Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 9, 2015 18:26:07 GMT -6
I think you miss the point. The point is that Miles had no way of offering an educated opinion. Educated opinions require education. Any dumb ass can ride a battlefield and talk to officers and read accounts. That is not battle analysis. There is no doubt about one thing, Miles never read a battle analysis, because there was none in his time. I wish I still had the bootleg copy of the C&GS staff ride adapted and used by the 3rd Cavalry when they were here. I had to return it, and have only my notes. To make it short for you, at each critical decision point, you are presented with the situation, and asked for your actions and orders. You are then evaluated on those actions and orders. Had Miles or any other contemporary been subject to the process, there would be a lot less unhelpful commentary, and much more appreciation of what was done. I am still waiting for any proof of deliberate falsehood at the RCOI. For a lie to be a lie is must be a deliberate attempt to deceive, and not just an opinion that you or perhaps I don't agree with. A case in point read Fred's initial post on this thread, them compare it to the statement Benteen made about his thoughts on Custer's fate when Martini arrived. The trap as a tactic is as old as time itself. Commit that to your diary Mr. Cohill. Was the military conducting these same in depth post analysis lessons learned at the time or did Miles form his opinion as was done at that time? The Mr. Cohill reference is lost on me. Can you explain? As far the RCOI, let's argue that another day...
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Feb 9, 2015 18:52:47 GMT -6
The process took thirty or more years of work following the death of Mrs. Custer. It was not complete when I attended C&GS.
Look, I am fairly well qualified on these thing as are several others here, but that does not entitle any of us to comment on any one particular battle, unless we can read the evaluation of that battle compiled over an extended period of time, and revised as new information comes to light. We for instance may make an off handed comment about this or that tactic used or not used, but that does not mean the comment is in any way valid unless it is placed in the context and flow of the battle itself. That context and flow had not been developed when Miles or any contemporary roamed this earth. Even today it is being revised with new information. Fred's gap is but one example, lost on all the analysts, and nearly lost to history. Miles rode that field seeing what remained, if by nothing else the markers, but had no idea how those people the markers represent got there.
He makes two statements that are completely out of order.
Reno could have defended the timber----Miles did not have to defend that timber. The timber was not even defended. So you must in light of both of those statements categorize Miles as a purveyor of pigeon poop.
Benteen should have gone directly to Custer (bypassing Reno)----- Had Benteen by passed Miles under the same circumstances, Miles would have court martialed him for disobedience. More pigeon poop.
Mr. Cohiil is 1LT Cohill of many of the Bellah stories some of which Ford made into movies. In the short story Command, upon which a much later movie Thunder of Drums was made. Captain Brittles is giving "guidance" to 1LT Cohill after an action concluded. Brittles had set a trap for some roving Apaches, and Cohill concludes that Brittles had set a trap for the Apache using him as bait. Brittles replies, that he did not set a trap, for that would be against departmental orders. What he did was support his point that had been suddenly attacked during a brief halt. He then says commit that to your memory and diary Mister Cohill. In other words Learn the frigging lesson that there is more ways to skin a cat than one, and find a way to get the job done without violating departmental orders.
|
|
shaw
Full Member
Posts: 187
|
Post by shaw on Feb 9, 2015 19:37:22 GMT -6
I'm with QC on this even though I do wonder what would have happened had Benteen ignored Reno's request (command) and had immediately moved on towards the right flank (Custer).
I tend to doubt that the NA's would have pulled back, but that's just me. Maybe if Benteen had sent scouts ahead to find out what the actual situation was, while continuing to move forward himself, he might have been able to form his three companies into an effective attack formation. Forget the pack train. That would have been trailing behind. Maybe if he'd come on some of Custer's battalion might have survived or.....Benteen's three companies join the dead scattered from Calhoun's final position towards Last Stand Hill.
On Nelson Miles: His opinion held weight at the time (1876-77) but not so much now.
Custer's defeat was a black swan event. Almost from the moment of the realization that Custer's battalion had been wiped out, people started to deconstruct and reverse engineer the actual events.
"The black swan theory or theory of black swan events is a metaphor that describes an event that comes as a surprise, has a major effect, and is often inappropriately rationalized after the fact with the benefit of hindsight."
Source: Wikipedia
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Feb 9, 2015 19:54:47 GMT -6
If Miles' opinion had not held weight at the time I would be shocked. Miles beat them up north when no one else seemed to be able to do the job. I have absolutely no heartburn with Miles as a commander - None.
Let's put this in some perspective though. Tom Brady by anyone's standard is a outstanding quarterback. He is thoroughly professional and an outstanding field tactician. Asking him to provide analysis on a Joe Montana Super Bowl Game, by only listening to what people that attended the game said, and looking at a picture of a trash strewn stadium after the game, gives him no gravitas to analyze that game, no matter how good a quarterback Brady is. Brady was not there. Now if you sat Brady down with the film, he could give an analysis of every play and every decision made.
The complete film is the context and flow of battle.
|
|
shaw
Full Member
Posts: 187
|
Post by shaw on Feb 10, 2015 0:54:25 GMT -6
Good points. Also let's take it one step further. Everything's the same but Miles commands the 7th. Custer is not allowed to return to command the regiment in the field. Sheridan and Terry decide to put Miles in command.
Regardless of what Miles said after the battle, if he leads, a different outcome. I've studied Miles' Indian war campaigns. I'm sure I'm opening up a can of worms, but I doubt that he would have used the exact same approach as Custer.
|
|
|
Post by Beth on Feb 10, 2015 1:35:40 GMT -6
I had read once (It might have been in Donavan or Phillbrick so forgive me if it's wrong) that Custer was selected for the Campaign because they wanted his type of results. If so it seems disingenerous to complain later because of the results.
|
|
shaw
Full Member
Posts: 187
|
Post by shaw on Feb 10, 2015 2:45:46 GMT -6
I think deconstruction and complaining are two separate things. To me it's challenging to think "what if.." Beth, you're right though. Custer was highly regarded as an "Indian Fighter" primarily because of Washita and his years out in Indian Territory. Sheridan regarded him highly. That helped too.
|
|
shaw
Full Member
Posts: 187
|
Post by shaw on Feb 10, 2015 2:54:18 GMT -6
Interesting article about blame. George Armstrong Custer: Changing Views of an American Legend By Louis Kraft - On July 5, a day after the official opening of the celebration, the shocking news of Custer's demise reached Bismarck, Dakota Territory. The War Department had unconfirmed reports of the disaster by July 6, but Sheridan stated they arrived without any marks of credence. No one in his wildest dreams could imagine this happening. Custer was indomitable. The famed Civil War general and Indian fighter par excellence represented the nation's pride, the preservation of the Union and the opening of an expansive frontier to a population ready to reap the benefits of a new fertile land. Custer's defeat was viewed as incomprehensible and tragic, and it left the public with a gaping wound. As news spread, the Little Bighorn debacle cast a dark shadow on the nation's hopes for a glorious second century. Partially to regain the honor and prestige lost at the Little Bighorn and partially to fulfill Manifest Destiny once and for all, the U.S. Army redoubled its efforts to overwhelm the Plains Indians. Waging total war, soldiers destroyed Indian homes, food, clothing and supplies. They did not distinguish between combatants and noncombatants. Although the so-called Great Sioux War was over by the spring of 1877, one last major action took place more than 14 years after Custer's defeat. On December 29, 1890, elements of the 7th Cavalry surrounded a group of mostly Minneconjou Dakotas and killed about 150 of them at Wounded Knee Creek in Dakota Territory. The Battle of the Little Bighorn, which had ushered in this new era of fierce westward expansion, immediately created a firestorm of controversy that continues today. At least two of Terry's reports, written soon after Custer's defeat, found their way into newspapers. In one of those reports, Terry stated: I do not tell you this to cast any reflection upon Custer. For whatever errors he may have committed he has paid the penalty and you cannot regret his loss more than I do, but I feel that our plan must have been successful had it been carried out….In the action itself, so far as I can make out, Custer acted under a misapprehension. He thought, I am confident, that the Indians were running. For fear that they might get away he attacked…. Although Terry attempted an explanation for Custer's actions, he appeared to accuse Custer of disobeying orders by attacking too soon, and indeed Sheridan commented to Commander in Chief of the Army William T. Sherman after reading it: Terry's column was sufficiently strong to have handled the Indians, if Custer had waited for the junction. President Grant, perhaps still seething at Custer for helping expose the corruption in his administration and his brother, declared in September, I regard Custer's Massacre as a sacrifice of troops, brought on by Custer himself, that was wholly unnecessary — wholly unnecessary. To protect itself, the military scrambled to find a scapegoat on which to pin the blame for the disaster. As a result, fingers were pointed in many directions. Custer was accused of dividing his command prior to battle, even though this was the accepted mode for attacking villages, and of attacking early. Subordinates Major Reno and Captain Benteen were accused of disobeying Custer's orders and not supporting him. Indian agents were accused of under-reporting the number of warriors off the reservations. But, for some, it was easier to blame a man who could not defend himself. Later statements by Sheridan and Sherman that Custer was rashly imprudent to attack such a large number of Indians marked a change in the public portrayal of Custer, as historian Craig Repass pointed out: Prior to his involvement in the Belknap Affair, Custer was not publicly referred to as 'reckless' or 'imprudent.' After his demise those labels were continually applied to him in the army's efforts to discredit him. Still, Custer was buried with full military honors at West Point on October 10, 1877. www.historynet.com/george-armstrong-custer-changing-views-of-an-american-legend.htm
|
|
|
Post by welshofficer on Feb 10, 2015 4:33:08 GMT -6
SF,
Let's go through most of the final tactical FAILURES at the LBH....:
RECON/INTEL - Village size - Number of warriors - Terrain of eastern bluffs and river crossing points
CO-ORDINATION - Terry (via Herendeen) - Crook
COMMAND - Concentration of regimental power - Mutual support if dispersal - Ability of RHQ to control entire regiment in combat
COMMUNICATION - Subordinates - Between battalions
How many of those failures would you pin on somebody within the 7th other than GAC.....?
WO
|
|
|
Post by AZ Ranger on Feb 10, 2015 5:54:56 GMT -6
Since history and situations have a habit of repeating each other--is there another situation in any other war that resembles that moment on Reno Hill that we can compare how other real life people might have handled it. I know I can sort of relate to how people react under shock and stress when something absolutely terrible has just happened but my experiences not exactly the same as what was going on, on that hill The problem I have with anyone who says what should and shouldn't have happened when they weren't there is they are basically playing a mental war game and they seem to always forget the human factor. There are things that happen in our bodies during stress that will effect even the best trained. When and how we recover from them depends on many factors, including genetics. Just the fact that everyone who had traveled from the timber to the hill probably had had a massive adrenaline dump that would effect how they both act and perceive evens. There would have been overwhelming emotions, noise, confusion added to the exhaustion both from days of pushing through exhaustion, the battle and flight escape danger. I know people think that people trained to be in stress situations should be able to handle it but that isn't always true. When you are in a flight or fight situation, it is more than just a mental thing, your body chemistry changes to handle the mental and physical needs you have. Some parts of the body are able to function better (like in the stories you hear about people able to lift great weights to save someone) other though shut down--like the ablitity to write memories to the brain. It is a chemical reaction and has nothing to do with how brave or trained someone is. Beth Beth, We are talking about soldiers here, not Boy Scouts who were out collecting badges. The majority of the soldiers would have been battled hardened from their CW service. Seven companies remained, whether right or wrong, on a hill while five companies were massacred a couple miles north of them. Of course they and their actions are going to be questioned, as they should be. The majority of the soldiers would have been battled hardened from their CW service Where have you read that? Throw it away. Regards AZ Ranger
|
|
|
Post by AZ Ranger on Feb 10, 2015 6:11:56 GMT -6
SF, Like everybody else in the US Army of 1876, Miles had his own agenda. Once you appreciate that, the only thing that most really take issue with was his description of the timber as a defensive position. The rest is pure Mandy Rice Davies - he would say that, wouldn't he...? WO In fairness to him and his stated position, he was not a lone voice in suggesting this. Interesting thought pattern there Scarface. I think if you read Miles comments about Custer the man you could predict his evaluation. Do you really believe that the numbers of persons is a determining factor? Can you provide support for all the elements that you suggested that Miles knew or is this like your seasoned veterans comment? Thanks AZ Ranger
|
|
|
Post by AZ Ranger on Feb 10, 2015 6:15:31 GMT -6
I am going to go way out on another limb here in Scarface's eyes, maybe some others too. Reno did not defend on the skirmish line or in the timer either. That is just so much bushwa. There are only two places on that field where any defending was done, those two being in the Keogh sector and on Reno Hill post 1800 hours on 25 June until relieved. What Reno did in the valley and what Custer did in the LSH area, was dispute an issue in doubt. Both of them got outdisputed. Defense requires a deliberate act of commitment to one place and neither Reno in the valley or Custer in and around that godforsaken hill made that deliberate commitment. Keogh did make such a commitment and did it bad enough to lose. Reno did it deliberately on Reno Hill and did it just good enough to survive. One fails. One passes. Not sure why you think this is going out on a limb. Agree up to the point where you say "Reno did it deliberately". Substitute Benteen for Reno and then I'm in 100%. So you think Benteen ordered Reno back to the Reno/Benteen area? Where did you read that? Regards AZ Ranger
|
|
|
Post by AZ Ranger on Feb 10, 2015 6:20:42 GMT -6
SF,
I am not sure I like the word "right" at all. Whatever they may have wanted, Terry and Sheridan were obligated to comment.
The point is that Miles was never going to be unduly critical of GAC, and I am not sure the court of public opinion would have wanted to hear that in any event.
WO
You have very "right" not to like the word "right" ;-) So if he wasn't going to be critical of Custer, the next best was to critical of Reno and Benteen? That doesn't make much sense. When it does make sense you can see what happened. Regards AZ Ranger
|
|
|
Post by AZ Ranger on Feb 10, 2015 6:37:32 GMT -6
Scarface: I believe it was you among many who either said or eluded to the notion that some officers during the RCOI kept their traps shut when they should in your view have told the complete truth, such as it was. You evidently condone though someone, not there and not in possession of the facts from speculating upon what happened. If one is bad, so is the other. The duty of any army when faced with an event like this, is to immediately investigate, to find out what went wrong, and who was responsible. The Army never did that at the time, however it has been done in great detail in the last century, and it is the subject matter for both tactical discussions and those on leadership. The Command and General Staff College runs a staff ride every other year, on the battlefield itself, and each decision point is based upon the critical events that shaped the course of this battle. Most of my commentary is based upon that staff ride and the documents and research behind it. Most of my comments are completely in line with what the U S Army sees as tactical and leadership failures. So any responsible officer should have ordered this as soon after the campaign concluded as possible. Instead all we got was silence from some, indignation at being wronged by yellow journalism from others, and a bunch of cheap shot artists who would pee their pants if they found themselves in the same situation. LBH is one of the greatest learning tools in U S Army history. A tale told of what not to do. The joys of sitting in a cell phone lot at the airport waiting for a delayed flight to arrive..... Yes I did say that the officers at the RCOI held back and lied. I stand by that. I don't think you can equate that with Miles offering his educated opinion on what should or shouldn't have happened. Isn't he doing what you say the military does every year. He rode the battlefield, talked with officers, read accounts and provided his opinion. I don't see a differenece other than he came to a different conclusion. What makes you think proceedings allow witnesses to talk as much as they like instead of answering questions. It is up to the person asking the questions and the judges to draw out the information. In this case you need to read the directions the court gives at the beginning regarding the focus of the court of inquiry. It was only looking at Reno and that reduces information seeking to events that Reno would have an influence on. So can you provide one instance where the recorder asked the court to have the witness give more information because he felt the witness was not responsive? The quantity of testimony in regards to some questions is quite large. The allowance of opinions is where most think a lie was made. Good luck with that. If you believe that opinion is a lie than most civil lawsuits have one side or the other lying and should be charged with perjury. Once you realize opinions could be wrong but they are only opinions most of your "lies" go away. So can you provide evidence of one lie that is not based upon opinion? Regards AZ Ranger
|
|
|
Post by AZ Ranger on Feb 10, 2015 6:42:25 GMT -6
SF,
What were the odds on Miles saying it was all a terrible fiasco by GAC and an abject lesson in failing to properly recon, concentrate forces and command his regiment........? You see the point.....?
WO
The point is the man was entitled to express his opinion. What I took exception to was QC (follow up post further clarified his position) saying he should have kept his trap shut. Regardless of agendas, allegiances etc, based on his authority and knowledge he had ever right to give his opinion. It may well be gibberish, but he had the right. Same as Terry and Sheridan. Should they have kept their traps shut too since they weren't there? Not sure about the military but in State service you are not allowed to voice certain opinions both inside the agency or regarding elected officials. Regards AZ Ranger
|
|