| Author |
 Topic  |
|
AZ Ranger
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
 Posted - September 14 2008 : 2:42:31 PM
|
Joe Wiggs - Want I wanted AZ is known only to me.
Joe Wiggs - Az wants the world to believe that I just make things up and believe everything that is written in a book!
Like I said Joe you can't have it both ways
AZ Ranger |
“ An officer's first duty is to his horses.”
SEMPER FI |
  |
|
|
joe wiggs
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - September 16 2008 : 5:58:43 PM
|
Tenacity can be a virtue when endeavoring to accomplish a worthy goal like struggling against a strong current to save a poor soul from drowning. When an exorbitant amount of energy is used to prove a point (one unsubstantiated by evidence)then obstinacy becomes the motivator. Obstinacy is not a virtue it is,rather,a character flaw.
For example, your insistence that I have produced inaccurate or misleading information is based solely on my insistence that 35 or more of Reno's men died in the "charge" to the hill. I supplied three credible references including Reno's own statement (evidence) wherein he himself testified to losing 3 officers and 29 HE DID NOT REFER TO THE enlisted men SKIRMISH LINE in the CHARGE! NOR THE HILL WERE OTHER DEATHS OCCURRED. Where is your evidence,resources,footnotes, references, etc. to counter these claims. You have offered nothing except you personal opinion. You do know what opinions are like, don't you?
As you well know, your simply saying something don't necessarily make it so.
Joe Wiggs
Want I wanted AZ is known only to me."
This quote of mine was in reply to you where you stated "The point is you wanted to make it look like Reno suffered 35 losses in the charge to the river. He didn't"
Again AZ, how could you possibly know what I want about anything at all. Only Dark Cloud possess the ESP to accomplish that feat. My purpose was to regurgitate credible information from reliable sources that confirm what I posted. Again, what evidence (other than your mouth) do you possess to counter?
AZ "What you posted 35 fatals in the charge was not a fact. Fact is 14." (sic)
Without being redundant, why do you put information on the board that you are not able to substantiate. Unlike you and DC, it is not my intent to "police" the boards. However, if you and he wish others to believe that you both are the beginning and the end of this subject, print something that can be referred to.
Joe Wiggs "Az wants the world to believe that I just make things up and believe everything that is written"
That response of mine followed:
AZ "I will not give you a free ride to put out information just because it is in a book. I will continue to challenge it if I think it is inaccurate."
That's the problem AZ. You ego has totally subdued your ability to "think." the members of this forum have an unconditional right to peruse sources of information regarding this battle and utilizing/sharing that information with other members of the forum. To insinuate that a member, any member of this forum does not possess the intelligence to select credible information without falling prey to the imbecilic and ludicrous is...embecelic, ludicrous, and pompous.
AZ "I will rest my case that you intent to mislead because you still maintain 35 died in the charge from the timber."
Joe Wiggs...I will not rest my case until you prove that 14 men died in the charge. Give me one resource to confirm that number. One source, one anything except you chattering it like a chipmunk in a forest fire. Without substantiation you have about as much credibility.
In the past, I have thought much of your post even though I did not always agree with them. They were always informative and of interest. for you to take such a stance as you now have done yet, provide no credible resources and ignore the ones I have proffered. Are you not a retired police officer as I.
My stance concerning Reno is one that acknowledges the tragic circumstances that faced him (and others)at a critical moment in time when fear,momentarily,over powered them. My posts were not instituted simply to besmirch Reno. I did so because facts, regardless of how un-tasteful they may be, need to be discussed.
If you insist upon sprouting spurious allegation without facts to enforce them you do nothing but make yourself appear small; very much like another ogre who creeps around this forum. |
Edited by - joe wiggs on September 16 2008 6:28:40 PM |
|
|
|
AZ Ranger
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - September 17 2008 : 05:54:48 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by AZ Ranger
Try getting your fatality figures correct:
O EM
Skirmish line 0 2
In the timber 0 7
Run to river 1 14
Scaling Bluff 2 9
More enlisted men were killed on the Reno-Benteen hilltop fight on 25th and 26th then the charge to the river.
AZ Ranger
Above is my original post. It should have been a clue that it might have a source but for you Joe it came from Centennial Campaign - The Sioux War of 1876, Page 294, Table 4, Fatalities by Event
Joe I don't how to make it any clearer to you that in Reno's Report it is the total that Reno was reporting. That is what is expected in reports. He left out the civilians in his report so the scouts are not included and he also failed to report the missing troopers that remained in the timber. Note that is 1 officer and 14 enlisted in my original post of "run to river".
I have come to the conclusion that Ron White is right. You can't fix stupid.
AZ Ranger
|
“ An officer's first duty is to his horses.”
SEMPER FI |
Edited by - AZ Ranger on September 17 2008 06:36:55 AM |
|
|
|
Sgtmajor109th
Captain
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - September 17 2008 : 4:10:28 PM
|
Well, for one I would not use the 25th,and 26th to compare what happened
in one day in Reno's charge.
Reno's Fight June 25. Valley
Skirmish line 0 2
Timber 0 7
Charge 1 14
Bluffs 2 9
Total 3 32
Weir's Advance June 25 0 1
Hill Top Fight June 25 0 4
Total 0 5
Hill Top Fight June 26
Skirmish Line 0 5
Benteen's Charge 0 1
Water Party 0 1
Total 0 7
25-26 total 12
Charge 15 Killed
Hilltop 25-26 12 Killed
John S. Gray, "The cenntennial Campaign" Table 4, page 294
And "Custer's Last Campaign" Table 15, page 406
The loss on the hilltop for the 25th would only amount to 5 killed,
compared to 15 killed in the bottom.
Plus those called "Other" Timber 2, Charge 1, Bluffs 2, = 5 |
Sgtmajor |
|
|
|
joe wiggs
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - September 17 2008 : 9:05:08 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by AZ Ranger
quote:
Originally posted by AZ Ranger
Try getting your fatality figures correct:
O EM
Skirmish line 0 2
In the timber 0 7
Run to river 1 14
Scaling Bluff 2 9
More enlisted men were killed on the Reno-Benteen hilltop fight on 25th and 26th then the charge to the river.
AZ Ranger
Above is my original post. It should have been a clue that it might have a source but for you Joe it came from Centennial Campaign - The Sioux War of 1876, Page 294, Table 4, Fatalities by Event
Joe I don't how to make it any clearer to you that in Reno's Report it is the total that Reno was reporting. That is what is expected in reports. He left out the civilians in his report so the scouts are not included and he also failed to report the missing troopers that remained in the timber. Note that is 1 officer and 14 enlisted in my original post of "run to river".
I have come to the conclusion that Ron White is right. You can't fix stupid.
Joe Wiggs
To be honest, that post was so off center that I assumed it came from within the "corners of your mind." I notice that during this entire debate you have done nothing to discredit my sources, nor have you acknowledge them. It is though, in your reality, they do not exist and that you have the only source available, a magazine. And this from a man who screeched, "you can't believe everything you read in a book" to a forum of adults as though we were unaware with this 5,000 year old adage.
How credible your source is certainly up for grabs. Did you bother to read and review the sources I posted? All of them go against your "source" in a big way. Why were you unable to show the forum how incorrect they were? Reno himself wrote in an official report which was submitted as evidence for the Reno Inquiry in which he admitted that he lost 3 officers and 29 men in "the charge." His written words, not mine and, probably a source for other researchers. Make sense?
You astound me. To have the unmitigated gall to "announce" announce what Reno meant! You write that Reno left out the timber and Hill. Of course he did not mention the skirmish line and the hill. I've been telling you this over and over to no avail. His report makes that perfectly clear, yet he clearly writes 3 and 29 men were lost in the charge.Why is it that you can slap a few people with facts and accomplish nothing.
You will pardon me if I attribute a shade more credibly To Hardorff, Donovan, and Reno's own admission over the Centennial Campaign. Seriously, is that a magazine.
Tell you what AZ, your knowledge and mental status far out weigh the authors who received so much money for their work. Why don't you show them how fantastic you are and write your own book. I'm not inferring that in order to post on the forum you have to be an author. What I am inferring is that a master of the Big Horn Battle events,such as youself, would have so much fun proving them wrong.
|
|
|
|
joe wiggs
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - September 18 2008 : 6:54:13 PM
|
Continuation:
Az, to bring this discussion to an amicable end, I have solicited the assist of a very dear friend of mine, Mr. C. S. Useitsumtine.* He suggested that I avail myself with the works of Gray (Custer's last Campaign) as his research is not only informative but, meticulously done also. Mr Gray reports that Reno led companies "A", "M", and "G" down the valley towards the village. He further writes that the command consisted of 140 men. Of which 35 were killed and 11 wounded. 13 soldiers and 3 scouts were left behind in the timber
First, let us preview the deaths on the skirmish line:I came up with the following
Lt. Wallace - 2 died;
Capt. Moylan - 1 died;
Dr. Porter - 0
W. Graham - 1.
Based on your source, the count of 2 deaths is credible and I accept it. That leaves us with identifying the kill spots of 138 men.
As far as the timber, I come up with two deaths, Bloody knife and Pvt.Lorenze, not seven. we can leave that matter open for now.
Gray brakes it down this way:
"A" 8 men killed
"M" 12 men killed\
"G" 13 killed for a total of 33 men.
This count does not include Reynolds or the other scouts. Now the critical question is where did these men die. According to Lt. Wallace they all died "in the bottom.". Not on the skirmish line, not scaling the bluffs, nor after arriving on Reno's
Admittedly, Wallace testified:
"Reno's losses in the VALLEY fight that day was 27 killed and 7 wounded." Of the companies in the bottom "A" lost 8 Killed, "G" 11 killed" and "M" 8 killed.
Graham, RCOI, p.22I
His number does not match mine but, they do lend credence to the follow up by contemporary authors/investigatersns who are privy to the excellent research we all now enjoy the fruits of;books! Also, he is explicit about the location of the deaths, the valley, the bottoms!
Your assumption or source that accredits 29 deaths scaling the bluffs is so beyond the pale that I can not imagine who thought it up. Actually the snipers were targeting the mass of troopers who were trying to scale the east bank (eight feet high) making excellent targets in their frantic and exposed attempts.
"The crossing was made under the sniper fire of the Indians on the bluffs, and afew of the hostiles even rode across the stream in pursuit of the fleeing enemy, clubbing the troopers and pulling them from their saddles." As for the actual bluffs, I recall two deaths only, not twenty-nine. Dr. De Wolf and his assistant. Other soldiers attempted to shout a warning to them which they did not hear. The snipers fled soon after this leaving the steep bluffs open for escape. (Stewart p, 372.)
Actually, now that I think of it, counting the scouts (which he did not)would give you the number 34 at the least. But I don't ant to confuse you by discerning between enlisted men, "White" scouts, Indian scouts, a black Scout,etc.
Anyhow, Az your quote elequently inplies, "you can't fix stupid" is quite correct."
I would like to take a moment to thank my friend, Mr. C.S. Useitsumtine/Mr. Common Sense Usitsumtine, for his invaluable assistance.
|
Edited by - joe wiggs on September 18 2008 8:04:17 PM |
|
|
|
AZ Ranger
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - September 19 2008 : 10:58:12 AM
|
Joe your post I challenged is not the total valley casualties as you try to weasel now. It is your quote upon the charge from the timber. The charge is subset of the total valley casualties but you used total valley casualties in your post of the charge. This is common trait of yours. You could have easily said I used the wrong figures for the charge. Instead you defend it by and think over time we will forget your original post. You then weasel out of your original charge casualty figures by using the whole valley causalities and defend them as sources. Although they are sources they do not support your post below:
quote:
When the troopers burst from the timber in a frenzy, for one moment in time, the warriors got spooked. Believing that the soldiers were on the attack they pulled back only to see the command go blistering past them, wide eyes soldiers clinging precariously to their mounts. made deliriously happen by this sudden and, unanticipated, change of events the warriors became engaged in a "fox hunt" wherein 35 of Reno's soldiers were needlessly lost.
Name one source, as you challenged me to do, for your post of after the troopers burst from the timber being engaged in a "fox hunt" wherein 35 of Reno's soldiers were "needlessly lost" Do not use the total valley casualties they are not all part of the charge.
Your assumption or source that accredits 29 deaths scaling the bluffs is so beyond the pale that I can not imagine who thought it up. Actually the snipers were targeting the mass of troopers who were trying to scale the east bank (eight feet high) making excellent targets in their frantic and exposed attempts.
You have to be kidding with that statement.
The O (officers) above the column represents 2 officers and the EM(enlisted men) above the column represents 9 enlisted men. SgtMajor used the same format look in his post looks like it came from the same book.
Anyhow, Az your quote elequently inplies, "you can't fix stupid" is quite correct."
Glad to see we agree.
I thought your chipmunk comment was stupid. Your 29 deaths assertion above is now in the lead and proves my point of how you mislead either through ignorance or intent. You mislead in your interpretation of Reno's report. So the report does not need to be refuted. There are some thing left out of Reno's report but that is a different issue.
You also stated to give you one source which I did and yet you still continue.
quote:
Joe Wiggs...I will not rest my case until you prove that 14 men died in the charge. Give me one resource to confirm that number. One source, one anything except you chattering it like a chipmunk in a forest fire. Without substantiation you have about as much credibility.
When have known a chipmunk to lie? Warning other chipmunks of danger is a bad thing?
AZ Ranger
|
“ An officer's first duty is to his horses.”
SEMPER FI |
Edited by - AZ Ranger on September 19 2008 12:20:12 PM |
|
|
|
AZ Ranger
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - September 19 2008 : 11:50:16 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Sgtmajor109th
Well, for one I would not use the 25th,and 26th to compare what happened
in one day in Reno's charge.
Reno's Fight June 25. Valley
Skirmish line 0 2
Timber 0 7
Charge 1 14
Bluffs 2 9
Total 3 32
Weir's Advance June 25 0 1
Hill Top Fight June 25 0 4
Total 0 5
Hill Top Fight June 26
Skirmish Line 0 5
Benteen's Charge 0 1
Water Party 0 1
Total 0 7
25-26 total 12
Charge 15 Killed
Hilltop 25-26 12 Killed
John S. Gray, "The cenntennial Campaign" Table 4, page 294
And "Custer's Last Campaign" Table 15, page 406
The loss on the hilltop for the 25th would only amount to 5 killed,
compared to 15 killed in the bottom.
Plus those called "Other" Timber 2, Charge 1, Bluffs 2, = 5
I agree Sgtmajor. I would use Custer's casualties when comparing them to Reno's valley fight. In both cases there were a lot more unknowns and it required decisions to be made under high stress. The Reno-Benteen hilltop fight is what I would expect of troops that have realized they kicked a hornets nest and there are lots of Indians willing to fight. They found the best place to put up 360 perimeter and went on defense. I would expect that on defense the casualties would be lower. Considering that we now have three battalions, Reno, Benteen, and the pack train of men plus ammunition and supplies the expectation would be they could hold up against a large number of Indians.
I believe we were discussing Reno's retrograde from the valley. In particular there are many who have concerns about the leaving of the timber, formation or not just outside the timber, and the run to the river. If that is the topic than you do not use the total valley casualties to analyze that movement. I have seen others post comments on how the charge of the river should have been accomplished better but can't remember any on jumping into the river or climbing the hill. My comments would be the same for those actions by horse mounted troops since the Indians are all around and mixed in by the time they reach the river.
My experience with horses leads me to believe that you would have to jump in the river on the run due to the steep bank and climbing the hill you would keep the horse focused on going to the top. I don't believe there was much opportunity to form up for protection for reasons I previously stated. The Indians were mixed in with the troopers and engaged in CQB (close quarter battle) because the revolvers were empty and the Indians figured it out. The hillside contained Indians, it was to steep to form up by company, the routes out of the river allowed only one or at lest a few at a time to exit the river if you stopped to form up one at time it would be like pop up stationary targets for the Indians with the whole battalion being shot at as they stopped to form up, and finally mounting and dismounting on a hillside is hard to do so if you stayed mounted and shot the Indians firing from stationary positions have the advantage.
Considering that Crazy Horse was coming and arrived just as Reno exited the timber than Reno's assumption before leaving the timber was reasonable.
There is no way to have precise numbers of casualties if Reno had remained in the timber but I believe Crazy Horse would have gone in timber with the intent to kill them all. The bottom line is there is expectation of losing troops in battle some activities have a higher rate than others. Charges or whatever your pleasure in calling running horses coming together and CQB is expected to have casualties so is 1 officer and 14 enlisted men to many? I think not. Once committed to the retrograde and the running to the river the crossing and the hill climb are inevitable and the losses occurred appear to me be within expectations for the operation performed.
AZ Ranger
|
“ An officer's first duty is to his horses.”
SEMPER FI |
Edited by - AZ Ranger on September 19 2008 12:33:56 PM |
|
|
|
prolar
Major
Status: offline |
Posted - September 19 2008 : 12:20:54 PM
|
| In "They Died With Custer" by Scott, Willey and Connor, the men who died are identified by name and location.They list two officers and five EM as killed at the bluff. The officers are Lt Hodgson and Dr De Wolf.The EMs are Clear,Cody,Gordon,Meyer,and Turley. They list fiveteen EM killed on Reno Hill but this includes Vincent Charlie who was killed near Sharpshooter Ridge during Weir's retreat.They list nineteen EM and one officer as killed in the timber and skirmish line. This does not include civilians and scouts.They do not list seperately the men killed during the run to the river and the river crossing. |
|
|
|
AZ Ranger
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - September 19 2008 : 12:57:12 PM
|
Guide Bloody Knife timber
Pvt. Bob Tail Bull left end of skirmish line
Pvt. George Lorentz timber
Sgt. Miles O'Hara skirmish line
Pvt. Henry Seafferman timber
Pvt. George Smith horse bolted timber-skirmish line
Pvt. David Summers timber
|
“ An officer's first duty is to his horses.”
SEMPER FI |
|
|
|
Sgtmajor109th
Captain
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - September 19 2008 : 3:27:12 PM
|
AZ, along with the one's you have listed who died in the timber, there
were 2 others. According to Herendeen, he had run on a group of soldiers
and told them he would get them out, however 2 decide not to go and
they went into the woods and were never seen again, the rest he did
manage to get to safety. And they also believe that Rapp had died in the
timber, according to Gray. In Gray's Sioux War of 1876, Pg 293, Matt
Carroll and Lt. Johnson, recording finding 25 bodies on Reno's valley
field when the Montana Column camped there. |
Sgtmajor |
|
|
|
joe wiggs
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - September 19 2008 : 4:12:49 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by AZ Ranger
Joe your post I challenged is not the total valley casualties as you try to weasel now. It is your quote upon the charge from the timber.
Joe Wiggs
The charge from the timber constitutes the distance from the timber and, the eventual arrival atop Reno Hill. The physical area in which this event occurred is called the "Valley" or the "Bottom" as testified to by Lt. Wallace. This would be the same valley/bottom that they charged down in the beginning of the battle.The very same VALLEYTHEY CAME DOWN!! This has been my position from the very beginning of this thread. The deaths that occurred here and, yes I repeat myself, were approximately 35 and not the ridiculous sum you came up with, 14.
It is you who refuses to dissect my sources and render them either false or mis-leading like you have "crowed" over and over again.
It is you who advises the board not to believe "everything you read in a book" then use a magazine for a reference.
AZ The charge is subset of the total valley casualties but you used total valley casualties in your post of the charge. This is common trait of yours.
Joe Wiggs
The charge began at the timber and, did not end until its conclusion which was the Top of Reno Hill. Everything between those two physical points is THE VALLEY!
AZ
You could have easily said I used the wrong figures for the charge. Instead you defend it by and think over time we will forget your original post. You then weasel out of your original charge casualty figures by using the whole valley causalities and defend them as sources. Although they are sources they do not support your post below:
quote:
When the troopers burst from the timber in a frenzy, for one moment in time, the warriors got spooked. Believing that the soldiers were on the attack they pulled back only to see the command go blistering past them, wide eyes soldiers clinging precariously to their mounts. made deliriously happen by this sudden and, unanticipated, change of events the warriors became engaged in a "fox hunt" wherein 35 of Reno's soldiers were needlessly lost.
Joe Wiggs
It is obvious that you are either unable or unwilling to read my posts with any sense of reality. I have used the same numbers with slight variation(depending upon whom is counted) over and over again. You continue to ignore this reality and, rather "whine" a chorus of "Pop Goes the Weasel."
Again, I think it is very revealing that you can not dis-credit my scourers which are the basis of my post. Instead you try to dis-credit me. This tactic has been used by your co-hort for five years and, has accomplished very little.
AZ
Name one source, as you challenged me to do, for your post of after the troopers burst from the timber being engaged in a "fox hunt" wherein 35 of Reno's soldiers were "needlessly lost" Do not use the total valley casualties they are not all part of the charge.
Joe Wiggs[/red]
You know, I'm really begging to believe that you are delusional. You know very well that post came from me. I have never said otherwise. It was the number of deaths which I referred to as "needless" and the "Foxhunt" metaphor I used is similar to Buffalo Hunt. In other words, for yourclarification, neither the soldiers nor the Fox stood a chanc. This thought seems to have confused you earlier.
However, knowing this your demand for a source is inexplicable
Az
Your assumption or source that accredits 29 deaths scaling the bluffs is so beyond the pale that I can not imagine who thought it up. Actually the snipers were targeting the mass of troopers who were trying to scale the east bank (eight feet high) making excellent targets in their frantic and exposed attempts.
You have to be kidding with that statement.
Joe Wiggs
No, I was actually serious. The few Indians on the bluff would have been forced to expose their upper torso's in order to shoot down the incline of the bluffs. The "flat" at the bottom of the bluffs and the river were much easier targets as they were floundering in the river. The warriors that killed DeWolf were driven away by the soldiers ascending the bluffs. Since you mentioned a "peculiarity"[/b] about my posts may I point out one of yours. Once you post your "hallowed" information you refuse to credit any information that counters your premise. Regardless of the credibility of the source. You have yet to analyze the statements from Graham, Donovan,Gray, and Reno himself.
AZ The O (officers) above the column represents 2 officers and the EM(enlisted men) above the column represents 9 enlisted men. SgtMajor used the same format look in his post looks like it came from the same book.
Anyhow, Az your quote eloquently implies, "you can't fix stupid" is quite correct."
Glad to see we agree.
Joe Wiggs
Come on AZ. There are a lot of things we can agree upon. There is so much information to share that we are bound to come upon a mutual thought or two
AZ
I thought your chipmunk comment was stupid. Your 29 deaths assertion above is now in the lead and proves my point of how you mislead either through ignorance or intent. You mislead in your interpretation of Reno's report. So the report does not need to be refuted. There are some thing left out of Reno's report but that is a different issue.
Joe Wiggs
Yea, it was rather stupid. I meant to say that your posts, sometimes, remind me of a chipmunk chattering in a forest fire; no relevancy whatsoever. See, the word relevancy as opposed to credibility and,chipmunk chattering in a huge Forrest fire is funnier.
Regarding my mis-leading of Reno's report explain to the board how I did it... Show the board you have the facts to substantiate what you say. Imagine how admired you will be when you step by step discredit my research and resources. You see, in case you somehow just don't realize it, everything I posted came from authors. I plea guilty to the attachment of a bit of "Purple Prose" now and then but, the write about the battle without reading a book.
AZ
You also stated to give you one source which I did and yet you still continue.
[quote]Joe Wiggs...I will not rest my case until you prove that 14 men died in the charge. Give me one resource to confirm that number. [b]One source, one anything except you chattering it like a chipmunk in a forest fire. Without substantiation you have about as much credibility.
[When have known a chipmunk to lie? Warning other chipmunks of danger is a bad thing?
Joe Wiggs[/red]
You got me there. I did rant and rave about your identifying a source. I couldn't understand why it took you so long. After you revealed your source I understood why.
All joking aside AZ, if my information is so incorrect and mis-leading you certainly know how to prove that. Not with slinging accusations but, with facts. I truly enjoy our discussions they make me do my homework. I hope you feel the same.
|
Edited by - joe wiggs on September 19 2008 5:27:08 PM |
|
|
|
joe wiggs
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - September 19 2008 : 7:39:05 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by prolar
In "They Died With Custer" by Scott, Willey and Connor, the men who died are identified by name and location.They list two officers and five EM as killed at the bluff. The officers are Lt Hodgson and Dr De Wolf.The EMs are Clear,Cody,Gordon,Meyer,and Turley. They list fiveteen EM killed on Reno Hill but this includes Vincent Charlie who was killed near Sharpshooter Ridge during Weir's retreat.They list nineteen EM and one officer as killed in the timber and skirmish line. This does not include civilians and scouts.They do not list seperately the men killed during the run to the river and the river crossing.
Prolar thank you for your input. Your throrough investigation precludes AZ's notion that 29 men died climbing the bluffs. |
|
|
|
joe wiggs
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - September 19 2008 : 7:56:27 PM
|
[quote]Originally posted by AZ Ranger
[quote]Originally posted by AZ Ranger
Try getting your fatality figures correct:
O EM
Skirmish line 0 2
In the timber 0 7
Run to river 1 14
Scaling Bluff 2 9
Joe wiggs
Holy Cow. Az is right, I am stupid! All this time I thought you had posted that 29 men died scaling the bluffs. My mistake. Now Reno had 140 men. According to your figures (above), 32 men died prior to reaching sancutary on Reno's Hill. Let's see, 32 from 140 leaves 118 men. Now we know that Reno lost a total of 47 men in his flight from the timber (Gray, aoendix "B", p407.) This means that Reno lost, from his command alone, 15 men on the hill. I very seriously doubt this.
|
|
|
|
AZ Ranger
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - September 19 2008 : 8:19:40 PM
|
Your thorough investigation precludes AZ's notion that 29 men died climbing the bluffs.
Joe you are doing it again and everyone else can see it. 2 officers and 9 enlisted men does not equal 29. I know you said you were slow on math but it equals 11. You have the page for the quote and you saw Sgtmajor use of the same table.
You now have a list of 7 men who died in the timber before the charge and 2 more identified by Sgtmajor. There were some that died just outside the timber before the charge began. using everyone that died after your bursting from the timber until the top of the hill there is no source for 35.
Myself the charge ends at the river since the horses are swimming and climbing but I would agree that the retrograde continues to the top of the hill.
By the way Dr DeWolf was shot from above in the chest.
AZ Ranger
|
“ An officer's first duty is to his horses.”
SEMPER FI |
|
|
|
AZ Ranger
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - September 19 2008 : 8:33:51 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Joe wiggs
[quote]Originally posted by AZ Ranger
[quote]Originally posted by AZ Ranger
Try getting your fatality figures correct:
O EM
Skirmish line 0 2
In the timber 0 7
Run to river 1 14
Scaling Bluff 2 9
Joe wiggs
Holy Cow. Az is right, I am stupid! All this time I thought you had posted that 29 men died scaling the bluffs. My mistake. Now Reno had 140 men. According to your figures (above), 32 men died prior to reaching sancutary on Reno's Hill. Let's see, 32 from 140 leaves 118 men. Now we know that Reno lost a total of 47 men in his flight from the timber (Gray, aoendix "B", p407.) This means that Reno lost, from his command alone, 15 men on the hill. I very seriously doubt this.
Joe your doing it again, misleading, those figures you are listing are under Reno's Command (June 25-26) beginning on page 406.
The name of the 15 that died on the hilltop and Vincent Charley who died in Weir's retreat are listed in They Died with Custer page 112. So doubt all you want which would not surprise me. All of these men died after the valley charge to the river and after the retrograde.
So start with the total dead of 47 including officers and enlisted men and subtract 16 for the Hilltop and Wier retreat that leaves 31 from that you have to subtract those that died in the timber. The remainder will not equal 35 so how could 35 die "needlessly" in the charge from the timber?
AZ Ranger
|
“ An officer's first duty is to his horses.”
SEMPER FI |
Edited by - AZ Ranger on September 19 2008 8:55:13 PM |
|
|
|
prolar
Major
Status: offline |
Posted - September 19 2008 : 9:17:50 PM
|
| AZ, of the sixteen killed atop the hill only three, one from G and two from M were part of Reno's command. I'm not claiming an exact count and neither is the book, but they do say that 90% of the men in the Reno- Benteen command were identified. |
|
|
|
prolar
Major
Status: offline |
Posted - September 19 2008 : 9:21:18 PM
|
| I should have said Reno's original command, since as ranking officer he was in command of all the troops on the hill. |
|
|
|
AZ Ranger
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - September 19 2008 : 9:52:17 PM
|
Prolar
We are both using the same figures which agree as close anyone can for figures obtained from this battle. I do believe that Reno was in command of the hilltop Reno-Benteen battlefield. My comment on the hilltop fatalities versus the charge to the river fatalities is only correct if Charley Vincent is counted but Charlie did not die in the valley and was listed in the hilltop casualties.
I do separate the charge to the river from the entire retrograde and have always presented it in that manner. It is the charge to the river that comes under most fire, no pun intended, as showing disorganization and could have been done better. I just have never seen someone lay out how that could be done better. In the short time outside the timber 2 more troopers are shot. Crazy Horse is on his way. So if only one of the companies formed up then so be it.
Reno lead from the front and ran toward the objective which was the rallying point on the hilltop. I think more people knew than not regarding the location. How else did those that remained in the timber know where to go and expect Reno's command to be there?
I have not seen some one pick apart the jumping into the river and coming out the few and narrow routes to the hillside with a way to do it better. I have seen some state to reform on the bluffs and cover but I have given my reasons for thinking it would not work.
Someone said that Reno when he went up the hillside was not still moving toward Indians. Dr DeWolf's dead body would refute that. He was shot in the chest from above on the bluffs.
Regards
AZ Ranger |
“ An officer's first duty is to his horses.”
SEMPER FI |
|
|
|
Sgtmajor109th
Captain
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - September 20 2008 : 1:47:11 PM
|
Well, first all you have take in the whole picture. One I do believe
that everyone agrees that you can,t count those killed on the skirmish
line or killed in the woods as part of the charge to the buffs. As for
those killed on the bluff, they would have to be counted as part of
the charge. So based on Gray's figures,there would have been 25 in the
charge for the bluffs, with 9 killed on the bluffs.
If you take those killed in the woods and the skirmish line, which
would be 9 and the 16 this would have been 25 which matches what
Matt Carroll and Lt Johnson, counting 25 bodies. On the other side
of the coin, pg 289, in "Gray's Sioux War of 1876" Table 3, gives
a break down of the companies. If my figures are correct, then 118
men made it to the Hill Top. I made have made a mistake so this figure
may not be correct. |
Sgtmajor |
|
|
|
prolar
Major
Status: offline |
Posted - September 20 2008 : 7:57:55 PM
|
AZ, You believe that Reno Hill was the objective when Reno left the timber? It seems to me that ford A was the objective. The Indians forced them toward the river and retreat ford that wasn't known to anyone with Reno. So it was only chance that they ended on Reno Hill.
Once there they were in a worse situation than in the timber. Fewer men and no organization.Only the arrival of Benteen and the distraction of Custer's force downstream saved them. |
|
|
|
Sgtmajor109th
Captain
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - September 20 2008 : 9:29:10 PM
|
Once Reno and his command had entered the woods he was no doubt
trying to figure out what his options were. And I believe he
was confering with Bloody Knife on what to do. He was well aware
of the fact that he could not go out the way he came in. By then
the indians had already closed in behind him. At that time, the
only way open was towards the river and the bluffs.
He could not move down stream towards Ford "A", first was the
village and by then Crazy Horse had moved up towards the timber.
And more worriors were gathering. I have no doubt when Reno did
come out of the timber it surprised the indians and they backed
off, but once they realized he was not charging them, the race
for the bluffs was on.
No, I do not believe for a moment that Reno's intentions was to
move, or attack towards Ford "A", I am sure he knew that would
be a disaster, I believe he knew he had two options, stay in the
timber, ot take the one way open to him, and that was the river
and the bluffs, I don't believe Ford "A" ever entered his mind,
or to attack into that village to get to Custer, for one he had
no idea where Custer was, he had no information or knowledge that
there was a Ford down stream, he had no knowledge of anything
beyond the point he was at, and even that was very little.
There is one thing he knew for sure, and that was he was being
attacked by a great number indians, his option then was to get
out as fast he could. And it wasn't toward Ford "A' or Custer. |
Sgtmajor |
|
|
|
prolar
Major
Status: offline |
Posted - September 21 2008 : 07:46:32 AM
|
| Sgt Major, Maybe I used the wrong term, or you and I use different terms. I consider ford A to be the ford where Reno originnaly crosed. That would be upstream from the timber and above "retreat ford" where he actually crossed. I agree that he had no intention of going toward the village. My guess is that he intended to go back to his original crossing then backtrack to the pack train. |
|
|
|
joe wiggs
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - September 21 2008 : 10:59:24 AM
|
[quote]Originally posted by joe wiggs
SgtMajor,
When the troopers burst from the timber in a frenzy, for one moment in time, the warriors got spooked. Believing that the soldiers were on the attack they pulled back only to see the command go blistering past them, wide eyes soldiers clinging precariously to their mounts. made deliriously happen by this sudden and, unanticipated, change of events the warriors became engaged in a "fox hunt" wherein 35 of Reno's soldiers were needlessly lost.
Joe Wiggs
The above is the paragraph that so incensed AZ that he responded with a sarcastic, "why don't you try get your figures straight."
Since then he has personalized the thread with sarcasm until I replied in kind. AZ persists in mis-leading the forum by suggesting that I made up this information despite my posting the references it came from.
"About half of Reno's shattered column had made it to the bluffs unscathed. Twenty-nine enlisted men and three officers lay dead in the valley below." A TERRIBLE GLORY J. Donovan, p.248
Reno then decided that the position in the woods was no longer tenable and ordered a "charge" (in this case the quotations marks were placed by the author) to the bluffs across the river. This disgraceful retreat resulted in the death of 35 troopers."
HOKAHEY!A GOOD DAY TO DIE, R. Hardorff
"I succeeded in reaching the top of the bluff with a loss of three officers and twenty-nine enlisted me."
Reno's Official Report to the RCOI,Graham, THE RENO COURT OF INQUIRY, p278
These figures address the men who died in the "charge." This would exclude the skirmish line and,the final place of re-grouping - Reno Hill.
Gray (Custer's Last Campaign) determines this area to be: "a 1-mile retreat to the crossing, and a 1/2 mile climb to Reno Hill. P. 288. This area is often referred to as the "valley" and the bottom in numerous sources.
"Indicative of Reno's complete loss of control is the fact that no attempt was made by those who had gained the eastern bank to cover the crossing in any way or to protect and aid the men whose horses were plunging and rearing in the stream."
CUSTER'S LUCK p. 372
My posting the above led to a frenzy of remarks from AZ. He has yet to address these references, he simply continues to smother the forum with juvenile advise such as,"you can't believe everything you read in books," and "Get your facts straight" and a myriad of other nonsensical innuendos of phantom mis-information and mis-leading others. Oh yes, he countered the deaths in the charge as 14, his resource being a magazine.
As this thread has reached the level of zero return, I find myself pondering what, to me anyway, is a mystery. Does AZ not realize that I simply regurgitated information from sources as does everyone else on this forum. Is he suggesting that I made it all up. "Who knows what lurks in the minds of evil men." |
Edited by - joe wiggs on September 21 2008 11:14:52 AM |
|
|
|
Sgtmajor109th
Captain
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - September 21 2008 : 11:01:24 AM
|
Prolar, Afterwards I realize that Custer was at Ford "B" so I
also used the same wrong Ford. With that you have to keep in
mind that it was known that Custer was heading up stream to-
wards Ford "B".
It may have been that Reno may have wanted to go back towards
his place of crossing, but as I stated the indians had closed
in on that area preventing him from going in that direction.
Which left him with only the one option of taking the route
he had to the river and the bluffs, sorry for using the wrong
Ford in my last post.
I believe the indians intentions was to keep him bottled up
in the timber, I do believe that some of the action that was
taken place at Ford "B" did take some pressure off, which
may have helped in his retreat to the bluffs. |
Sgtmajor |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Responsibility At Little Bighorn
