now because he really does not have much else to say of any import. Some people, who for one reason or another, may take umbrage to a poster and, will resort to such tactics, particularly when they can not win a debate otherwise.
These type of individuals will even attack an individual's profession (although they have no idea how proficient or non-proficient he may have been at his job) which is absolutely senseless and, has nothing to do with this forum.
D.c.,also, was very astute in taking quotes from one thread and placing them in another in a poor attempt to illustrate disjointed thought and meaning when it didn't exist. For example, your similar attempt,above, is a perfect example. When things got heated,in our debate, I attempted to respond, to what I perceived to be, a false assumption in that my intent was to condemn Reno "in Toto." Thus, I replied in truth and sincerity when I posted that I only condemn a particular action of Reno, not the man himself. This position was verified by W.B. who understood precisely what I meant. I simply can not comprehend why you could not.
Next you take a quote that I posted from the Reno Inquiry by the recorder Lee (not I mind you)who said many things of which you chose not to quote. Statements of condemnation from Lee, not I.
For the very last time Wild, I did not, do not, nor have I ever desired Reno to attack into an endless village with endless warriors and die to the last man. Despite you eagerness to believe this iirrational proposition, I say again that orders were given,not followed, then completely forgotten by witnesses who claimed no orders were given; to include Reno. The use of trumpets may or may not have altered the final outcome of this battle. No one has suggested that. However, if the horns had sounded, perhaps a few abandoned men (they were abandoned) may have been saved. With your soap box rendition of the "moral high ground"[/b] what is so immoral about doing everything possible to save a human life?
Finally, I borrow a statement from you that you utilized in a much earlier post. This thread has reached a point of "zero return." |
Edited by - joseph wiggs on October 02 2005 9:12:04 PM |
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - October 03 2005 : 10:06:06 AM
|
Wild I, I thought that you would appreciate the humor in Sandoz's claim that because Custer had forbidden trumpet calls during the march while hoping to be undiscovered, they were forbidden even during battle.
And I thought you might appreciate the logic of my answer.The village was surprised and to use bugle calls would surely have alerted them.
You claim a military background, but don't understand why trumpteer's did not sound calls without orders to do.
Why did they not get the orders?They were 5 of them reporting to 5 officers so tell us why they were not used.
It might have given some of the men that Reno abandoned a better chance.
Reno did not abandon anyone.Men remained in the timber for a variety of reasons not least it appeared too risky to leave it.Custer abandoned 3 troops of his regiment knowing at the time the perilous predicament that was evolving
I replied in truth and sincerity when I posted that I only condemn a particular action of Reno, not the man himself. This position was verified by W.B. who understood precisely what I meant. I simply can not comprehend why you could not.
What does that mean?You don't hold him accountable for his actions?yet post All of us will be held accountable for our choices in life.
For the very last time Wild, I did not, do not, nor have I ever desired Reno to attack into an endless village with endless warriors and die to the last man. Despite you eagerness to believe this iirrational proposition, I say again that orders were given,not followed, then completely forgotten by witnesses who claimed no orders were given; to include Reno.
Let's see if I have got this right.You don't want Reno to charge the village but somehow he is to be held accountable for not following orders?
what is so immoral about doing everything possible to save a human life?The unit took precedence over the individual.
Finally, I borrow a statement from you that you utilized in a much earlier post. This thread has reached a point of "zero return."Well thank you Joe.As they say imitation is the highest form of praise.
|
Edited by - wILD I on October 03 2005 10:08:57 AM |
|
|
|
whistlingboy
Lieutenant
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - October 05 2005 : 11:08:42 AM
|
Actually, there is probably 'zero return' on the whole subject of LBH if one thinks some obscure lost fact from 120-plus years ago will magically appear out of the blue. One fact might-- but not likely. Why bash any of the good people here, and their character, because they uphold some hard opinion not widely accepted by anyone else? That doesn't mean they are a bad person, an unsuccessful person in life; Not agreeing with someone's opinion is what this forum is basically all about; it shouldn't be a condemnation of that person's character. Why don't we vote on different 'opinions' to see where everyone stands, hold them accountable then, and if a member changes his or her mind, then that would be interesting as to the why and wherefores?
When American soldiers landed on Guadacanal or stormed Mt. Suribachi or confronted the Viet Cong at Hue or Allied forces stormed Normandy Beach, etc. because the odds of numbers or advantage of terrain were against them, their duty and orders were still to attack those enemy strongholds. Can't you realize that such operations are set up knowing the odds of survival or success are minimal at best, Wild? What kind of military background do you have? The individual, as a concept in the U.S. military, does not exist. The training is devout to the team concept. Those officers in those dire straits, facing certain death, were not given orders with allowance for discretion. Many times the assumptions were 'take that position or don't come back.' You didn't realize that?
The stories are numerous and countless. In my quick training (eight weeks and you are in Vietnam, soldier, sorry) one soldier came in past curfew and the whole battalion was awakened at 2am to fall out, stand at attention and forced to hear the ramifications to all if a second occurrence such as that happened again. One cold and frosty morning, one soldier in the battalion (not squad, not company)reveille did not have his black gloves on, so, being out of uniform, every soldier, officers included, had to take their black gloves off. Silly? Seems like it, doesn't it? But every American soldier can each tell you similar and more serious 'lessons' in their training.
Don't get too carried away in this 'discretion' trap. It is not a 'wide' road to take as an option to disobeying an order. You should realize, right or wrong, that such planned operations forsake some contingents of the plan as lost but vital to the overall potential success. Please don't think I condone or cherish that idea, either. But specific orders are to be adhered to.
If Custer was forming plans in his head as he went, based on little or no strategic information, then his orders should have been that way--casusal. There must have been more to the orders to Reno then what has been written and paraphrased. For example, if the orders were...'tell MAJ Reno that IF he finds the village and it isn't too big, attack it'.... then Reno has cause and orders to abort. If the orders were...'find the village and attack it'...that is what he is expected to do. A plan is to be followed as ordered or else some other part of the players in the plan will be jeopardized. Major Reno had his orders; he was a subordinating officer and it wasn't his to wonder where and how his support would come if he was not specifically told. Was he trapped? In hindsight, sure, but in reality he failed to obey. In hindsight, they didn't get wiped out but that cannot be an accolade in his behalf. His further actions in the battle firmly attest to his incapacities at that time and his attitude of being there, leading his regiment, his confusion and his total disregard for his unit. When the plan for a unit IS to go in and get out, it is the commander's duty to make sure everyone gets out; that all are present and accounted for whether dead or not. Reno wasn't caring if everyone was dead or not. The orders to leave the woods were poorly and half-heartedly communicated, improperly communicated and not ensured to the last man. Reno and his officers should have been in the rear making sure that everyone was accounted for. Reno should have been left in the woods to watch his troops climb the bluffs to glory. Then he would have been honorable. We don't live our lives with the help of hindsight and will be judged cruelly or with sympathy by those who survive us. It is only fair that we hold Reno accountable by the same standard.
If Reno's job was to be a diversion until Custer could get in position and if by diversion that meant attacking the village, or if it was too big, draw them from the village for confrontation like leading them in the direction of Benteen etc. then he failed in that capacity too. It depends on what the specific orders were from Custer to Reno, subsequent to any casual discussions they had on the matter earlier. I have to believe they had a few discussions on the possibilities of future hostile actions. Officers are always having meetings to control the troops. Reno's orders did not come out of the blue, so to speak. If they did, Reno had good cause and Custer condemnation. The latter must be the prevailing thinking because Custer gets most, if not all the blame.
This is all my eccentric opinion, of course, which could only be expressed here and for which I appreciate the honor and ability to be able to do. We all make bad decisions for which we pay a 'price.' I just hold that Major Reno made some bad decisions. That does not say that Gen. Custer did not make some bad decisions or anyone else. That does not say that I would have been any different or any better. That is not inherent in any of my dialogue. I do not hold against anyone else either that they would think similarly about themselves.
I know my opinion is hard...if the orders were specific to attack the village--he should have.
If Reno's orders were specific about diversionary tactics to absorb time---he should have.
I don't think any discretionary latitude was given Reno to put himself and his regiment in a position to run from the hostiles--a position usually caused by indecision or lack of commitment. I truly hope Marcus Reno rests in peace for he did what he felt he had to do.
Whether I like it or not is not germane to the subject because I was not there. That is the first thing I always try to remember.
|
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - October 06 2005 : 08:04:30 AM
|
WB
A lenghty reply,my thanks.
However your example of Guadacanal is incorrect,American forces went ashore unopposed.[A little research saves embarrassment].
You unfortunately continue in the same vain by suggesting that Reno's attack could have been ment as a diversion.Check his orders again.His attack was to be the main attack with Custer playing a supporting role.Reno got his orders at 2.45 approx when Custer had no idea of the strenght of the forces opposing him.It was not until 3.34 that Custer realised he had a problem.So unexpectedly Reno is facing overwhelming odds and is without the promised support.Someone has blundered.You condemn Reno for not persisting with this blunder,for not blindly getting his unit annihlated .In that brief order relayed to Reno there was a rudimentry plan.It broke down.What does the US army expect when a plan goes pear-shaped?Persist or use discretion?
Can't you realize that such operations are set up knowing the odds of survival or success are minimal at best, Wild?
Was this one of them.Fool them into thinking they were going to be supported and then abandon them as bait.Great philosophy.It should foster great confidence in the American soldier.
There must have been more to the orders to Reno
This is where the fault line is in your thesis.You assume there is and load the orders to suit your arguement.In actual fact Custer was aware of what was happening to Reno and he felt there was no need to send further orders to him.So it is possible to conclude that Custer felt Reno was acquiting himself as best he could in the changed circumstances.Up to 3.34 Custer could have communicated with Reno.Nearly one hour after he had sent him into the valley.He did not.This fact alone exonerates him. |
|
|
|
joseph wiggs
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - October 07 2005 : 9:04:23 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by wILD I
WB
There must have been more to the orders to Reno
This is where the fault line is in your thesis.You assume there is and load the orders to suit your argument.In actual fact Custer was aware of what was happening to Reno and he felt there was no need to send further orders to him.So it is possible to conclude that Custer felt Reno was acquiting himself as best he could in the changed circumstances.Up to 3.34 Custer could have communicated with Reno.Nearly one hour after he had sent him into the valley.He did not.This fact alone exonerates him.
WB's perspective that there must have been "more to the orders to Reno" is an assumption as we can not possibly know what the orders entailed to a certainty. However, your following this assertion with an assumption of your own, "In actual fact, Custer was aware of what was happening to Reno" is telling. As you can not possibly know what Custer observed,as he did not tell you or anyone else for that matter, how then can your assertion be a "fact?"
How can any of us be certain that Custer made no attempt to contact Reno? What sources are there regarding Custer's ability or inability to communicate with Reno "nearly one hour after he sent him into the valley." He may have or he may not have, we simply don't know.
In fact, an individual by the name of Theodore Goldin insisted that he carried a written order from Custer to Reno on the day of the battle. Where you aware of that? If this is true, your whole theory goes down the drain. After an extended exchange of letters, notes, and questionnaires between he and Col. Graham, the latter chose to disbelieve Goldin. This, of course, does not mean that the man was untruthful. Nor does it mean that no one else was sent. Again, we simply don't know, do we?
Your statement that Custer made no attempt to contact Reno is not a "fact." It is nothing more than a "thesis" similar to WB's, unless you can produce source(s) to the contrary. Thus, your final remark, "This fact alone exonerates him" is equally nonfactual.
In summation:
Posted assumptions, theories, thesis, speculation and personal perspectives are equally informative, preposterous, titillating, absurd, credible, incredibly, and absolutely vital to this forum; as long as we respect those who offer their views. When we assume that one's personal perspective is more credible than another, debate is reduced to personal innuendo's, something we really don't need, do we?
|
Edited by - joseph wiggs on October 07 2005 9:24:07 PM |
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - October 08 2005 : 6:27:12 PM
|
In actual fact, Custer was aware of what was happening to Reno" is telling.As you can not possibly know what Custer observed,as he did not tell you or anyone else for that matter, how then can your assertion be a "fact?"
Joe you really are hopeless.We know for a fact that at 3.34 approx Custer knew the size of the village into which he had sent Reno.We know for a fact that he knew Reno was unsupported.We know for a fact that his order to his reserves did not specify any support for Reno.And if that was not enough it is legit to assume that Boyer informed him of Reno's plight.So Joe knowing these facts can we not conclude that Custer knew for a fact that Reno was in deep dodo.
Your statement that Custer made no attempt to contact Reno is not a "fact." It is nothing more than a "thesis" similar to WB's, unless you can produce source(s) to the contrary. Thus, your final remark, "This fact alone exonerates him" is equally nonfactual.Neither Kanipe or Martin reported messengers leaving before them.Martin at least was one of Custer's orderlies and was close enough to observe the coming and goings.
Up to 3.34 it was possible to communicate with Reno.
Not a single witness has come forward to suggest orders had arrived from Custer.
Please note that my statement made no mention of attempting to contact Reno,just the fact that he was not contactedTo support your case you must show that an attempt was made.
|
|
|
|
joseph wiggs
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - October 08 2005 : 9:07:01 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by wILD I
In actual fact, Custer was aware of what was happening to Reno" is telling.As you can not possibly know what Custer observed,as he did not tell you or anyone else for that matter, how then can your assertion be a "fact?"
Joe you really are hopeless.We know for a fact that at 3.34 approx Custer knew the size of the village into which he had sent Reno.We know for a fact that he knew Reno was unsupported.We know for a fact that his order to his reserves did not specify any support for Reno.And if that was not enough it is legit to assume that Boyer informed him of Reno's plight.So Joe knowing these facts can we not conclude that Custer knew for a fact that Reno was in deep dodo.
According to Gray, Custer orders Reno to "lead out" at a trot at approximately 2:15, from the vicinity of the "Lone Tepee." This position was was some "5 beeline miles distant" from the village itself. Reno's command (followed by Custer's force) trotted 23/4 miles in approximately 28 minutes (Gray). At this point neither Reno nor Custer has seen the village. About a mile from the Little Big Horn Custer "hallooed over to Reno, beckoning him with his fingers, and told him,'you will take your battalion and try to bring them to battle and I will support you." Still, at this point, neither man has actually observed the village.
Custer's orders were sparked by several factors, none of which concerned the size or disposition of the village.:
a. A large cloud of dust emanating from the village(movement of the Indian herd;
b. The sighting of a group of warriors spotted by Gerard running like "Devils" towards the cloud of dust/village;
c. Cooke's report to Custer at 3:01 advising Custer that Reno had advised (via couriers) that the Indians were making a stand.
When one understands that the immediate fear of every soldier in this battle was the ESCAPE of the Indians,not their ability to wage war, one can began to discern the actions of Custer. Wrongly, the military were entrenched with the belief that the warriors were inferior in intelligence and martial abilities when facing a "white" army. Custer did not know nor could not have known( based upon his personal and, commonplace racist attitudes of the nineteenth century) that the Indians would stand. That he should have know it is another argument altogether. Only contemporaneous hindsight makes his choices seem incorrect to the modern reader. Since we know the outcome, we know it all, don't we?
Gray then postulates that Custer then realized that Reno would need support thus, decided to follow his scouts to a "long ridge on his side of the river to catch a view of the village and the valley." From this position he can obtain a first hand view.
Again Wild, Custer has yet to see the village and Reno has seen only the southern portion of it. While Custer may have surmised that the situation demanded his attention, he still does not know the size of the village. It is possible that he believed that a "Flank" attack would support Reno sooner and more effectively than following in his rear. We, of course, don't know this for a fact but, it would explain his right turn up the bluffs.
At 3:30 DuRudio sights Custer at Weir's Peak. Here is his first opportunity to see the village. This is the first possible moment that Custer may have realized Reno's dire straits;32 minutes after their separation. Perhaps this sighting necessitated his "feint" down Medicine Trail Coulée(which is a flank attack) to relieve Reno. That Reno's command was spared is evidence that the ploy worked. Your contention that Custer knew the size of the village prior to ordering Reno to charge is totally incorrect. Your assertion smacks of a subtle suggestion that Custer would willing sacrifice his men for his own benefit. You simply do not know that and never will. Gray's map (267-268) will give you a wonderful visual of the concerned areas. His time motion studies are quite good also.
|
Edited by - joseph wiggs on October 08 2005 9:36:53 PM |
|
|
|
Benteen
Lt. Colonel
Status: offline |
Posted - October 08 2005 : 11:12:31 PM
|
Joe, Wild: With all due respect. Custer did know the size of the village. He knew this from what the scouts had told him at the Crows Nest. And perhaps his own observations. He knew it was a huge village. And he also knew it's appoximate location. I think what he didn't know was... Whether or not the indians were up and about or "napping." I think that was his biggest mistake. Ordering an attack sight unseen (close up enough) to make appropriate plans.
|
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - October 09 2005 : 2:33:03 PM
|
Benteen.
You are of course right but I use 3.34 because it is the time Martin left with the famous written message describing a big village and this cannot be disputed.
Ordering Reno to attack an enemy sight unseen was as you posted a mistake.I prefare the word blunder.To condemn Reno for not persisting with this blunder as Joe and WB have is stupid [no offence intended].
Joe
That he should have know it is another argument altogether. Only contemporaneous hindsight makes his choices seem incorrect to the modern reader. Since we know the outcome, we know it all, don't we? Rubbish.A military situation is a military situation regardless of when it occured.You dont need hindsight to state that sending a small force against an enemy of unknown strenght is the hight of folly.
Perhaps this sighting necessitated his "feint" down Medicine Trail Coulée(which is a flank attack) to relieve Reno. That Reno's command was spared is evidence that the ploy worked.
How do you know this?Why would the Indians have delayed with Reno when he posed no futher threat and there was Custer with his 5 companies to be confronted.
Your assertion smacks of a subtle suggestion that Custer would willing sacrifice his men for his own benefit. You simply do not know that and never will.
This is not the issue.We are debating here a blunder and your suggestion that Reno who succeeded in saving his command acted dishonorably. |
|
|
|
Benteen
Lt. Colonel
Status: offline |
Posted - October 09 2005 : 4:01:28 PM
|
quote:
Joe ~ "Perhaps this sighting necessitated his "feint" down Medicine Trail Coulée(which is a flank attack) to relieve Reno."
I have difficulty believing that this action was a "feint." It seems silly to suppose that a General with the abilities that he had would have stooped so low to suggest a "feint" at that moment in time. It would have done nothing. Abolutely nothing to achieve success of any objective what-so-ever. One has to ask.
1) What was Custer's objective? Was it to shilly shally about and make grandiose moves. Wasteing time and effort... and in the process risking the lives not only of Reno's men, but his own as well? Wouldn't the risk be better if he made an attack than a feint?
2) If this was a plan by any stretch of the imagination. What was his next move? What to do after he "feinted?" Run? Run where? And, how far? Was this really Custer's demeanor? Was he really so inept that he didn't have anywhere to go after the supposed "feint?"
3,a) Gray made alot of errors at the end of his time motion study. He took what he wanted and rejected the rest. Namely Martini's statements. He even admitted that his timing could be off by as much as 10 minutes. That's alot of time when one considers his claim that Martini couldn't possibly have made it back to a certain point in 15 minutes. Subtract the 10 minutes of error and you have 5. Could Martini have made it there in 5 minutes? This "5" minute differential was why he rejected Martini's statements.
3,b) Gray slanted alot of his ending time motion analysis. This so that he could propose a crazy theory that Custer "feinted" at the ford. And then to add insult to injury the man proposes yet further that Custer divided his battalion. Something that there was absolutely no need to do.
3,c) What evidence would support the split of Custer's battalion? To go traipsing off down the river (how many miles from Reno and support?). Talk about wild goose chases. He didn't even know where another crossing was. And to tell you the truth. I don't believe that he waited the 40 to 50 minutes or so that Gray says he did. Wait? Wait for what? The indians to be all wild eyed and bushy tailed so that they could cremate his forces? All of this flys in the face of what we know of our flamouyant general, doesn't it? It goes against every priciple of conventional thinking ~ that we know about him.
4) If one's answer to the above was Benteen. Then... It wasn't Reno's fault at all was it? It was Custer's. And once again. I don't believe for one moment that he did wait for Benteen. He sent the message way to late for Benteen to arrive there to be of any assistance what-so-ever. And he knew that, didn't he?
5) Custer's last and infamous words gives us a real good hint at his thought processes right before he attacked mtf. "Hurrah boys, we've caught them napping. We'll finish up here and go home to our station." Does this sound like someone who is going to delay for one moment the attack upon that village? Especially when he has Reno drawing off hundreds of them at the other end? And he's going to what... feint? I am quite sure that if he could hear such ludicrous statements as are being made today the man would have truely fainted at the thought. That ladies and gentlemen is the only feint that Custer would have been capable of.
In summation: Gray's analysis is good, very good. But he did make some errors at the end of his study. And those errors have caused more myths than facts to emerge about this battle. And the biggest lies still perpetuate the myths, don't they?
What does this have to do with Reno and saving his behind. Lots! It lays the foundation to understanding the truth. And that truth is the only undeniable thing that there is about this battle. Even Reno when asked where Custer was, didn't know. He thought just like the others that he had ran off to find Terry. And just what direction was Terry from Reno hill? |
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - October 10 2005 : 08:22:38 AM
|
Benteen
Was he really so inept that he didn't have anywhere to go after the supposed "feint?"
He was so inept that he gave ineptitude a bad name.Why for example did he keep the river between himself and his quarry.Without local knowledge he had no idea where he could cross.
He headed north with no plan and just like Mr Micawber was hoping for something to turn up.It did and it was howling mad.
|
|
|
|
Smcf
Captain
Status: offline |
Posted - October 10 2005 : 09:13:38 AM
|
Hi Benteen,
It seems to me that Custer was indeed shilly shallying. It would seem he stopped on a number of occasions, each attested to either by sightings from below or from Kanipe/Martin/Crows. He then goes north-east along Cedar Coulee to arrive a mile further distant than he would have, had he descended a gully closer to Weir point. Shoot me down in flames if Cedar Coulee was his only concealed route to MTC - I don't know the geography intimately. Having arrived at the intersection, the trail moves over the ridges to the battle scene, as noted by Godfrey. If Godfrey is correct, and there is a trail down MTC, then by definition, his column was split.
The question remains, how much of a force was sent down MTC and for what purpose. Gray argues a feint. Michno offers accounts which point to only a handful of warriors anywhere near the ford at that time. What doesn't seem to be the case is that there was a full blown charge by the entire column, unless they all retreated almost intact to where they started. There may be many points of argument over theories which proffer testimony or artifact to back them up, but there seems to me nothing to back up a full charge at MTC ford - only speculation, most of it based on "the Custer I know would have done that" type stuff.
Some speculation on my behalf - Part of Custer's remit, as I seem to recall was to prevent escape to the east, which is precisely where he positioned himself. MTC is an obvious escape route to the east. Perhaps a small detachment could be moved down there as a deterrent. Didn't work, obviously. It is still my belief Custer's main target was moving North West. The ridges he traversed moved North West, leading to a ford West of where he eventually ended up.
As to Custer not knowing where he was going, is it not possible that Boyer knew the area and exactly where to cross? As Custer was up there waving his hat, wouldn't it be common sense to send a galloping scout to search for a crossing - Kanipe/Martin/Crows don't mention it. In fact, he was reported as holding back the more excited troopers who looked like getting ahead of him on the way up - "take your time, there's plenty down there for all of us" (I paraphrase). Doesn't sound like a mad dash to find a ford and support Reno to me. |
|
|
|
whistlingboy
Lieutenant
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - October 10 2005 : 10:08:27 AM
|
wILD and Benteen:
You both write with such 'certainty' about Custer knowing exactly where the village was situated, proffer your opinion based on what you surmise as being 'fact' (because it fits your scenario), give credence to those sketchy scout reports, use the sighting of distant dust to pinpoint the village and further assume that Custer sends Reno off knowing 'exact' conditions, expected Indian positions and probable outcomes of Reno's eventual interaction. IF this belief by all soldiers of the day that hostiles will run from a fight is correct and ASSUMED and IF Custer remotely believes that and IF Custer is certain that Reno will follow his orders to their end, well, then Custer evidently wasn't too concerned and certainly not 'strategically positive' about any of the facts you put forth: IF he knew exactly WHERE the village was why would he have sent Reno to the attack instead of ordering him to a specific 'attack position?' IF he knew the 'finer facts' he would have known the strength of force at his front. IF he knew the strength facing him, why wouldn't he have had waited for Benteen to bring his force up for the attack on this overwhelming enemy? IF he knew the terrain apriori then he would have known how far down Medicine Tail crossing was? IF...IF....IF....etc. Any IF means he knew nothing of certainty.
As you have stated.....he (Custer) was without local knowledge (of terrain) and had no idea where to cross as he turns north, skirting the east side of the river, which he has no knowledge of either as to it's configuration as he turns northward. Custer is doing the natural thing...flanking what he assumes is Reno's direction of movement and attack. Fact: Custer is 'flanking' Reno; FACT: Custer does not seem to know the terrain's specifics ahead of him as he 'thinks aloud and makes decisions on the run.' He does not know Reno's every movement and/or his demise early in this search for a crossing. I agree with poster Benteen that Custer's 'MO' is not waiting, which is also insight into his 'lack of knowledge' of what is happening.
Because some have assumed Custer "dilly dallied" on his north oblique would that not imply lack of immediate concern for Reno and a need to be 'supportive' other than getting into position to 'flank' his position? If when he knows that Reno is in trouble and he (Custer) is still on the high ground without a place to ford the river yet, what is he suppose to do?
If Custer says "...the whole outfit will support you..." of course, implies and assumes that every detail about what was about to happen was a KNOWN. It was casual talk between officers. Why wouldn't Custer support him; they were a team, right? So, if what he (Custer) found along his trek would hopefully put him in the position to do, he (Custer) would support him (Reno) in his attack if he found the village. (When I say attack the village, I do not mean attack the tents; "Village" means the hostiles guarding or emanating from the village area. Attacking the village could mean a 1000 yards out as far as I'm concerned. Keeping them busy for a while as in a diversion if it turns out that way since we agree that Custer would need time since he had no knowledge of the terrain or where he could cross.)
Reno 'feints' his attack and fails to hold his position and...that is fact. He was 'IF-ing' along just like Custer. He might have thought at seeing a few hostiles from his skirmish line and what could happen IF a bunch of those guys decided to rush him harder...well, he must have thought that I'd better get the **** out of here...every man for himself. (he didn't have time to check the military manual cause he was wondering where Custer was to save him instead of him worrying about saving all the men of his command, although some people think that running means consciously saving your command even though he didn't seem to care if everyman knew or heard his orders anyway.) Reno reacted out of fear rather than consciously leading in the face of fear and there is a difference.
What Reno says of Custer years later is of no import. |
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - October 10 2005 : 1:57:33 PM
|
WB
Reno reacted out of fear rather than consciously leading in the face of fear and there is a difference.
That is the only significant observation in a load of iffy rubbish worth replying to.
When Reno realised he was on his own charging overwhelming odds he should have withdrawn in good order.But he lead in fear[as you put it] when he halted the charge and formed the skirmish line.He lead in fear when he withdrew in good order to the timber.And yes perhaps he voided his bowels when he "suggested"it was now time to get the f*** out of the timber.There comes a time in a military engagement when all organisation falls assunder. Reno delayed too long in that valley perhaps out of loyalty,perhaps hoping for the promised support and that is all he can be accused of. |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Responsibility At Little Bighorn
