quote:

---

Originally posted by Benteen

Who would know, who did know? The troopers who right after that battle counted the spent shells, and several did it.

If your relying upon Indian statements, they vary from little to no ammo in the belts to full belts, or nearly full belts. Perhaps Benteen's "scattered corn" statement best fits what happened. Several positions were overran, one by one, and that kept up until they were finished. And it didn't take any longer than Benteen said it did.

---

quote:

---

Custer dispatched Kanipe and he, Kanipe rode north, this long after Martin had been dispatched.

---

quote:

---

Well, sir, when the men of those four troops saw the Indian camp down in the valley they began to holler and yell, and we galloped along to the far end of the bluffs, where we could swoop down on the camp * * * * (four words illegible).

I was riding close to Sergeant Finkle. We were both close to Capt. Tom Custer. Finkle hollered at me that he couldn't make it, his horse was giving out. I answered back: "Come on Finkle, if you can." He dropped back a bit.

Just then the captain told me to go back and find McDougall and the pack train and deliver to them orders that had just been issued by General Custer

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Heavyrunner

The "who's responsible" issue is, to me, simply the old U.S. habit of laying blame, rather than credit. However, it also occurs to me that Sioux and Cheyenne would have been very aware of Custer's tactics at the Wa****a (why, by the way, are asterisks used on that?). They could well have known that a column attacking one end of the village would be followed by a column attacking the other end. We fail too often, sadly, to give credit for such astute and quickly responding generalship. Gall and Crazy Horse are mostly responsible for Custer's problems at the Little Bighorn.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dark Cloud

It's innately sleazy to pretend to be someone you're not, by name or resume. One. Two, a new ID that is a bovine satire on my particular ID calls attention to itself. Three, traditionally these new ID's appear sequentially after a huffy and highly effeminate announcement of future non-participation while using a previous ID, generally after being justifiably humiliated. Given their expressed concerns with honor and courage it's embarrassing they can neither admit error or demonstrate either of the supposed divine characteristics in such a puny level as this, and choose to hide.

If I mistook your precise wording, I did not mistake "constantly inviting" which is, mildly put, excessive and untrue. You'd be hard put to find me addressing suspicious new ID's except in cases where the new member is attacking me from their first post, as was the case here.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by joe wiggs

Your obvious answer is far from obvious. Understanding is a precious process that allows humanity to accept and deal with heartbreaking situations. Standards are not the issue. It is the ability to "understand" that contributes heavily to the human condition.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by joe wiggs

A member of what, the forum? I honestly don't understand your point!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by joe wiggs

Let understand this, my whole point was the ignominay of a man referring to a woman as "sleazy" and you somehow equate that with my alleged inabilty to understand the tern "Testimony."

It very difficult to refrain from calling you "names" at this point.

How do the above totally different opines equate in your mind? Oh, yes;misunderstanding. According to you I do not have the elementary ability to understand the term testimony.

Let me remind you of something you apparently forgot, Websters has at least three meanings all of which are correct dependent upon how you use them.

Your usage referred to legal testimony, mine to "oral" testimony which may or may not be legal.

I could never get you to understand those simple ideas so I gave up a long time ago.

Please stop being so much in a rush to judge the mote in my eye when you have a log in yours.

Is there anyone out their who could help me to understand the point az is trying to make? Anybody but you az, anybody but you.

---

quote:

---

The best example to me is that in your case you do not understand the difference or at least don't acknowledge the difference in believe and believed as relates to the understanding of testimony. That Benteen's testimony might be related to what he thought in the past and also his current thinking is something different you apparently can not understand.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Heavyrunner

The "who's responsible" issue is, to me, simply the old U.S. habit of laying blame, rather than credit. However, it also occurs to me that Sioux and Cheyenne would have been very aware of Custer's tactics at the Wa****a (why, by the way, are asterisks used on that?). They could well have known that a column attacking one end of the village would be followed by a column attacking the other end. We fail too often, sadly, to give credit for such astute and quickly responding generalship. Gall and Crazy Horse are mostly responsible for Custer's problems at the Little Bighorn.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

---

One of the most succinct, concise, and credible threads I have ever had the pleasure to read.....(Joe Wiggs)

---

quote:

---

Gosh, a poll that actually assesses blame to someone OTHER than GAC and Major Marcus Reno! The more I read about LBH (and when it comes to that battle, I am a novice--I am more interested in GAC the PERSON), the more I am convinced that it was the US Army and its policies, in their infinite wisdom, that caused the debacle at LBH. As I have read it in other forums and books, GAC was using, with the three-pronged attack, a method tried and true throughout history, one hammered into his head whilst at West Point, specified in Upton's "Cavalry Tactics", and as ... gosh, who was it again, mentioned--a GREAT way of dealing with a FOREIGN enemy, not one of the Sioux's cunning and individualistic fighting techniques. In addition, Custer knew that Reno had failed him, perhaps all of Terry's command, when he did not complete the scouting mission that he was assigned from the Far West, and was powerless to change, due to Army protocol, the battle order--that the Major would take the initial offensive to the united tribes' village, leaving Custer unable to change orders or risk court martial himself (although I am constantly wondering that had GAC WON, would anyone have cared if he re-arranged his men). An army that does not change itself, does not allow for some command creativity is asking for a loss--and unfortunately, at LBH, it was a magnificent one. And now, just learning that Sheridan MIGHT have known just how huge the gathered village might have been, as soon as 6.08.76, and DID not notify Terry ... yep, Reno messed up ... Custer had some blame in the debacle, but I look at the US Army and say "shame on you!"

movingrobe

---

quote:

---

quote:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Heavyrunner

The "who's responsible" issue is, to me, simply the old U.S. habit of laying blame, rather than credit. The Sioux and Cheyenne would have been very aware of Custer's tactics. Gall and Crazy Horse are mostly responsible for Custer's problems at the Little Bighorn.

---

I hate to disagree, but most of the sources I have read (Michno, Hardorff, etc.,) indicate that the Sioux and Cheyenne had no earthly idea who they were fighting (most thought it was Crook) at Little Bighorn! And then there are some examples that a few participants didn't learn until well past thirty years after the battle that they had defeated Custer! In these sources there is a sense of surprise among those Native Americans whose tales were recorded. The NA victory at LBH came as much of a "surprise" to their participants--at about the same time ultimate defeat must have finally registered in Custer's mind.

Although there were war chiefs in the Indian village, there was no formal military command structure among any of the tribes--be it Oglala, Hunkpapa, Sans Arc, Minneconjou, Arapaho, Brule, Two Kettle or Cheyenne.

In "Lakota Noon," you'll find (according to Michno) that neither Chief Gall or Crazy Horse had major, major roles in the Indian victory (though I am not entirely sure if I can buck the traits of legend). Victory, according to Michno, seemed to depend upon mostly upon the directions and the "martyring" of Lame White Man.

Regards,

movingrobe

---

quote:

---

I agree--don't think Gall or Crazy Horse played much of an individual role. Indian "tactics" seemed to be just reactions to Reno's and Custers initiatives (such as they were). Sort of like beetles wandering into an anthill --ants all run to where the beetle is. Add a second beetle from a diferent direction, and they all run over there.

Edited by - Brent on September 16 2004 06:34:39 AM

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sgtmajor109th

Brent, I am sure you are right in what you say. I have said before
I am not all that keen on Benteen in some of actions, I guess what
really gets to you is why. I have also been puzzled by one fact that
Benteen said in his statement to "Brininstool". He said that when he
received the message from Martin, "I am convinced that the order
brought to me by Martin reached me, Gen. Custer and his whole command
where dead". The question is why did he think that, and was that an
excuse for dragging his feet?. He was given the order by Custer which
surely would indicate that he wasn't dead.

---

At this moment in time I feel that I am culpable for bashing Benteen beyond reason. I truly do not mean to do so. One can only imagine the hell he and the others went through during and after the battle. Pain, anguish, resentment, and regrets, I am sure, followed him to his grave.

Having said this, the only action that history should hold him accountable for is his undeniable false testimony at the Reno Inquiry. This testimony, taken under sworn oath, has saddled an already enigmatic, historical event with needless additional obscurity.


As has been pointed out, Benteen was convinced that Custer and his command had been dead when Martini handed him the note. How then does one rationale the fact that when Benteen arrived at Weir Peaks he climbed to the top of the left hill and jammed his troop guidon into the ground? Was it a signal to the Indians or a beacon to military survivors?

Benteen Testimony describing why he planted the guidon:

"I thought the command was still alive." [he had already testified that Custer's men were all dead, 1 1/2 hours earlier.]Gray, p323

It is certain that an individual whose character was as complex as Benteen be afforded every opportunity for understanding. At the same time, it is equally important to address the facts of this battle as well. After all, there are so few of them.

Edited by - joe wiggs on July 25 2008 11:16:17 AM

---

quote:

---

When Benteen testified at the RCOI he followed on after Martini. Martini had testified that he had taken of the order of 45 minutes to travel from Custer to Benteen (this was probably an over estimate but it is what he said). He had also, according to what he said he told Benteen, seen Custer's force engaged (most probably skirmishing in MTC).

Benteen's own assessment from the body locations was that the Custer fight did not last much more than 45 minutes. Thus there is some logic to Benteen's suggestion that Custer was already dead by the time he met Martini.

Nowadays we are pretty sure that Custer's command was not all dead by that time (although of course Custer himself could have been killed). However, Benteen certainly identified an area of some mystery because if Custer was not dead what was he doing for all the time that Martini took and then Benteen took to get to Reno Hill.

I guess this particular mysterious can of worms was one that the RCOI Recorder Jesse Lee chose not to investigate. I do not know whether Benteen really beleived at the time of the RCOI that Custer was already dead when he received Martini's message, but by making the remark he did he effectively stopped a number of possible areas of debate.

Regards

Mike

---