|
Post by crzhrs on May 17, 2007 6:41:34 GMT -6
Beecher's Island was a different battle. While the military did send experienced frontiersmen led by officers to look for Indians, it was the warriors who made the first move.
In addition the Whites had the latest rapid fire weapons and were able to hold off repeated assaults.
The experienced men, firepower, and good military leadership saved the command, even though the situation looked dire for them.
|
|
|
Post by Banned on May 17, 2007 7:13:16 GMT -6
i can agree with you Mike but it seems that Reno even tryed to build a defense of the wood warriors across the river could be a little danger because they could not charge , could not use arrows looping because of the trees , they could only do what they did fire a few shots, when oglala arrived they discharged the winchesters , the oglalas were the most well armed , at this point they didn't have guns and ammunitions from the soldiers , so even the indian fire could not be dangerous , infact until oglalas discharged their rifles we have no soldier's accounts of a great indian fire so what could warriors do? charge the wood from the open ? 2 or 3 sides seems protected by the river , Gibobn and Benteen gave their accounts because they saw the exact reno's position in the wood , indian accounts confirm that could not charge could not use arrows thay could only use rifles but with no much ammunition to waste against soldiers under trees they could only try to set fire and infiltrate the wood to me it seems the position could be defended , i think it was a huge mistake to leave the wood but i can understand why Reno moved away , it must have been a terrifying situation , probably the Bloody Knife's killing was the turning point that brought to the well known outcome I agree with that, and that's what everybody - from the witnesses to the analysts - said. Frontiermen with experience like Herendeen, Gerard or Reynolds spoke loudly against such a movement (without the rout, it was a mistake, with the rout, it was a murder)
|
|
|
Post by mcaryf on May 17, 2007 7:57:55 GMT -6
Hi Shatonska
The keys to the timber position are really the South, the North and the length of the perimeter to defend. In the South the woods were contiguous with other thin timber. The warriors could get into that timber from either encircling the previous skirmish line and more directly once it had gone and also from a ford to the East bank.
Reno had to decide instantaneously whether to stay or go. If he was to stay then the men needed to be distributed round the perimeter with some sort of strong point to guard the southern end. This strong point would be subject to enfilade fire from across the river but if it was not held the warriors could get to the top of the bank from where they could fire right down into the position with all their ranged weapons including bows.
The Northwest end of the position was only partially defended by de Rudio and his few men and they saw a strong force of warriors approaching. There were no cavalry defenders at the NE corner opposite the river so infiltration had not been prevented and there were Indians in that East bank area and in the timber to the North on the West bank. This meant that warriors on the East bank could potentially enfilade the troopers guarding the Northern edge of the timber position. There was again an old water course that had created a high bank that would be exposed to fire from across the river. De Rudio stated that 30 or 40 Indians had got to within 50 yards of the bank on the North side and Culbertson saw 800 mounted come swinging round from the North where the line had been pretty soon after it had withdrawn. With the warriors that close clearly the whole Northern flank was about to be compromised and it would have been very difficult to reestablish any sort of position at the bank once the Indians were on it. Remember this was 12 foot high and so dominated the positions at lower levels in the timber.
Regards
Mike
|
|
|
Post by shatonska on May 17, 2007 8:56:08 GMT -6
Mike
it is difficult to have clear idea , we even don't have a minumal tentative to build defesive lines to try to giudge the defesive goodness of the place ,Reno had 120 men with all ammunition on horses , he judged the place no good for defence while other ,whites ( in a more lucid state of mind and with a greater knowing of terrain and indians) and indians , said differently my idea is that he could resist some hours while in less 20 minutes on the hill they were all dead (more than 2/3 of soldiers already lost and most without guns ), take out Benteen now Reno didn't know Benteen was coming , he moved to a certain death in a few minutes
arguing after the facts it was an illogic move tourned good for those who survived but a more logic move could bring to ? who knows ?
i preferr to study Custer's actions from mt coulee on , i have learned very much reading your ideas and books ,the result is a greater confusion , from 2-3 theories now 8-9 play chess in my mind
|
|
|
Post by mcaryf on May 17, 2007 9:18:55 GMT -6
Hi shatonska
I think the honest truth is that nobody can really say now whether the position could be held or not. Herendeen and Girard had opinions on the matter but had only occupied one end of it. Their ideas were based primarily on what Indians typically did in a battle of this nature which would be to stand off, of course this might have turned out rather like Custer's idea that the Indians would run away.
Whether the position could be held for any length of time depended on both the terrain and the morale of the defenders. In the Reno Hill position there were problems with men skulking off to be among the packs and Company G was the incredible shrinking troop with anywhere between 3 and 7 turning up for duty when there should have been 3 times that number. This has to be a factor that is considered before anybody can state that it would have held.
I put the arguments in this thread because there are some posters on here who think it was all very simple and the battle was lost due to Reno's craven behaviour.
If I am honest I do not know what was the right decision for Reno to have taken, I think there are arguments that the position could have quickly collapsed or that it could have held out for 2 - 3 hours.
If it had been my decision I would probably have stayed there but that is partly because it would have taken a certain type of courage to even decide to make a dash for it and I would probably have hung on and hoped for the best.
I think as it turned out Reno probably took the right decision, as far as his own men were concerned, to leave because I think staying would have made little difference to Custer's situation and it might well have compromised the ability to unite the other three forces.
Regards
Mike
|
|
|
Post by shatonska on May 17, 2007 9:39:02 GMT -6
Hi shatonska I think the honest truth is that nobody can really say now whether the position could be held or not. Herendeen and Girard had opinions on the matter but had only occupied one end of it. Their ideas were based primarily on what Indians typically did in a battle of this nature which would be to stand off, of course this might have turned out rather like Custer's idea that the Indians would run away. Whether the position could be held for any length of time depended on both the terrain and the morale of the defenders. In the Reno Hill position there were problems with men skulking off to be among the packs and Company G was the incredible shrinking troop with anywhere between 3 and 7 turning up for duty when there should have been 3 times that number. This has to be a factor that is considered before anybody can state that it would have held. I put the arguments in this thread because there are some posters on here who think it was all very simple and the battle was lost due to Reno's craven behaviour. If I am honest I do not know what was the right decision for Reno to have taken, I think there are arguments that the position could have quickly collapsed or that it could have held out for 2 - 3 hours. If it had been my decision I would probably have stayed there but that is partly because it would have taken a certain type of courage to even decide to make a dash for it and I would probably have hung on and hoped for the best. I think as it turned out Reno probably took the right decision, as far as his own men were concerned, to leave because I think staying would have made little difference to Custer's situation and it might well have compromised the ability to unite the other three forces. Regards Mike don't know , my idea is that if Reno stayed the battle could be won because warriors could not leave and go against Custer , but who knows ? the outcome could even be worse for the army and for indians too
|
|
|
Post by crzhrs on May 17, 2007 9:43:03 GMT -6
From Herendeen's testimony at the COI:
Q: Describe . . . the manner in which the commend went across the bottom, and why you did not go, if you did not?
A: . . . some of the men were passing me . . . I could not see where I was going . . . I got out about 150 yards and my horse went down . . . and I got back into the timber.
Girard's Testimony:
. . . I hurried up and got up on the hill . . . I saw Mr. Reynolds . . . saw several Indians cut him off and shoot him down . . . I knew I was discovered, and I turned my horse down the hill and hunted a place where I could defend myself . . .
__________
Apparently Girard & Herendeen was running also. The only reason Herendeen didn't get any further was his horse was hit and went down. THEN he went back to the timber. If Herendeen thought it wasn't a good idea to run then he would not have started. He would have stayed in the timber. He went back to it because he had no choice.
Girard only went back because he saw Indians kill Reynolds.
|
|
|
Post by shatonska on May 17, 2007 9:57:14 GMT -6
crzhrs if everybody run i run too do you want me to stay alone with hundreds of indians around ? ;D
|
|
|
Post by crzhrs on May 17, 2007 10:35:14 GMT -6
Of course not, but to later say the timber was a great place to hold after they had initially ran is a disservice to Reno.
|
|
|
Post by mcaryf on May 17, 2007 11:06:33 GMT -6
To be fair to Reno he possibly had seen more of the timber and its potential for defence than anybody else as he lead the section from G in there to counter Indian infiltration versus the horses.
I do not think anybody could argue that it did not take courage to decide to leave. In the short term it certainly was not the safest option.
Regards
Mike
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on May 17, 2007 11:18:21 GMT -6
Well said, and exactly. Beyond that, based on what Reno knew at the time, why in the world would he want to be caught at night, surrounded, cheek by jowl to a huge village, in a combustible defensive shelter, losing mounts and men at a steady rate?
|
|
|
Post by Melani on May 17, 2007 13:30:53 GMT -6
i can agree with you Mike but it seems that Reno even tryed to build a defense of the wood warriors across the river could be a little danger because they could not charge , could not use arrows looping because of the trees , they could only do what they did fire a few shots, when oglala arrived they discharged the winchesters , the oglalas were the most well armed , at this point they didn't have guns and ammunitions from the soldiers , so even the indian fire could not be dangerous , infact until oglalas discharged their rifles we have no soldier's accounts of a great indian fire so what could warriors do? charge the wood from the open ? 2 or 3 sides seems protected by the river , Gibobn and Benteen gave their accounts because they saw the exact reno's position in the wood , indian accounts confirm that could not charge could not use arrows thay could only use rifles but with no much ammunition to waste against soldiers under trees they could only try to set fire and infiltrate the wood to me it seems the position could be defended , i think it was a huge mistake to leave the wood but i can understand why Reno moved away , it must have been a terrifying situation , probably the Bloody Knife's killing was the turning point that brought to the well known outcome I agree with that, and that's what everybody - from the witnesses to the analysts - said. Frontiermen with experience like Herendeen, Gerard or Reynolds spoke loudly against such a movement (without the rout, it was a mistake, with the rout, it was a murder) To my extreme astonishment , David, you actually said something I agree with, without an excessive amount of prejudicial language. Correct me if I'm wrong, folks, but I am not aware of any attempt to organize a rearguard for the retreat. In regard to the comment above about the troops' morale being shot, it likely would have improved if the officers had shown some strong leadership, as it did when Benteen arrived on Reno Hill.
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on May 17, 2007 13:38:44 GMT -6
And it comes round again.....
If a 'rearguard' was to be formed and utilized, show on the maps and photos where, who, for how long, and exactly what they were to do. Utilize only what Reno knew at the time. Utilize realistic casualty figures for soldiers that, per Ryan, could not fight on horseback very well. If this were to be sequential stops and dismounts, show them all.
Of course, if it doesn't improve the survivors and lessen the casualties, what would be the point over a surprise break for it? No matter your decision, people will die and others blame you and coulda done it better.
No more talk, show it. Sign it. It trips off the tongue so easily, yet NOBODY has dared show a map with times, distances, who, when, all that stuff. It's roughly the equivilant of saying "Reno shoulda formed a winning plan." Well? What would it be? It's just blather, otherwise.
|
|
|
Post by markland on May 17, 2007 14:11:10 GMT -6
And it comes round again..... If a 'rearguard' was to be formed and utilized, show on the maps and photos where, who, for how long, and exactly what they were to do. Utilize only what Reno knew at the time. Utilize realistic casualty figures for soldiers that, per Ryan, could not fight on horseback very well. If this were to be sequential stops and dismounts, show them all. Of course, if it doesn't improve the survivors and lessen the casualties, what would be the point over a surprise break for it? No matter your decision, people will die and others blame you and coulda done it better. No more talk, show it. Sign it. It trips off the tongue so easily, yet NOBODY has dared show a map with times, distances, who, when, all that stuff. It's roughly the equivilant of saying "Reno shoulda formed a winning plan." Well? What would it be? It's just blather, otherwise. Oh massa, I hate to point this out whilst you are on a rampage, but...there ain't no stinking map of the valley as it was on June 25, 1876. Thus, what you are asking for doesn't exist. Kind of like CSS's image of GAC or Claire's "arrow dodging horses". The gentler, kinder Billy
|
|
|
Post by Melani on May 17, 2007 14:48:39 GMT -6
So, dc, do you think the way Reno retreated was the best way it could have been done?
|
|