| Author |
 Topic  |
|
joe wiggs
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
 Posted - December 06 2009 : 5:15:49 PM
|
You got a way of saying things that never fail to hit the target. what I enjoy by sharing thoughts on this thread are the posts that make me think in a different direction just as you often do.
what a pleasurable experience of education is shared by all when personal agendas and personalties are excluded. I find myself enjoying a new enthusiasm on this board that has elevated me to a new level that I hope will encourage other members to join in.
There are so many even keeled Bighorn enthusiast out there that I hope we will hear from soon! |
  |
|
|
Benteen
Lt. Colonel
Status: offline |
Posted - December 07 2009 : 02:03:36 AM
|
I too would like to see those who were once here also return, and any new one's also join. The following is a part-summation of this thread based upon some of those first posts. It is of course lacking one in whom I do remember agreeing with most of the time, and that was a member by the name of Warlord. It is a shame that his posts, the good one's anyway were not preserved.
From frankboddn’s early assessment of “just toooo many Indians” along with Robert Downard & pjsolla‘s concurrance take the early lead in the polling in that category.
Anonymous Poster2396’s opinion of Custer’s ‘inexperience’ along with lorendead’s scathing assessment of Custer blame, further stated in regards to Reno‘s orders to attack the village, “This tactic was in my estimate a tactic to cause confusion, and gain time for Custer to deploy his troopers elsewhere.”
Anon. poster 4401 chimes in with Wallace words "We'll support you with whole command". Where upon one learns at the COI that even he (Wallace) was confused about the pronoun used, whether it would have been “I”, “we” or another, the inference being ‘another’ or a different word or choice of word or for that matter words. Getting that word or phrase correctly interpreted would of course shed a more truthful light upon the discussion. And of course all one was left with was and perhaps still is to this day is Anon. 4401’s final comments: “I'm sure Custer meant "support" from his own attack elsewhere. I wonder tho if Reno may have thought he would come to his aid immediately. When Reno is stopped and he sees Custer riding along the ridge (away from him) I can imagine him (Reno) thinking "There goes our support". And where in the hell is Benteen??Sent by Custer on a wild goose chase.” An ever popular belief still to this day, even in the face of the truth of the matter, which Reno admitted to in his own official report, that he did indeed expect Custer to go the way he did.
Of course El Crab brings up the sabre’s, a good question in light of the fact that it was to be an offensive operation. And gives every good reason to have taken them along. However on his next post he blows that offensive action right out of the water with a defensive mind set, this based more upon what was known after the battle than what any actual plans Custer may have envisioned at the time. And many to this day still do feel this way, “To me, he seemed to be trying to relieve the pressure while he waited for the rest of the regiment to move north to him. I think he realized the surprise was lost, hence he moved on the top of ridges and bluffs in plain sight. He engaged the Sioux and was looking for terrain for the entire regiment to operate on. He could only assume that Benteen would follow his order to join the fight, and that Reno would do the same.” Notice here how El Crab switched Custer’s intent of an offensive to a defensive strategy. How come he would be “trying to relieve the pressure” presumably upon Reno? He’d already gave Reno those orders barely 15 to 20 minutes prior, and Custer’s own statement, “We’ve got them now…” just doesn’t jive with El Crab’s defensive assessment.
Pjsolla chimes in and follows up with more of the same with Custer ‘standing atop Weir point’ “made no motion to assist, but allegedly turned away” being a primary clue to the whole matter. Of course he follows that up with the standard of the day ‘motion to assist’ where Custer does cartwheel’s and handsprings to “assist” Reno, presumably to ‘relieve pressure’ on Reno’s tiny force, this of course on Luce, in MTC and quite naturally at MTF.
Of course I’ve already mentioned Movingrobe’s outstanding comments, but one in particular did stand out in the early discussions and it was this singular observation by Wild1, “It was not Reno's intention to fight on foot and nothing Custer did that day indicated he was manuevering to fight on foot.” Perhaps one of the finest observations ever stated.
Of course there was a lot more, and more than one could possibly summarize here. But I think one gets a clear understanding of how things may have worked out if the thread had not been ‘turned’ as the Indians used to say. |
Edited by - Benteen on December 07 2009 02:08:24 AM |
|
|
|
AZ Ranger
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - December 07 2009 : 07:23:07 AM
|
I would think that most who look here would see the mutual love fest of Joe and Benteen and may agree with those who think they are the same person and move on. If you want to congratulate yourselves there is PMs but then you might not even have to hit the send button.
If you want true discussion then it can not be from persons that blindly agree with each other. If you start out by calling someone a liar in their statement, account or testimony then expect it to be challenged. It is much easier to start with was it correct and look for alternatives.
AZ Ranger |
“ An officer's first duty is to his horses.”
SEMPER FI |
|
|
|
joe wiggs
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - December 07 2009 : 5:01:27 PM
|
Ben teen, I believe that az should be ignored until he somehow manages to grow up. He's being given every opportunity to mature but refuses to do so. I'm making this statement public rather than on a "PM "because It is my hope that guests will see "the writing on the wall" and will begin to contribute once these two obnoxious jerks are no longer acknowledged. Let me know what you think.
|
Edited by - joe wiggs on December 07 2009 5:02:44 PM |
|
|
|
AZ Ranger
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - December 08 2009 : 08:40:51 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by joe wiggs
Ben teen, I believe that az should be ignored until he somehow manages to grow up. He's being given every opportunity to mature but refuses to do so. I'm making this statement public rather than on a "PM "because It is my hope that guests will see "the writing on the wall" and will begin to contribute once these two obnoxious jerks are no longer acknowledged. Let me know what you think.
So Joe are you making fun of Ben teen? In review of your above post follow your own advice
When you find the capability to discuss issues like a mature adult, feel free to share that information. |
“ An officer's first duty is to his horses.”
SEMPER FI |
|
|
|
joe wiggs
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - May 08 2011 : 8:33:23 PM
|
| I absolutely love Custer's motivation theme. It is so inspiring! Hello everbody! |
|
|
|
joe wiggs
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - May 21 2011 : 8:12:59 PM
|
| General Custer was an individual who possessed a great quality that remains envious to many men of today; extraordinary courage. That is what made him a celebrity in his own era and, also a living personification of true "heroism." |
|
|
|
joe wiggs
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - May 29 2011 : 2:54:11 PM
|
| It is unfortunant that some individuals insist on blaming any one individual for the failure at the Little Big Horn. |
|
|
|
joe wiggs
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - June 19 2011 : 11:12:26 AM
|
| "An officer's first duty is to his horses." What a wondeful cliche, Doesn't do much for the men left behind in the timber though does it? |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
|
|
joe wiggs
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - June 21 2011 : 8:15:31 PM
|
It got you here! LOL
You are so right it got me what I deserve;you! |
|
|
|
joe wiggs
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - June 21 2011 : 8:21:33 PM
|
| PS. Gee, maybe az will pop in and say hello? You think? |
|
|
|
joe wiggs
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - June 21 2011 : 8:25:07 PM
|
| PPS How do you know the status of our board? Have you been slumming? For shame! |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
|
|
joe wiggs
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - June 22 2011 : 6:52:05 PM
|
The reality (something even you can not change) is that you departed "long before" my last post, yet you freely respond. What then is the attraction?
You miss the arguements! |
|
|
|
joe wiggs
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - June 24 2011 : 7:07:18 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by polar
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.
It is difficult to believe I wasted so much of my time during these days of futility. Anyone who can realistically believe that Reno Hill was Reno's original point of sanctuary is beyond help.
Needless to say, Polar was absolutely correct! |
|
|
|
AZ Ranger
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - July 12 2011 : 10:14:07 AM
|
Joe it is predictable that you waste everyones time but because you put forth false statements that defame officers you must be countered.
AZ Ranger |
“ An officer's first duty is to his horses.”
SEMPER FI |
|
|
|
joe wiggs
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - July 16 2011 : 7:41:23 PM
|
| Were you really a marine? I see you use Semper Fi a lot. |
|
|
|
AZ Ranger
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - July 18 2011 : 07:56:44 AM
|
Yes Joe I am a Marine since we never really quit being one. Did a tour of Viet Nam in 1969. Also been a Ranger for 32 years.
AZ Ranger |
“ An officer's first duty is to his horses.”
SEMPER FI |
|
|
|
joe wiggs
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - July 18 2011 : 8:44:59 PM
|
| We are proud of you and all who are like you! |
|
|
|
joe wiggs
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - August 13 2011 : 11:52:08 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Cloud
There is no evidence that this was the "the greatest conglomeration of hostiles ever known." It was the biggest any of the survivors had seen, is all.
quote:
I have no idea from whence you obtain your information(?)from other than a fervent imagination, please try and adjust your enthusiasm with an inkling of facts in the future. If you can name a location, date, and tribe membership of a "larger" grouping of "hostiles" ever known please do so.
Just like calling the Indians the world's greatest cavalry is bogus on its face, because nobody had seen even a meaningful plurailty of the world's military horsemen. Hyperbole, and a kindness to the fact they rode without saddles. In any case, the world's greatest cavalry seemed to lose all the time.
quote:
The Indians trained to ride, shoot, and fight from horse back almost from birth. No European styled, mounted horseman was privy to such intense training. Contemporaneous witnesses avowed to the ability of these warriors. Unlike you, they were there.
Custer was no scapegoat for the campaign. Even at the time, the blame for the campaign's failure was not put on Custer. Crook's battle couldn't be blamed on him. Custer is the scapegoat for the Battle of the Little Bighorn only, with reason and hard to argue against it.
quote:
My, my, my! Custer participation in the battle was conceived as a "campaign" just as well as other commandeers who were involved. Please do not waste ever one's time with semantics when the "obvious" is clear and understood by most. During the Reno Inquiry, numerous testimony alleged that Custer made mistakes for his portion of the campaign. No one mentioned Crook;did they?
How does accepting the army's hardwired belief the Indians would run allow one to "begin to understand..."
1. Crook's appreciation of his foe.
2. The Sioux running from Terry and Gibbon
3. that Custer was slaughtered....
....that the facts alone didn't provide?
quote:
I have no idea what you are trying to prove with the above statement.  No one on this forum has ever attempted to correlate the first assumption with the three summations you have pointed out. Crook's appreciation of the foe means what? He liked them, he hated them, he wanted to date them?
Custer could have retreated right up to the point he crossed MTC. His decision to do else was his error.
quote:
He could have retreated as you say and subsequently received a court martial for doing so. Why would a field commander "retreat" before he has engaged the enemy? This question, of course, excludes Reno. Arm Chair generals who look back over a hundred years into the past are constantly coming up with a myriad of "he should haves" since wars began.
|
|
|
|
joe wiggs
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - August 14 2011 : 11:46:39 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Cloud
For all the books you supposedly own and have read on the LBH, you'd think you could have quoted some of them that back you - at least one that suppports your moronic view of Indian casualties - or could distinguished between Gray (who you obviously have not read) and Michno, and not been forced to pretend and bluster a child's gamesite introduction was a valid source of information.
The above, inexplicable, uncalled for tirade against a poster who has always displayed class and reasonableness on the forum exemplifies the enigma that is you;contemptible.
Individuals who relish in demeaning others behind a screen of safety are generally cads! |
|
|
|
joe wiggs
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - August 21 2011 : 10:35:51 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 [quote]
Irresponsible posts such as this one defy rationality and only serve to confuse issues. The truth:
"According to the best best evidence available, one trooper died on the line, and maybe three or four were mortally wounded during those five or so minutes in the woods. The overwhelmingly majority of those lost were effectively abandoned to their fate during the withdrawal phase of Reno's engagement with the Indians.
Besides the officers (McIntosh, Hodgson, and De Wolf) some thirty enlisted men, three arikara scouts and two civilians were killed.
To Hell with Glory p.257 |
Edited by - joe wiggs on August 21 2011 10:47:03 AM |
|
|
|
AZ Ranger
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - August 23 2011 : 12:54:20 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by joe wiggs
[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 [quote]
Irresponsible posts such as this one defy rationality and only serve to confuse issues. The truth:
"According to the best best evidence available, one trooper died on the line, and maybe three or four were mortally wounded during those five or so minutes in the woods. The overwhelmingly majority of those lost were effectively abandoned to their fate during the withdrawal phase of Reno's engagement with the Indians.
Besides the officers (McIntosh, Hodgson, and De Wolf) some thirty enlisted men, three arikara scouts and two civilians were killed.
To Hell with Glory p.257
Something looks suspicious about your quote format (see what my quote above of you looks like) of me. Normally it appears in small print with lines before and after. Could you tell me what page you got that from? Also when you look at the data presented the run to the river fatalities were 1 officer and 14 enlisted men. The skirmish line, timber, and climbing the bluffs are not part of the charge to the river. The first two occur before the charge and the last after the river crossing.
Reno had a total of 44 elisted men killed according to Gray. Subtracting the 23 killed before reaching the river that leaves 21 across the river.
My point Joe was that the run to the river was not the great soldier killer that it is portrayed to be. It is little over 1/4 of the fatalities. The critics down't complain about the skirmish line or timber fatalities rather focus on the retrograde to the river.
Sorry if I confused anyone about the data.
AZ Ranger |
“ An officer's first duty is to his horses.”
SEMPER FI |
Edited by - AZ Ranger on August 23 2011 1:15:14 PM |
|
|
|
joe wiggs
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - August 23 2011 : 7:14:43 PM
|
I truly understand your motive and will take an opportunity to explain mine. I know I sometimes, in my enthusiasm, portray myself as dumping the whole load on Reno and Benteen. There is much blame to go around. What gets me though is the "untruths" used to cover their indiscretions.
Reno's charge, I feel, was simply the result of his falling apart and attempting to get away. I have no way to prove this and must accept the factor when I post in the future. |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
Responsibility At Little Bighorn
