| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Benteen
Lt. Colonel
Status: offline |
 Posted - October 10 2005 : 3:31:44 PM
|
quote:
WB ~ "...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..."
This un"certainty" is exactly the cause of misperceptions. Mispercieving is exactly what Custer did. He didn't know much at all when he gave Reno those orders to charge, did he? Granted, he knew the genereal area, and it's approximate "huge" size, according to what his indian guides and scouts said. But, other than that, he really had no idea or perception as to what he was sending Reno to charging into, did he?
quote:
"Reno 'feints' his attack and fails to hold his position and...that is fact. He was 'IF-ing' along just like Custer."
Iffing along? Perhaps. But he did have instruction. As iffy as they were. Reno still tried to carry them out. He didn't have any more knowledge of what he would run into than Custer did, did he? So who's to blame? Custer or Reno? When one looks at it. It's very easy to see who was to blame. And it certainly wasn't Reno. One has to put oneself in a similar situation to really appreciate the truth. Here you had a commander who in a rash moment of uncertainty orders a charge into the unknown. And certain individuals want to blame Reno? Come on....Please...give us all a break already. Custer thought the indians were "fleeing." Or so I've been told. So he orders Reno to give chase and bring them to battle. Let's see now. How many armed and attacking warriors would it take to convince Reno or for that matter Custer to change his mind? Reno had what? 130-140 troopers. And just suppose that the number of warriors was anywhere as estimated, from 500 to 900? What does that do to Custer supposed "charge" order? Help! I'd certainly say so, wouldn't you. Self preservation takes over in circumstances like that. And I for one don't fault him one bit. If the enlisted and others didn't realise that, then too bad, trumpet calls or not. Lets see anyone person just stand or sit there while anywhere from 500 to 900 war crying savages descend upon your position. I don't think so....
quote:
Wild ~ "When Reno realised he was on his own charging overwhelming odds he should have withdrawn in good order..."
As someone used to say, shoulda, coulda. ;) But, did he see what was there? At what point was this observation to be undertaken? Please remember that there were indians out in front of the village kicking up a dust storm. Most of the accounts on both side say that there was too much dust to see anything. Halting his mad dash fool hearty charge was just natural. If he couldn't see where and what he was charging into. Then the next "natural thing" to do was at least set up a skirmish line. Evidently even at this time the dust was so thick that he still couldn't discern the numbers of warriors. Soooo... quite naturally when the dust begins to clear a little he see's what? 500 to 900 warriors! Ooops... Time to skedaddle. Now if I saw my commander on his horse heading for the rear. Would I stay there? The answer is an unqualified, no. And even if I didn't observe this, wouldn't you say that my own self preservation instincts would kick in? The answer for me and any sane person is an unqualified, yes!
Sooo... Who is to blame? Custer and no one else. The sad thing is Custer himself repeated the same mistake! Only he evidently didn't have the same good sense to call it off. Jut like Reno should have and did do. |
Edited by - Benteen on October 10 2005 3:41:10 PM |
  |
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - October 11 2005 : 03:31:00 AM
|
Benteen
As someone used to say, shoulda, coulda. ;) But, did he see what was there? At what point was this observation to be undertaken?When the skirmish line was about to be outflanked he had a choice 1 withdraw to the timber or 2 get out of the valley.I'm using hindsight when I say it would have been better to have withdrawn from the valley.However he might just have met Custer coming in the opposite direction.Would not have gone down well in the regimental mess.
|
|
|
|
whistlingboy
Lieutenant
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - October 11 2005 : 2:37:43 PM
|
I understand your view, wILD I, and on my imaginary map of the battlefield, on which I have placed different posters' names as soldiers, yours has been duly affixed in Reno's group; he barely beat you to the top of the bluff. Personally, it would have been a great honor to go down alongside Custer. But I don't expect you to understand that since you know nothing of American ideals wherein half-heartedness binds no honor.
|
|
|
|
Heavyrunner
Captain
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - October 11 2005 : 3:15:10 PM
|
Whistlingboy... While our hindsights may vary, I think your words are both unkind and unfair to the Irish in general, not to mention without respect to their history.
The Irish, my friend, fought an uphill and hopeless battle for 400 years against the English--including some of my own ancestors. Their persistence finally paid off in 1922--although the English still managed to screw it up.
Would our own revolution have been supported for so long? |
Bob Bostwick |
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - October 11 2005 : 5:07:43 PM
|
Personally, it would have been a great honor to go down alongside Custer. But I don't expect you to understand that since you know nothing of American ideals wherein half-heartedness binds no honor.
WB
Half-heartedness ???? The only example of that was Custer's handling of the forces at his disposal.Everything he did that day was half hearted.Half hearted rubbish orders,half hearted promises of support.half hearted maneuvers leading no where.He sold his life and that of everyman in his immediate command cheaply.
One word sums up American Ideals---CAN DO.Not the cheap shoddy unprofessional antics of a total gob****e which Custer was.
Heavyrunner my thanks for your remarks.However to be fair to WB his remarks were directed at me and not the Irish. |
|
|
|
Heavyrunner
Captain
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - October 11 2005 : 5:30:24 PM
|
wILD..
I felt they were directed at you, to be sure, but also at Irish and foreigners in general... oh, well...
|
Bob Bostwick |
|
|
|
Benteen
Lt. Colonel
Status: offline |
Posted - October 11 2005 : 7:13:36 PM
|
HR, Wild ~ Sad isn't it that a nation of immigrants could be so biased. Oh well, to each their own.
Wild1 ~
In all fairness Custer wasn't entirely responsible for this mess happening the way it did. In the end, yes his orders or instructions were responsible for the outcomes. And for that he has to bear the blame.
For some reason Custer was first convinced that their regiment had not been spotted by the hostiles. This in a coversation with one of his indian scouts ~ White Man Runs Him. An arguement ensues and Custer still holds out at the very end stating that he still wants to wait until morning (26th), and then surround their position. And then he emphatically asserts that he will stick with his plan. Something between this conversation and approximately an hour later changed his mind. Some say that it was Tom and the cracker box incident. While this is most difficult to believe. At least for me. Because why would he not believe one of his own scouts who has knowledge of such things over and above a stupid cracker box incident? And this just doesn't make any sense. If the soldiers saw the indians at the cracker box at all. Why let them get away? Or should we say. Who let them get away? If they had any suspcions at all that these indians were going to go between the regiment and the cracker box to alert the village. Then why let them do it? Why observe them and then go back and tell Custer that they had been discovered? Kinda seems like someone wanted them to be discovered, didn't it? Someone was aching for a fight right then and there. And it wasn't Custer, or so it seems, doesn't it?
From this point on the fear then of the Indians almost instantaneous response to find a jet and fly literrally thousands of indians out of the valley becomes a paranoid issue. Unfortunately it appears that Custer is the one that is paranoid. Of course I suppose that anger, frustration, heat, fatigue, thirst and hunger, not to mention the filth of being in the saddle for so long, and god only knows what else fed this paranoia. Because most of the officers seems to have supported the idea of attacking right then and there. At least no one that we know of with the exception of perhaps Benteen would have, or did.
The mistaken decisions made by the boy General from that moment on in time doomed his command. He orders Benteen on a wild goose chase and then doesn't seem to have the sense he was born with to recall him before he did. He orders Reno to charge the sight unseen "napping" village which only serves as an early wake up call. And by the time his battalion is ready to attack the village. Literally hundreds if not thousands of previously "napping" warriors descend upon him and wipe his command out to the last man. That's the end of the story. Try and re-write it and one can't. Try to resolve the individual issues and to tell you the truth those issues all come full circle back to Custer. And from there back to the error of turning to follow the mile wide trail that Terry explicitly told him not to follow. One doesn't necesarrily fault him for following the trail. One has to fault him for getting as close to the village as he did with the regiment. Of course this too has some many interesting side trips. The least of which is. Who ordered the regiment forward? And once again we see an ugly spectre raising its head. Forcing the issue of fighting then and there. And not waiting one more day. Who was at fault? Only one person really. And that person was Custer. If he couldn't maintain command and control over his officers before the battle. How could he have done it during the battle? Evidently he didn't....Either that, or he was the one itching for an ill advised battle that day.
|
|
|
|
whistlingboy
Lieutenant
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - October 12 2005 : 11:44:03 PM
|
| wILD I: On the contrary, I certainly love the Irish...who wouldn't? (well, maybe the English) My mother was part Irish; my father full Italian. You know what my poking fun at was all about...you respect Reno's running and I don't. That's it. You thought him to be competent; I don't. On the otherhand, you are not tuned in to American military ideals, are you? |
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - October 13 2005 : 08:01:26 AM
|
wILD I: On the contrary, I certainly love the Irish...who wouldn't?Why on the contrary? I never suggested otherwise.
you respect Reno's running and I don't. That's it. You thought him to be competent; I don't. On the otherhand, you are not tuned in to American military ideals, are you?
Running is an insult to the profession of arms.This insult was inflicted as a consequence of Custer's criminal incompetence.Reno,his officers and men were victims.The humiliation of having to turn your back on your enemy and run must have been enormous.But not only was a Reno a victim but also every man who Custer led into that butcher's yard.The insult of having your life wasted,the obscene useless slaughter of good soldiers has nothing to do with American military ideals.They are the ideals of the suicide bomber and kamikaze.
|
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - October 13 2005 : 11:16:58 AM
|
Very good, Wild.
In any case, the "professed" ideals of an American Army are no different than the professed ideals of any state army, substituting state names and totems. You note Whistlingboy does not list those ideals, or explain how they're different than England's or Argentina's, and hopes to simply intimidate by the means by which he is intimidated. You'll also note that American Generals Patton, Sherman, Butler, and one, maybe two veterans of the horrors England (and even Ireland!) has fought have taken issues with terms like "glory" and "honor" after experiencing the reality. Sherman once said war wasn't like hell, it was hell, and the idiots bawling for it didn't know what they were talking about. Anyone doubt he did? When Patton claimed it was the American's soldier's goal to make the other guy die for his country, that wasn't a clarion call to pointless sacrifice, was it?
If Whistlingboy and Recorder Lee wish to have died with Custer than survive with Reno, they're apparently not alone if one can glean such from the tearful postings to Custer forums. It's amazing and unfortunate that those who wanted to die pointlessly, perhaps bravely, for their supposed everlasting fame - and by actions having nothing to do with, and perhaps contrary to, the aims of the war or battle in question - never seem to actually die or participate in those battles. Always, they hang around to point out the failures of their peers to have done so. There's ample opportunity even yet, in uniform or as a contract player serving the same flag, and yet somehow they're still here, courageously damning the uniformed dead for one action out of an entire career of merit. It makes you so proud, doesn't it?
In any event, the American armed forces have acted pretty much as every other armed force in history except that it has been granted incredible odds in its favor overall and it has been under civilian control and it obeys that control. Thanks be. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
Edited by - Dark Cloud on October 13 2005 11:18:44 AM |
|
|
|
Smcf
Captain
Status: offline |
Posted - October 14 2005 : 07:59:57 AM
|
| In fairness, Whittaker - the archetypal Custerphile whose sentiments echo loudly through these pages, was a CW veteran complete with his own "red badge of courage". |
|
|
|
whistlingboy
Lieutenant
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - October 14 2005 : 2:06:11 PM
|
In ending, to the extent that those who categorically condemn General Custer for the loss of this battle, because he was the Commander, is the extent to which I have voiced my opinion about Reno's charge and, in my opinion, his failures to perform in a subordinating role.
No one knows exactly what happened that day; for the most part, everything is conjecture, from the timelines to conversations inbetween the conversations between counterparts. We look at what has been most obvious of what has been written about the battle. Most accounts written fall short because the facts are few and the gaps wide. For this lack, motivations have supplied the volumes written. Whether it has been for money, prestige, or personal aggrandizement, the episode has become more clouded and more confusing by the many authors.
No commander can carry out a mission when the directives are neither clear or carried out. No misconceptions about anyone's part can be an issue. The roles must be well defined and clear to give any mission a chance. Most missions are replete with contingencies that evolve around incomplete strategic data neccesary to insure victory. I have always found the 'support' issue weak. Arguably, Reno surely would have questioned, before galloping off to attack, what the specifics were about his order, for he knew that Custer had no more knowledge about the area and terrain than he did. Just because those specific conversation perks, between Custer and Reno, didn't make it to the present year doesn't mean they didn't exist.
No commander wins a battle by himself; nor does he lose it by himself. His plan is as good and effective as his subordinates are effective in their performances. This total failure is from the top down. The Grants, Sheridans, Gibbons, Terrys, etc. are first in line for this debacle, and the contingencies that arose around it for those on the 'frontline.'
The Calhouns and Custers and Smiths might have had time to run too before being completely surrounded and while they were still mounted. But they didn't.
I'm not going to remember Reno as a bad guy or ever dwell on his performance. He should have stayed a lawyer; Custer always wanted to be a soldier. Reno, to me, was just an option to failure. He was no more the cause solely, than Custer. But he was a vital part of it and no one can intelligently say he wasn't. The battle has to be viewed as a whole and not a failure of its parts, with Custer being one part and Reno being another part. I'll leave it there for the good soldiers who changed in depth along the river called-- the Little Bighorn. |
|
|
|
Heavyrunner
Captain
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - October 15 2005 : 4:54:02 PM
|
Custer might have saved himself by waiting for Gibbon and Terry. Beyond that, he was doomed. Non-Indians, for the most part, have talked and written, ad infinitum, about what Custer might have done to win and/or, in the process, blamed him or Reno or Benteen.
Blame, rather than credit to the victors, is grating, not to mention a significant degree of histocal inaccuracy. I'll call it nationalistic, rather than racial, bias. The way and with the quickness they got slaughtered, they might as well been armed with water pistols. Reno didn't fail and run. He was overwhelmed by numbers and fire power. Custer should've run like a rabbit when he had the chance, if he had one, and linked up with Reno on the hill.
|
Bob Bostwick |
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - October 15 2005 : 5:53:08 PM
|
WB
If that is your last word on the subject then what a shame that you take refuge in dishonesty. Punctious Pilot like you find no fault with this man therefore you have him scurged".
|
|
|
|
Smcf
Captain
Status: offline |
Posted - October 17 2005 : 06:07:43 AM
|
| Punctious Pilot? - explain. |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - October 17 2005 : 1:30:56 PM
|
Malarkey, Whistling Boy. You're pretending reassuring cliches are fact.
Many commanders lost battles by themselves, with no help whatsoever from above or below. Napoleon III, Hitler, Chaing Kai Chek among many others lost battles because of stupidity and incompetence in the very decision to give battle unnecessarily. And they were very much the commanders if not, except in the first case, on the field. In the American Civil War, McClellan lost battles he'd actually won or should have. Hood was a beloved idiot of Lee's. Pope and McDowell and Hooker and Burnside all lost battles by their decisions and incompetencies, not their subordinates. Lee lost Gettysburg by his lonesome when Longstreet rather convincingly proves he should have won it. Washington's loss of New York is apparently still inexplicable to military minds, although I have to take their word.
There was nothing anyone could have done at the Alamo to have won it once the decision - Travis' - was made to stay and fight.
There was no real point to the various naval battles late in WWII. They were foolish and utterly the choice of the Japanese commanders who are utterly, totally responsible. What underling could possibly have won them? Who? How?
There is nothing known about LBH that violates the Custer of history, whose tendencies and reactions were well known.
He should have known that large villages did not tear down and vanish like the wind, they stayed and fought and were terribly unorganized but highly motivated. The Kildeer Mt. episode was well known against many of the same people.
You hypothesize a 'musta said' situation with no verification from any of the people who were there and heard, or said they heard, many of whom had no fondness for Reno. After all, it's just as likely a messenger from Terry - no! from Grant! - arrived during the evening of the 24th telling Custer to wait till the 26th. No proof, utterly implausible, but it damns Custer for failing to obey a direct order. And, you know, coulda happened....
Just as fair as imagining a series of clear orders to Reno by magic and unseen messengers totally at odds with Custer's strange attempt at micromanaging Benteen's scout, whose content could have been given by Custer in person at the beginning if he had a plan worthy of the name. He apparenlty thought he could cross down river and help Reno but was thwarted by the bluffs plus the unexpected size of the village and the fact they didn't run. There's no mystery. It was a chance taken and he lost.
This desperation apparent in trying to nail down the last footsteps of every soldier and the baseless assumptions that artifacts appeared where found in a two hour period on the 25th is truly and utterly bizarre and far more informative about the emotional needs of Custer Nuts than Custer, the 7th, or the battle itself. And none of it excuses piling on Reno and Benteen to excuse Custer who, frankly, needs no excuse. It was a lost battle, is all. But he chose to fight it and he lost it. Eh. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - October 17 2005 : 6:03:47 PM
|
Smcf
Punctious Pilot? - explain.
You will recall that according to the Gospels PP could find no fault with JC.He was in fact an innocent man but to appease the howling mob PP decided to have him scurged.
WB posts
"No one knows exactly what happened that day; for the most part, everything is conjecture,"
But then to appease his fundamentally flawled position he posts
"Reno, to me, was just an option to failure."and " He should have stayed a lawyer;
|
Edited by - wILD I on October 17 2005 6:05:29 PM |
|
|
|
Smcf
Captain
Status: offline |
Posted - October 18 2005 : 05:41:21 AM
|
| Pontious Pilate then. |
|
|
|
Smcf
Captain
Status: offline |
Posted - October 18 2005 : 05:45:13 AM
|
| or even Pontius Pilate - hehe |
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - October 18 2005 : 4:48:09 PM
|
| Just bought RED SABBATH The Battle of the Little Bighorn by Robert J Kershaw.Anyone read it? |
|
|
|
whistlingboy
Lieutenant
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - October 19 2005 : 6:17:16 PM
|
| wILD I: To the extent that you detest my opinions, I, too, am disappointed in your comparison analogy to Pilate and the LORD. The Lord has no comparison to a Christian like me and if he did, it certainly would not be the likes of someone like Reno. That is not to say that the Lord wasn't in Reno. The Lord new what was going to happen to him as it was his destiny, his calling. Reno was trying to figure out what he was suppose to do, as we all are. It was a terrible analogy. I'm sure you can cut me down to size with something a little more relevant to the topic. |
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - October 20 2005 : 03:42:31 AM
|
Don't be silly WB,I don't detest your opinions I enjoy the challenge of a good historical debate.As regards the anology it's in everyday use as in "he washed his hands of it".
Lighten up a bit and have a nice day.
Right DC what about the role of those Irish aboriginal African missioneries at the LBH? |
Edited by - wILD I on October 20 2005 03:46:28 AM |
|
|
|
whistlingboy
Lieutenant
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - October 20 2005 : 08:25:08 AM
|
Glad I didn't spoil your day, wILD I; certainly wouldn't feel too good about that. I like the thought of helping people who want it, not antagonizing them. May God bless Reno and every soldier that has to be in battle for one reason or another. Who am I to 'scourge' and poke fun at Reno, based on the scanty heresay, anymore than a person should denigrate Custer, based on the scanty heresay. My point from the get-go has always been to guard and protect the 'legend' of GAC and this battle as an American historical benchmark in military history. Reno made mistakes also, severe ones that came after the point of not understanding his orders.
IF Custer knew of the huge numbers of hostiles he was about to confront wouldn't Reno have known that also? Wouldn't he had confronted Custer and remarked...."Good golly, miss molly, you want my little contingency of a 140 soldiers or more, attack thousands of Indians in their village? What's wrong with you, man?"
And yet, the few words that have made it a hundred or so years are those of the passed on order from Custer about....attacking the village and the whole outfit will support you. There is too much that doesn't make sense if one is going to give intelligence to these gentlemen. To the 'camp' of thought that is convinced that Custer knew well in advance of the numbers he was facing, ordering Reno to attack is unintelligible unless it was merely meant, as such, to be merely a diversionary tactic. But if he didn't have that understanding than he must have sent a qualified order to Reno more along the lines of exploring the possibilities of attacking the village of the fleeing Indians. Does it make a difference if Custer doesn't know if there is one huge village with thousands of warriors or whether there are more than one village scattered here and there with a few hundred warriors in each?
|
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - October 20 2005 : 1:36:04 PM
|
WB
My point from the get-go has always been to guard and protect the 'legend' of GAC and this battle as an American historical benchmark in military history.
Yes why let the truth get in the way of a good legend?
If any of our friends want to see their opinions and ideas in print then can I recommend RED SABATH.After reading this book I can only conclude that much of Mr Kershaw's research was done on this board.It would have been nice if he had given us a mention. |
|
|
|
whistlingboy
Lieutenant
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - October 21 2005 : 09:26:16 AM
|
wILD I, I certainly doubt if any legend is tightly bound in truth, hence, a 'legend.' Besides, the truth isn't always the best way, this day and age, as it's revelation can often be discouraging, damaging, frightening, unnerving, unsettling and confusing if one has believed in something or wanted to believe in something for a good part of their life. To find some belief, one day, to have been totally wrong or falsified can set one back a bit and make you wary of all your other beliefs. That's my opinion about it. At this point, it is more entertainment than anything, I think, save the profit motive; something like this site. Do you honestly think that someone will stumble upon the 'truth.' As objective as I like to be, I am not that blurry eyed. That's why I've used Reno's aspect of this battle...I'm not really down on him; he did what he thought he had to do....I just don't happen to think it was the best, given his supposedly experience in the CW.
Being Catholic, I was raised being taught about many of the saints and remember when the Pope, at the time, de-sainted many of them including St. Christopher, whose medal hung around my neck, to make room on the 'calendar.' I can't expound on this but remember the priest in church one Sunday morning calling attention to this action and thinking about all the people who, for years, had put passionate feelings and prayers to those saints in the form of pleas for help, only to find out that their actions might have been all for naught. Sure, some people use religion for a crutch and those moments helped them at the moment, but it is just the idea.
Maybe someone will someday proclaim LBH to no longer be considered a legend because it was found out the facts had been grossly manipulated and misrepresented and that all schools, streets, parks, etc. would have to be re-named, statues torn down, etc. Wouldn't that be a mess and very communistic. The world is often made to be an idiot; so be it. Just so it doesn't mean the extermination of life as we know it. In the meantime, such legends are fodder for entertainment and time consumption. If we are really serious, we should seek out the truths now about cancer causing agents and other such life threatening 'legends.' I think I will try to enjoy the site from the entertainment side of life and try harder not to make people have a bad day over something I think. I still like your intelligence and your intelligent offerings. I suppose if you ever hit a nerve on something, I will drill you to really find out how much you do know about the subject or your sources if your ideas seem to be hinting at a truly factual revelation. I also expect you would be one of the ones who would find that tidbit of information.
DC, Joe, MW, Benteen, HR, and the many others are also all valuable assets to this site and just because I am in total disagreement with some of them sometimes, doesn't mean I don't have respect for them or their opinions. It is not that one has an opinion but that he or she has the right to state it, as we all know. Hope you have a great day, wILD I.
|
Edited by - whistlingboy on October 21 2005 09:29:46 AM |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Responsibility At Little Bighorn
