|
Post by twomoons on Mar 26, 2005 13:17:49 GMT -6
Okay Xav you want someone to give your feelings a go on this. I'll try once to give those feelings some credence. But in all fairness, I can prove you wrong. Custer's men didn't "attack" at MTF! It was a feint. Just because he did it before didn't men he had the men and resources to do it here, which he simply didn't.
You cannot inject into this argument European values of military standards of this day. The only similarity is in the way ths soldiers chose to fight a standing battle. We're at this point not discussing a standing battle. Nor any formulation of plans around that.
The jury is still out on the exact number of men actually on the campaign and those actually involved in the battle. Don't be too sure of the number of men with Benteen, it wasn't that many! The same goes for the rest of Custer's entire command!
And as I said before Custer wasn't "scouting" or "searching" for anything, he already knew!
"If Custer had attacked without waiting for support, he would be now the stupid impetuous glory hunter the bad scholars invented." That he didn't do the contrary. he is still is held in great esteem by those who don't know the reasons for his orders and actions that day, and Benteen is abused instead.
Custer not Benteen could only have been accountable for his orders given at the jct. of MTC and Cedar Coulee. Only him! And those decisions didn't totally depend or rely upon Benteen.
One question: In your opinion was custer's men trying to surprise the warriors at MTF?
|
|
|
Post by weir on Mar 26, 2005 13:51:18 GMT -6
You cannot inject into this argument European values of military standards of this day. The only similarity is in the way ths soldiers chose to fight a standing battle.
In fact my "feelings" are supported by more than 250 books and an historic book about to be published in french late 2005. In your way of thinking you are telling me your conclusions are not "feelings" too...? I'm not sure what you mean with "standing battle". Are you telling me Custer chose a defensive battle ? What ? The jury is still out on the exact number of men actually on the campaign and those actually involved in the battle. Don't be too sure of the number of men with Benteen, it wasn't that many! The same goes for the rest of Custer's entire commandThat's an interesting comment. Let me know what you discovered about that. And as I said before Custer wasn't "scouting" or "searching" for anything, he already knew! That doens't match with Indians testimonies. Indians saw a platoon of company E (gray horses) coming into water but never trying to cross. it seems the soldiers were scouting the river. ]"If Custer had attacked without waiting for support, he would be now the stupid impetuous glory hunter the bad scholars invented." That he didn't do the contrary. he is still is held in great esteem by those who don't know the reasons for his orders and actions that day, and Benteen is abused instead.
Sad Benteen, he had great chance to have defenders like you. About Custer's plan, you theory is not convicting at all. ]Custer not Benteen could only have been accountable for his orders given at the jct. of MTC and Cedar Coulee. Only him! And those decisions didn't totally depend or rely upon Benteen.The orders at Cedar Coulee were to deploy two wings, one scouting, the other protecting its rear. The plan of LBH was made earlier. And Benteen was part of it. "Be quick", remember, didn't mean for Benteen to collect flowers on the way... You want to come back to De Water bad theories of Custer alone attacking a great vlllage without attending support. Two Moons, historiography has made progress since. One question: In your opinion was custer's men trying to surprise the warriors at MTF? They did actually. But Custer's plan was to find a Ford for Benteen to attack. Custer, according to historian Urwin, was not a theorician but an improviser. At LBH, he made a reconnaissance of the battleground, and chosed to make a triple attack on the village. this explains his moves and the two-times exploring of fords. Custer never engaged seriously the Indians at MTF. He didn't plan to attack there. He was just looking for a Ford to Benteen future attack. That is lo-gi-cal.
|
|
|
Post by twomoons on Mar 26, 2005 16:57:30 GMT -6
You need first of all to update your collection of books. There are several that are crutial to understanding this battle. One is John Gray's book, Custer's Last Campaign, another is Archaeology, History and Custer's Last Battle, by Fox. One supports the other and are today perhaps the best sources for any theory to begin from.
I am in fact impartial in my views. I try to sort out facts, not contrive fiction for personal satisfaction!
For the actual strengths of the men actually involved in the battle see the "desertion" thread here.
And as I said before Custer wasn't "scouting" or "searching" for anything, he already knew!
E company (the grey horse company) and those events you describe were a part of the Ford D encounter. They weren't scouting the river for a ford they already knew it was there. They were attempting to cross and go after the women and children when they were met by a hail of bullets. The reasons for thier turning back at Ford D are not so much a mystery as some make it. But it wasn't due to the sheer number of Native Americans there! There wasn't that many of them.
I'm not defending any one person, Benteen or any of the rest! Nor am I supporting any flimsy view that supports anything Benteen is supposed to have done! And was never ordered to do!!!! And as for "Custer's plan - my theory" I haven't stated it yet, so how could it be convincing? The only theories presented so far are yours.
Custer not Benteen could only have been accountable for his orders given at the jct. of MTC and Cedar Coulee. Only him! And those decisions didn't totally depend or rely upon Benteen.
No one really knew Custer's exact orders. Perhaps we may never know. We cannot presume to know based upon flimsy contrived notions of one or another.
About the NOTE sent to Benteen. It gave no direct order to Benteen in any way! The only thing it said, is exactly what it did say!!! If Custer had, as some have assume, yourself included, wanted Benteen to do something else, this would have either been conveyed by Martini or by another messenger. But it wasn't!!!
"Two Moons, historiography has made progress since." You are absolutely correct, now read some of them!!!
As for Custer trying to surpise the warriors at or near MTF. No, he wasn't In fact it was quite the opposite. Curley reported that during the whole time that the troops were going towards the river, Custer ordered the bugles sounded. And according to him they sounded a very long time. If he was trying to surpise them he wouldn't have done that!
If you really believe that Custer was an "improvisor" then you would not put so much credence in the notions you ascribe to. And in this you above all should then realise that Custer would not have gone forward without knowing the tactical evidence to support anything he would then order. The "searching" for a ford or anything else theory is just that, an unsubstantiated theory. Please already, enough!!! If you don't have positive evidence of any kind about Benteens supposed orders from Custer - don't contrive them quote them from a source!!!! And the same goes for the "searching" theories.
|
|
|
Post by bigpond on Mar 26, 2005 17:03:33 GMT -6
wait wait , custer knew perfectly that benteen was not engaged , boston custer coming passed over benteen who was making his holiday trip that day , benteentrail was only 2 miles longer than custer's that day , benteen could support custer whitout ruining the horses , all custer's' movements where logical thinking that he was waiting for reinforcements ! benteen could arrive in time to save custer even at that slow pace but he met reno , reno retreat from the wood was the cause of the disaster ! Kanipe and Martin had already been dispatched before Boston arrived ,so Custer still didn't know anything about Benteen,and dont forget,Custer is already on the move regardless.
|
|
|
Post by weir on Mar 26, 2005 17:44:24 GMT -6
Really, do you think I can be part of a french book about LBH without having Fox archeological and Gray's reference book ? The soldiers have to explore river to control the Ford was a good one. They never knew it was one. They just thought it was. In a military cavalry opearation, you don't send an entire battalion trough a Ford you think is OK. You verify. E company (the grey horse company) and those events you describe were a part of the Ford D encounter. They weren't scouting the river for a ford they already knew it was there. They were attempting to cross and go after the women and children when they were met by a hail of bullets. The reasons for thier turning back at Ford D are not so much a mystery as some make it. But it wasn't due to the sheer number of Native Americans there! There wasn't that many of them. You have to read Michno Lakota Noon. The Indians testimonies showed that soldiers rode slowly, got into water and got back up to the ridge (Battle Ridge). They never attempted to cross. Why would Custer attack civilians in the village as they were not in the village ? They were fleeing in the North and gathering near Squaw Creek. Your theory has no historical nor archeological (see Fox, archeological of Custer's last battle) evidences with it. I'm not defending any one person, Benteen or any of the rest! Nor am I supporting any flimsy view that supports anything Benteen is supposed to have done! And was never ordered to do!!!! And as for "Custer's plan - my theory" I haven't stated it yet, so how could it be convincing? The only theories presented so far are yours.Not mine. Richard Fox and Michno. About the NOTE sent to Benteen. It gave no direct order to Benteen in any way! The only thing it said, is exactly what it did say!!! If Custer had, as some have assume, yourself included, wanted Benteen to do something else, this would have either been conveyed by Martini or by another messenger. But it wasn't!!! You can read the note with your civilian view of XXIst century. Or you get some informations about military and 19th century warfare and you can understand what Benteen understood. Have you ever been in the army ? It helps a lot to understand the orders. The orders are quick words to say a lot of things. See Louise Barnett "Touched By Fire". You are absolutely correct, now read some of them!!!
Gray is from 1976 and Fox 1993. read some modern one, Two Moons, you are years late. As for Custer trying to surpise the warriors at or near MTF. No, he wasn't In fact it was quite the opposite. Curley reported that during the whole time that the troops were going towards the river, Custer ordered the bugles sounded. And according to him they sounded a very long time. If he was trying to surpise them he wouldn't have done that! Of course the bugled sounded. Keogh was deploying three companies and Yates and Smith deployed their two own on Battle Ridge. That makes sound. Did you expect Custer to send the order to each soldier...? If you really believe that Custer was an "improvisor" Gregory Urwin "Custer's victorious" said that. Another book you missed, I guess ? The "searching" for a ford or anything else theory is just that, an unsubstantiated theory. Please already, enough!!! If you don't have positive evidence of any kind about Benteens supposed orders from Custer - don't contrive them quote them from a source!!!! And the same goes for the "searching" theories. Nice boy. Get back a little on Indians testimonies and you will find what you are looking for.
|
|
|
Post by weir on Mar 26, 2005 17:45:22 GMT -6
Kanipe and Martin had already been dispatched before Boston arrived ,so Custer still didn't know anything about Benteen,and dont forget,Custer is already on the move regardless. And..? Boston said to Custer that Benteen was marching a few miles away. What are Martini and Kanipe doing here ?
|
|
|
Post by twomoons on Mar 26, 2005 17:58:52 GMT -6
xav I'm sorry to say, it's people like you who perpetuate the myths and legends into what you want to believe. That has been done for the last 125 years or so. If you cannot beleive the facts then go ahead and create the fiction, add to the mystery and keep on creating the mayhem. Search not for the truth and keep perpetuateing that which is just not true. Your arguements are unsubstantiated and you know it.
|
|
|
Post by weir on Mar 26, 2005 18:07:03 GMT -6
It makes me laugh how you can have a great idea of yourself and a so poor judgement of this day. it makes me laugh greater when I learn you are writing a book !
Upon what ? "Why did Custer's 100men of E and F retreat from the MTC Ford when they were severly attacked by three Cheyennes ?"
Indians testimonies are primary sources. I don't know where you gather your informations, but surely not in them. Fox said Custer sent a platoon of E company for scouting operations on the Ford. It acted as a feint too but it was not the primary purpose.
|
|
|
Post by twomoons on Mar 26, 2005 21:49:06 GMT -6
I'm wasting my breath and so is anyone else who argues with this fool! Xav is not going to take the time to do the proper research on this subject. He will just continue to harp his views about this event based on his opinion rather than the facts. Several informed people with authoritative sources have tried to point this out to him, not only here but elsewhere, but he refuses to get it. It's time for us to move on to bigger and better things.
He's is a fatalist at heart and does not want to hear anything that might disrupt his feelings, thoughts and views.. He continues to base his one sided analysis on what he feels he knows rather than what Custer knew. All he wants to do is read into others accounts of what he thinks they're saying. And he refuses to even consider that Custer would, could and indeed did give orders without waiting for Benteen. Yet that is exactly what happened. And refuses to believe that Custer gave orders without the inclusion of Benteen in those orders. He also knows next to nothing about what obviously was the truth, and cares little whether it was that way or not. And he loves to perpetuate pet theories based upon unwavering biased views that just adds to the myth.
Hindsight is always 20/20. If he is going to blame Benteen for the Little Bighorn, I wonder what he would have to say about Westmorland's actions in Vietnam, or Napoleans decisions at Waterloo?
I don't have to argue with you any more Xav. I know the truth, and it's not based upon any pet notions, ideas or biased fanatical claims. Your not here to discuss things in a cordial atmosphere, your here to change things to your view. A view as I stated before that is biased and unfounded. You don't have to insult me. This one fact alone makes all that I have said true about you. You don't know who your laughing about, and further it is obvious that you don't care to know. You change horses, as you do your stories, so many times just to fit your view, that it's only a pathetic attempt to belittle others who don't share your view. Go somewhere else and insult them. I don't need it and neither does this forum.
|
|
Son of a Cavalryman
Guest
|
Post by Son of a Cavalryman on Mar 27, 2005 12:28:55 GMT -6
If the forum is fed up with Xav, if he refuses to change his ways, if he is as irritating to you as he is to me, then why not boycott him? Don't respond to his posts or comments. Ignore him says I.
And Twomoons, I think its GREAT you are writing a book, there is room out there still for an INFORMED writer. It won't be in French will it?
SOACM
|
|
|
Post by twomoons on Mar 27, 2005 12:50:22 GMT -6
Thanks SOACM oh and by the way I like that name! That was the intent of my last message here to him, to boycott or as I indicated "not argue" with him. And yes it does get irritating when someone tries to read into a statement or account something that just isn't there. An informed theory is one thing. It is quite another when there is no foundation to that theory. About the book, ;D No - no plans for that. But then it probably should be just so that xav and others like him can know the truth's and not the myths about what happend at the LBH.
|
|
Son of a Cavalryman
Guest
|
Post by Son of a Cavalryman on Mar 27, 2005 13:05:11 GMT -6
Thanks. My dad was an armored cavalryman in WWII, served in a cavalry reconnaissance squadron. Took part in the Battle of the Bulge at St. Vith (7th Armored Division). He was the gunner and assistant driver on an M5A1 Stuart (light tank). His company (the other units in the squadron were called troops except for the light tank and assault gun companies) was decimated to the point that his and one other light tank were the only ones left after the bulge. They scrounged up three more from the quartermaster and formed a squad and pushed on to the Baltic Sea. Dad was decorated with the Bronze Star with Valor device, same award I received in Vietnam. Anyway, I truly am a "Son of a Cavalryman". And don't anyone change that to a son of a something else! SOACM
|
|
|
Post by twomoons on Mar 27, 2005 14:00:52 GMT -6
Thanks for the info. My father served in Patton's 3rd, in an antiaircraft unit attached to the 4th armoured division. He missed the D-day landings because he caught pneumonia and couldn't go. Lucky that or I wouldn't be here, because all of the men in his landing craft got killed. As for the mis-n-dis of your name here. You'll have my support, just tell me the thread and the page and i'll be there. I couldn't ever get much from my father about the war. But what I did, would make most people's hair stand on end. He wasn't the braggard type and he definitly didn't ever want to talk about it. So I know what he did tell me was true. As for me I served in a branch of the civil end of the Fed. Gov. I just retired about a year ago. I guess one could say that I've kinda taken this as a hobby, ha that! Any way I always wanted to write a book and promised myself that if I ever made it to retirement that I would. Well I did, the time is now, so I am.
|
|
|
Post by Walt Cross on Mar 27, 2005 22:05:55 GMT -6
Twomoons Good for you. I listed a number of books on a post by "Geiger", I'm placing them here for you as well. I found these books very helpful in my research.
Walt
Bibliography Andrist, Ralph K. 1993. The Long Death, the Last Days of the Plains Indian. New York, New York. Collier Books Macmillan Publishing Company.
Bad Heart Bull, Amos 1967. A Pictographic History of the Oglala Sioux. Lincoln, Nebraska: University of Nebraska Press.
Barrow, Mark V. Jr. 1998. A Passion for Birds. Princeton, New Jersey. Princeton University Press.
Brininstool, E. A. 1925. A Trooper with Custer. Columbus, Ohio: Hunter-Trader-Trapper
Brininstool, E. A. 1989. Troopers with Custer Historic Incidents of the Battle of the Little Big Horn. Lincoln and London, University of Nebraska Press.
Connell, Evan S. 1984 Son of the Morning Star Custer and the Little Bighorn San Francisco, CA North Point Press
Darling, Roger. 1989. Custer’s Seventh Cavalry Comes to Dakota. El Segundo, California: Upton and Sons.
Donovan, Jim. 2001. Custer and the Little Bighorn. Stillwater, Minnesota. Voyageur Press Inc.
Drake, Frederick C. 1984 The Empire of the Seas, a Biography of Rear Admiral Robert Wilson Shufeldt, USN. University of Hawaii Press, Honolulu, Hawaii.
Ellison, Douglas W. 1983. Sole Survivor An Examination of the Frank Finkel Narrative North Plains Press Aberdeen, S.D.
Freeman, Henry B. 1977. The Freeman Journal: The Infantry in the Sioux Campaign of 1876. George A. Schneider, Editor. Presidio Press, San Rafael, California.
Gray, John S. 1976. Centennial Campaign The Sioux War of 1876. Vol. 8 in the Custeriana Series. The Old Army Press
Greene, Jerome A. Lakota and Cheyenne Indian Views of the Great Sioux War, 1876-1877 University of Oklahoma Press: Norman and London. Greene, Jerome A. 2003 Morning Star Dawn The Powder River Expedition and the Northern Cheyennes, 1876. University of Oklahoma Press: Norman
Graham, W. A. 1959 Second Edition. The Story of the Little Big Horn Custer’s Last Fight. Bonanza Books, New York.
Gray, John S. 1991. Custer’s Last Campaign. University of Nebraska Press: Lincoln and London.
Hammer, Kenneth Ed. 1976. “Custer in ’76 Walter Camp’s Notes on the Custer Fight”Brigham Young Press
Hardorff, Richard G. 1991. Lakota Recolletions of the Custer Fight New Sources of Indian-Military History Spokane, Washington: The Arthur H. Clark Company.
Hardorff, Richard G. 1993. Hokahey! A Good Day to Die! Spokane, Washington: The Arthur H. Clark Company.
Hardorff, Richard G. 2002. The Custer Battle Casualties Burials, Exhumations and Reinterments. Upton and Sons El Segundo, California.
Hardorff, Richard G. 2004. Indian Views of the Custer Fight A Source Book Spokane, Washington: The Arthur H. Clark Company.
Horsted, Paul and Ernest Grafe 2002. Exploring with Custer the 1874 Black Hills Expedition. Golden Valley Press Custer, South Dakota.
Jackson, Donald 1966. Custer’s Gold. Yale University Press, New Haven and London.
King, Charles 1902 Campaigning with Crook. Harper and Brothers, New York and London.
Libby, Orin G. 1973 The Arikara Narrative of Custer’s Campaign and the Battle of the Little Bighorn. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman, Oklahoma.
Mills, Charles K. 1985 Harvest of Barren Regrets the Army Career of Frederick William Benteen 1834 – 1898. The Arthur H. Clark Company Glendale, California.
Nye, Elwood L. Lieutenant Colonel, Veterinary Corps, U.S.A. 1964 Marching with Custer a Day-by-day Evaluation of the uses, abuses, and conditions of the animals on the ill-fated expedition of 1876. The Arthur H. Clark Company, Glendale, California.
Mackintosh, John D. 2002. Custer’s Southern Officer. Cloud Creek Press: Lexington, S.C.
Magnussen, Daniel O. Ed. Peter Thompson’s Narrative of the Little Bighorn Campaign 1876. The Arthur H. Clark Company, Glendale, California 1974.
Parsons, John W. and Kennedy, Stephen Inkpaduta and the Sioux Indians. Okoboji Protective Association, Okoboji, Iowa 1998.
Robinson, Charles M. III 1995. A Good Year to Die the Story of the Great Sioux War. Random House, New York.
Scott, Douglas D. et. al. 1998. They Died With Custer. University of Oklahoma Press: Norman and London.
Scott, Douglas D. et. al. 1989. Archeological Perspectives on the Battle of the Little Bighorn. University of Oklahoma Press: Norman and London. Sklenar, Larry 2000. To Hell with Honor Custer and the Little Bighorn. University of Oklahoma Press: Norman.
Taylor, William O. 1996. With Custer on the Little Bighorn. Viking Penguin New York, NY
Utley, Robert M. 1973. Frontier Regulars the United States Army and the Indian 1866-1891. Macmillan Publishing Co., Inc. New York, London.
Utley, Robert M. 1980. Custer and the Great Controversy the Origin and Development of a Legend. Westernlore Press Pasadena, CA 91106.
Van Nuys, Maxwell Inkpaduta – the Scarlet Point; Terror of the Dakota Frontier and Secret Hero of the Sioux. Privately Published Denver, CO 1998.
Viola, Herman J. 1999. Little Bighorn Remembered The Untold Indian Story of Custer’s Last Stand. Times Books: New York, NY.
Watson, Irving A. 1896. Physicians and Surgeons of America A Collection of Biographical Sketches of the Regular Medical Profession. Republican Press Association Concord, NH.
Windolph, Charles 1987. I Fought With Custer The Story of Sergeant Windolph, Last Survivor of the Little Big Horn. University of Nebraska Press: Lincoln and London.
|
|
|
Post by twomoons on Mar 28, 2005 2:53:10 GMT -6
Thanks Walt that was very considerate of you. I have read quite a few of those. Very good reads indeed. I'll check out the rest, thanks.
Just to let you all know the actual conveyance of Custer's order to Benteen, I will share this piece of history with you. First of all it never fails to amaze me how people, even today, read into statements made over a century ago what that statement was meant to convey. An example of this I use from Fox's book AH&CLB. "Benteen, come on [straightway], Big Village [overwhelming force], Be Quick [We are in immediate danger], Bring Packs, [ammunition needs are critical]. This of course is the way most people who read the message interpret its meaning. In fact it doesn't mean any more or any less than what it says. Any attempt to alter the message in an attempt to understand what Custer did thereafter won't make any sense if that is done.
The one that i really get a chuckle out of every time I read this interpretation is the one of [immediate danger]. Custer had no idea at the time that he conveyed those orders that he was in any immediate danger.
Each company had a pack horse with extra rounds of ammunition. And at the time that Custer conveyed the order to Benteen, they had not been engaged with the Native Americans, so the ammunition needs at that time were not critical. The straightway doesn't make any sense at all, the same goes for the overwhelming force. Custer was not being overwhelmed at the time.
Alot of what is read into the orders comes from the fact of historical hindsight. What people now know about it and inject into it. What they feel it really means based upon what happened to him and his division. Thought provolking as that may seem, that same myth has created the Benteen furor that resides in most peoples feelings, and not their rational thoughts about that order. And it infuriates people against Benteen, and gives the aura of "fatalistic tragedy" that touches one's heart, exactly what it was meant to do! The problem with that is, that the timeing for that was and still is all wrong!
"Benteen. come on. Big Village. Be Quick. Bring Packs. PS Bring Packs. No matter how you dissect that message it still reads only one way. The emphasis is upon the "Bring packs". If you for example leave out certain elements you can clearly see what is meant by the message. Leave out, Big Village, and it reads. "Benteen, come on, be quick, bring packs, ps Bring Packs." If you leave out the packs it reads. "Benteen, come on, Big Village, be quick." Everyone that so condemns Benteen stops at this point and ignores the rest of that message in an attempt to condemn his actions. The fact was and still is, it read more like a telegram than a functional command order, or a normal sequence of sentence structure. Notice the periods or gaps in the actual message. Benteen - stop. Come on - stop. Big village - stop. Be quick - stop. Bring Packs -stop. Ps Bring Packs stop. Try as you may the message conveyed this way clearly spells out Custers orders for Benteen. And it wasn't as most have assumed over the course of the last 125 years or so to be read as one complete sentence. Keep reading it that way, and you will only perpetuate the myth further. Benteen knew this and so did most people including his superiors back then who didn't condemn him, nor use him as a scape goat that most here seem to cherish doing.
|
|