| Author |
 Topic  |
|
joseph wiggs
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
 Posted - October 02 2004 : 4:31:24 PM
|
What is it with these machismo characters (Warlord?) with their negative sobriquets designed to instill fear in the hearts of man. Oh My! Could it be that an awesome sounding name belies the reality of a little, pasty wanna-be who wishes he were somebody, anybody?
Warlord, I made a genuine effort to respond to your thread despite your obvious sarcasm and, unsolicited critique of my response. You replied with a disjointed, incomprehensible, smorgasbord of non-information that is indicative of one who is devoid of cohesive thought.
What is even more puzzeling, is that you augment your new arrival on the forum not with information but, a petty vindictiveness towards me.
Since my arrival,in May of this year, I have been engaged in an on going confrontation with Dark Cloud and Larsen over every point imaginable. To their credit they, at least, have a substantial base of information to parry with me. At times, I even enjoy their comments, but my friend, you are not in their league!
Earlier you referred to me as a "military genius", a thinly disguised attempt at being witty. Actually, my normal quips only appear to be brillant when compared to your trivial ones.
By the way, most places in the world offer therapy for persons suffering from Post - Traumatic Stress Syndrome. |
  |
|
|
joseph wiggs
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - October 02 2004 : 4:45:24 PM
|
Dark Cloud, you never cease to amaze me. You have truly confirmed a suspicion I have harbored for sometime, you have no life and yes, you are an "old" Man with an "Old Man" mentality.
To your credit, you have a remarkable ability to take statements out of context and creat an illusion of contradiction.
The first statement I wrote referred to Benteen's own admission that he observed 12 men or so being run through by the warriors on the valley floor. At that point, he rode to the bluffs to succor Reno.
You then accused me of inferring that Benteen deserted his men. My statement, "I did not charge Benteen with failure to render aid to the troopers left behind on the valley floor" was followed by my conclusion that he made a choice, right or wrong, a choice. You conviently left out "the follow up" to my statement. Desertion was YOUR WORD. New to the forum at that time, I had no idea how devious and low your mentality was. I now, of course, know you for what you are. As have many others.
More recently, you requested that I contact Lorenzo, if I knew him so well, to counter your statement that he was a fictitious figure created by me. You then responded to Lorenzo by stating that you were sorry that wiggs "Inveigled" a response from him.
You are right, the lies you write are "stupid" because they are there for all to see. Perhaps if you had a hobby you would not spend so much of your time creating confusion and mischief on the forum.   |
Edited by - joseph wiggs on October 02 2004 5:08:40 PM |
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - October 02 2004 : 4:54:45 PM
|
wILDI: No, I do not think the Seventh was a circus act as you seem to! I think they were brave U.S. Troopers fighting to protect The United States and its people, something you never have done and never will.
First of all Warlord you are quiet correct I have never fought to protect the US,nor is it my intention ever to do so.
The troopers of the 7th comprised mainly of the sweepings of European slums.How do I know?Well at least 1/4 of them were Irish and I know what the conditions in Ireland were like.
my guess is this army unit and Reno's broke the back and the will to fight of the Lakota indians as witness their running from a thousand of Gen. Terry's troops and their utter surrender in the spring.
No,there was never any real contest.The US army was always going to prevail over a primitive fragemented tribal system.Custer just got himself and his men killed for no good reason.
Of course, I understand you are much more familiar than us with dances, assasinations and being routed with forlorn stands in ireland!
How right you are.800 Years of dancing,forlorn stands ,assasinations and shedding of that last drop of patriotic blood to get rid of the buggers.
Regards |
|
|
|
Anonymous Poster8169
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - October 02 2004 : 6:17:13 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Warlord
In reply to my question regarding indian casualties. Not being able to fire sixty rounds from a springfield in anywhere from a hour and a half to three hours is absurd!
The question is not whether they were able to --- it's whether they did. Most sources estimate the battle to have reached its end in about an hour, so I don't know why you use such eccentric time figures. The soldiers who saw the field didn't see much evidence of intense resistance, except at Calhoun Hill; the largest single pile of cartridges anybody reported finding there was 28. The Indians said they got plenty of cartridges from the soldiers' belts. I don't see where your figure of 60 rounds, and resulting massive Indian casualties with that 10% hit rate could come from, other than your imagination. It's not a natural reading from the evidence.
R. Larsen
|
Edited by - Anonymous Poster8169 on October 02 2004 6:33:17 PM |
|
|
|
Anonymous Poster8169
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - October 02 2004 : 6:20:09 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Warlord
Oh by the way, someone said there were only two dead indian ponies. That is another total lie, the indian accounts all talk about having horses shot out from under them! Military sanitizing!! Just like Lakota not torturing their prisoners! Right!!!
How is it a "lie"?
Q. Did you find many dead horses on the field?
A. I counted seventy.
Q. Were they the horses of the 7th Cavalry?
A. They were the horses of those 5 companies and there were the bodies of two Indian ponies there.
That's from Benteen's RCOI testimony, pg. 419 of the Nichols paperback edition.
The only thing false I see is your claim that "all" Indians talk about horses being shot out from under them. Besides, even if Benteen did miss a pony or two, what's the difference? The lack of hard evidence for heavy Indian casualties remains the same.
R. Larsen
|
|
|
|
Anonymous Poster8169
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - October 02 2004 : 6:24:24 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Warlord
Your guess about none of them firing their carbines from horseback is just that , the guess of a foolish foreigner unfamiliar with American make do and can do!
Exactly how much firing do you think took place from horseback? You'll provide the evidence for your belief, of course.
quote:
A disorganized rout and forlorn stand is not how I would describe units giving their last patriotic drop of blood for their country! Of course, I understand you are much more familiar than us with dances, assasinations and being routed with forlorn stands in ireland!
Lots of American armies have been routed. Bladensburg, Bull Run, etc. To call it a rout is only to describe accurately what happened. Doesn't mean anybody has anything to be embarassed about. Under certain conditions --- such as being ridiculously outnumbered --- any army will rout.
R. Larsen
|
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - October 02 2004 : 8:20:50 PM
|
Wiggs, I make my living at the computer, so it's not a big deal to participate in the forum. On the upside, I get paid for it, mostly. But no, at my age with work I don't have much of a life. What's your point?
I never said Lorenzo was your creation; you're not smart enough. But you said he'd never contacted me, and called me a liar on this key point upon which civilization rests. He had, I'm not, you are.
And you fail yet again. You said Benteen failed to render aid, deliberately. Then you denied you'd said that. A lie, Wiggs. People just need to read the posts, and it's all there. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
joseph wiggs
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - October 02 2004 : 9:33:52 PM
|
Dear Dark Cloud, if you can achieve an erection to a higher plane of delight by calling me a liar, please be my guest. You can began each post with a liturgical Wiggsisalie,Wiggsisalie,Wiggsisalie! After all, I do not wish to deprive a man of you chronological stature from one of life's few, remaining pleasures.
If you wish, I can forward you some of my hair or fingernails to assist you in your trill. After all, your fixation with my "lying" must be appeased. What ever it takes buddy, I'm here for you.
As always, Joe
P.S
Thank you Lorenzo for your timely response. I need not say anything further. |
|
|
|
BJMarkland
Colonel
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - October 03 2004 : 12:42:47 AM
|
quote:
Sirs; Oh by the way, this thing about fighting from horseback by the Cavalry! They drilled with the Colt for that, I do not believe they did with the carbine. Yes, gentlemen they trained! However, there are many reports in various battles they did use the carbine from the saddle when necessary!
Warlord, that is the gest of my argument. The cavalry had evolved/devolved (depending upon your point of view), to where they had been in the late 1840's through the 1850's, into what were essentially dragoons...men who used the horse primarily as a transportation method and did the majority of their fighting dismounted.
As far as training on horseback shooting a carbine, well, show me documentation rather than wishes! I can show you the drill book for the cavalry and, as I mentioned earlier, I did not see anything about using a carbine from horseback beyond the "Mounted Skirmish Line", which from one of your scenarios, is exactly what happened. Your quote immediately below seems to confirm my argument.
quote:
Known as Nye-Cartwright Ridge, this location yielded more than two-hundred casings near its crest, many lying in groups of threes. These groupings and the spacings between them, revealed that three volleys had been fired in mounted line formation". I think you can see there was a lot of firing from horseback!
Now, I am sure that on occasions the carbine was fired from horseback while moving and my argument is simply that it was not a standard drill/tactic practiced by the cavalry.
Best of wishes,
Billy |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - October 03 2004 : 1:56:16 PM
|
As I recall, these cartridges were harvested without benefit of scientific recording over a long period, and their positions were held in the minds of those that did it rather than written down or placed on a map, and 'revealed' may be overstating it whereas 'seemed to them at the time' might be more accurate. Is this correct, or did I miss a search in the last quarter century of Nye Cartwright adhering to accepted procedure?
Even so, as elsewhere, there is no evidence that these cartridges were fired by soldiers, in 1876, or at the Sioux. They could have been fired by the Sioux, in 1876, driving the soldiers north with captured guns. They could have been fired by the Sioux the next day target shooting. They could have been fired by soldiers patrolling the field at a later time. While there is no sure contrary evidence, there are too many stories of the field being disturbed to place too much - or any - faith in recovered artifacts as indicative of battle progress. It could ALL be true, but as it sits, it cannot be considered more than possibility. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
Anonymous Poster8169
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - October 03 2004 : 2:06:48 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Warlord
I think you ought to defend those time rates, since you use them to make your claim about how many bullets Custer's men fired. Some people said the battle lasted three hours? Name them: let's stand them in line and see how they stack up against those who claim for a shorter period.
Your claims about the "probable" expenditure of ammo by Custer's men are not reasonable in view of the lack of any supporting evidence. That's my point. You can't pull these exorbitant average figures out of your hat, and expect them to be taken seriously as they are. The burden is on you to provide concrete support for any claim you make.
For example, you say that your 10% hit rate is supported by military manuals. Which manuals? Shouldn't you produce them to back up your claims? Since you mention them I infer you've read them.
Citing Windolph is pretty desperate; his account dates from the late 1940s, when he was over 90 years old, and who knows how in charge of his faculties; embellishments are rife in those kinds of late stories. In what way is Windolph's story consistent with earlier accounts? And exactly what are these "other reports" which you say conflict with Benteen's testimony? Elsewhere in your post you say that "The Indian narrative's are full of dead and killed ponies again, you look it up!" To which I ask, look what up? Direct me.
In any case, sure there's evidence for heavy Indian casualties. There's evidence for almost any point you'd want to argue about the Little Bighorn. With such a large pool of documentation there's also a lot of floating turds. But the evidence that I know of is pretty weak, and matches up pretty feebly against the evidence for lower figures. The condition of the field, as remembered by observers soon after the event, doesn't support it. In "Hokahey" Richard Hardorff publishes a list of the different Indian estimates for fatalities, and though there are a few outliers on both ends, they mass around the mid double-digit numbers. What credibility does your figure of 1,320 have?
As for firing on horseback, how could those cases found on Nye-Cartwright Ridge possibly show that they were fired from somebody on a saddle? Archaeology --- or in this case, relic collecting --- is nowhere near that good. Hardorff is just blowing smoke when he claims that the arrangement of the cases "reveal" they were fired from atop a horse. It's a malady of his, reaching conclusions not warranted by the evidence.
As for what I'm supposed to apologize for, you tell me. I don't have any idea. If the complaint is real, I won't hesitate to. And who are these members that are spreading false stories about dead horses? You just throw that out there from nowhere. I don't know what you mean.
R. Larsen |
|
|
|
Anonymous Poster8169
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - October 03 2004 : 2:13:47 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Cloud
As I recall, these cartridges were harvested without benefit of scientific recording over a long period, and their positions were held in the minds of those that did it rather than written down or placed on a map, and 'revealed' may be overstating it whereas 'seemed to them at the time' might be more accurate.
Even if they were recovered according to all the strictest archaeological procedures (which they were not) there's still no way anybody could determine that they were fired from on top a horse. Archaeologists WISH they were that good.
R. Larsen |
|
|
|
bhist
Lt. Colonel
Status: offline |
Posted - October 03 2004 : 5:05:43 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Warlord
Larsen; You are the floating turd. Your perfidy and just plain B.S. show you are not intersted in a genuine discusion! I think you are familiar with much of this detail but simply wish to start personal arguments and detract from the real discussions! I now suspect you are merely a armchair diletantte playing games. So go F--- yourself!!
Sincerely Warlord
I received an email from Rich, the owner of this board, and it looks like he's hitting hard times. It's sad for him and it might mean that this board will not exist for much longer.
I was seriously considering adding such a board to the Friends of the Little Bighorn Battlefield's website, however, with the kind of people like Warlord (read his immature quote above) I don't think it would be worth adding a message board.
I don't know where Warlord came from, but he's the most despicable poster I've ever come across on this board. It's truly sad; he adds not one bit of solid information to this board. He's totally lacking in any historical discipline and all he's good at is screeching at people.
It makes me want to delete this board from my bookmark list.
|
Warmest Regards,
Bob
www.vonsworks.com
www.friendslittlebighorn.com
www.friendsnezpercebattlefields.org |
|
|
|
joseph wiggs
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - October 03 2004 : 8:03:28 PM
|
| Bob, is there anthing that the members of the Forum can do for Rich? If so, please let us know. |
|
|
|
bhist
Lt. Colonel
Status: offline |
|
|
BJMarkland
Colonel
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - October 03 2004 : 8:11:16 PM
|
Warlord, for Christ's sake!!! We try to have, if not always friendly, at least not silly, vulgar postings such as you made. Post your sources, take your lumps for your arguments, and above all, apologize for the silly, immature posting you made!!
With hope for our future,
Billy |
|
|
|
Smcf
Captain
Status: offline |
Posted - October 04 2004 : 07:13:50 AM
|
| Back to the firing from horseback point. Red Horse pictographs show both Indian and soldier shooting from horseback. On the other hand, he makes the point that the soldiers didn't use much ammunition, taking guns and cartridge belts from dead soldiers and noting how few shells were missing. |
|
|
|
dave
Captain
Australia
Status: offline |
Posted - October 04 2004 : 07:56:25 AM
|
The fact that the 7th carried carbines instead of the full length Springfield issued to foot soldiers suggests to me that troops were meant to use their weapons from both foot and horseback. I would just imagine that being dismounted was the preferred mode for reasons of accuracy and ease of reloading.
I can't imagine with all the confusion, dust and what have you that many of soldiers got off more than a handfull of shots. |
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - October 04 2004 : 08:30:16 AM
|
There might be some hope of firing volleys from horseback if the horse is stationery but even then it is not a good weapons platform also a bit stupid to engage in a fire fight from horseback it makes too big a target.
But just look at what is involved in firing a single shot carbine from horseback.You have to use both hands ,so your controll of the horse is limited.You have to look down and take a round from a bandolier,open the breech,insert the round and then take aim and your horse has a mind of its own and you are galloping over rough terrain.Mission impossible I say.
Perhaps this should be on the other thread but as we are dealing with weapons of that period.I was looking at a documentry about Isandlewanda the other night and they carried out test firing of the rifle used in this battle.They found that because of the power used it jammed after 24 rounds of continious firing.I could imagine some of the surviving troops on LSH facing the same problem.
I found this board to be most enjoyable and have appreciated the knowledgable contributions of all ,however the last two posts of Warlord are worthless to say the least. |
|
|
|
Smcf
Captain
Status: offline |
Posted - October 04 2004 : 09:23:52 AM
|
| @WildI - Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't remember reading about any problems the Rorke's Drift defenders had with the same weapons, and over a much longer period of time. Could it not be that the demonstrators failed to take into account the age of the weapon they were testing? |
Edited by - Smcf on October 04 2004 09:25:26 AM |
|
|
|
dave
Captain
Australia
Status: offline |
Posted - October 04 2004 : 10:41:26 AM
|
Black powder doesn't burn as cleanly as cordite or the more recent gunpowders do. Blackpowder fouling was just part of life, there wasn't much that anyone do about it - apart from making guns with oversized barrels and receivers. But that destroyed the accuracy of the weapon.
It wasn't until the first of the nitrocellulose based smokeless powders were invented around the mid 1880's that the fouling problems were overcome. This is probably one of the reasons that the early repeating rifles weren't very popular in military circles. Too many jams during intensive fire fights.
The Martini Henry of Rorkes Drift fame somewhat unfairly gained a reputation for jamming. One of the later marks of MH had an extended lever action to assist extracting jammed cartridges. This modification was made after one the campaigns in the Sudan where the extreme heat resulted in a large number of Martini Henry's jamming. |
Edited by - dave on October 04 2004 10:43:13 AM |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - October 04 2004 : 11:29:11 AM
|
Warlord, I fail to see how you were treated like dirt. You may, or may not, be a vastly experienced soldier, but you're on a civilian board and it's not out of place to request you control your venom. I'm probably the most liberal commie/pinko/third worlder/wine drinking Frenchman (let's see: I also once owned a foreign car....) here, so it's odd you haven't gone after me. The worst thing that's happened to you is that you were requested to validate your figures and theories, just like officers do of their students and non-coms, and just like we do to each other, and you refuse. It's a reasonable assumption by us that you can't.
Just stating or implying you're a knowledeable soldier of vast experience doesn't grant you superior status. Prove it by showing us. Nothing rude about that. Soldiers aren't naturally smarter and better. Nobody thinks Audie Murphy would have been a great President, for example.
In any case, the specifics of whether or not carbine firing from a horse could be done (of course it could), or whether or not it could be loaded on the run (of course it could), would be dependent upon, well, training to do so. The impression I have, not challenged yet, is that the 7th wasn't precisely honed to a fine point in these matters. Ample evidence exists that the 7th was composed of awful shots.
Firing from Nye-Cartwright is problematical for me, because the Sioux would be at a distance suitable for skilled riflemen, and even with the few who were, the Seventh wasn't composed of Natty Bumpos and such firing would be a waste, by and large. My theory (not original) is that they (Keogh's group) would have been trying to discourage those chasing Yates' crew on their swing north, and that they continued parallel till they were stopped.
I'm not sure the specifics of munitions and horse are all that important, really, although people are fascinated by it. I suspect the battle was lost when the attempted crossing/feint/whatever at MTC was knocked north, pulling the rest of Custer's group with them to provide covering fire and beyond help. No soldier myself, I don't understand why a soldier would choose that position and can't really believe a soldier did; they were driven there. I think because Custer was wounded early.
Have no doubt people fought hard, but there's small evidence the 7th was capable of fighting as well as you credit them. That's not a slam against their will and courage, but against the training they don't seem to have received and the ammo they didn't get to practice with. They were so unorganized Custer marched over a hundred cavalrymen on foot hundreds of miles (I recall) to a rendevous with horses that didn't exist at the beginning of this mission. Probably could have used those guys with horses, and yet it wasn't done.
Lt. Godfrey complains about fire control constantly, and the impression is that they weren't good at it because they weren't trained.
At any rate, let's calm down. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
JakeW
Private
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - October 04 2004 : 1:50:33 PM
|
Warlord, what's gettin you into trouble more than anything right now, is your lack of documentation. You spout off supposed "facts" one after another, and then back it up with one source. Not a good show of force.
Telling Larsen to go "F___ yourslef", sounded pretty much like a screeching girl. And then your attack on bHist was even worse. That man has more knowledge on the Little Bighorn subject than you could ever hope for. Then watching you as you attempt to get on Dark Cloud' good side, in a supposed effort to make at least ONE ally on this board, is pretty entertaining.
I'm mostly content to just sit back and read the posts and not get involved, but your on going rants were just too much. What I'd like documentation on.
1. Where is your proof that the soldiers carried at LEAST 2 pistols??? Because, they were only issued 1.
2. You state how the cavalry was trained in the use of these weapons from horseback. Do you have any idea how LITTLE training the acerage trooper in the 7th actually had?
3. You state that the horse did the running while the man did the killing. When was the last time you fought from the back of a running horse? The firing goin on from horseback was most probably, just making noise and smoke. They certainly weren't "trained" to hit a moving object while galloping about on horseback. You seem to believe that the average 7th cavalry trooper was a clone of Wild Bill Hickock. Well sir, this ain't Dodge City.
One of the few things I'll agree with you about is that yes, the Springfield carbine IS easier to load while mounted than the colt 1873 revolver. I know.
So please, if all your going to do is rant and rave about how your being treated, (from what I've seen you just continue to bring it on yourself), then please cease posting on the board, because all your doing is taking up valuable space.
Jake |
"We've Caught 'em Napping Boys!" - Custer's Last Phrase |
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - October 04 2004 : 4:45:58 PM
|
Have no doubt people fought hard,
No doubt individuals sold their lives dearly DC but Cusrer's troops performed no better than Reno's---Charge aborted,unable to hold skirmish line,unable to defend wood,retreat becomes rout.
I will say this though ,if Reno had been in Keogh's position there would have been a good few survivors.
One of the few things I'll agree with you about is that yes, the Springfield carbine IS easier to load while mounted than the colt 1873 revolver. I know.
Just on that point Jake,you get 6 shots for one load with a revolver,with a single shot carbine you have to reload every time.And it should be remembered that when Benteen was approaching Reno position he ordered his troops to draw revolvers.
- Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't remember reading about any problems the Rorke's Drift defenders had with the same weapons,Good point Smcf.Now that you mention it I don't recall reading that the garrison had any problems in that regard.Just off the top of my head Iwould say this was because there were lulls in the fighting and not all of the garrison was engaged at he one time.
In the Dublin rebellion of 1916 7 rebels occupied a house overlooking a bridge and engaged two battalions of the Sherwood Foresters [1200 men]trying to advance on the city.They were armed with Mausers.The firing became so intense that they had to cool the rifles with water and pull them through to prevent jams.But if you even take say the Bren gun that has a spare barrel or even the Vickers machine gun that was water cooled.
|
|
|
|
bhist
Lt. Colonel
Status: offline |
Posted - October 04 2004 : 4:53:30 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Warlord
wild i: You indeed are the worthless one, you slimy third worlder! I have already smoked you out(Slimy Maggot)! Go have a warm beer and snicker over the killed seventh trooper's while you pretend your something you are not, and vote for political parties who disarm you and your people, pompous fool! Major, HAH!
WildI: Just so you know, the vast majority of Americans do not act like Warlord. We appreciate the Irish contributions for the betterment of America and love your country and, most of all, your people. And, we are a much more articulate society than Warlord portrays. |
Warmest Regards,
Bob
www.vonsworks.com
www.friendslittlebighorn.com
www.friendsnezpercebattlefields.org |
Edited by - bhist on October 04 2004 4:54:53 PM |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Responsibility At Little Bighorn
