|
Post by Melani on Apr 28, 2010 0:18:41 GMT -6
Reno had been chewed out for following the trail on his earlier scout, which undoubtedly smarted, when he probably thought he should be praised for coming back with intelligence on the Indians' whereabouts. One can only imagine what he felt when he charged the village as ordered, with three companies, only to see what probably looked like a million Indians coming at him. He estimated later that there were about 900--that may not be too far off before they turned around and went after Custer, if we accept the currently popular estimates of 1500 or so warriors. I realize that the numbers of Indians went up as the years went on--I seem to recall that Benteen said at one point that he thought there were 20,000! But we can probably agree that Reno was definitely outnumbered bigtime.
Maybe he was kicking himself for not doing as you suggest and pumping Custer for more info.
|
|
|
Post by Gen. Kuster on Apr 28, 2010 7:16:53 GMT -6
Yes, the responsibility for communication certainly works both ways. Benteen and Reno were not privates. They were veteran, seasoned officers who should have asked for more information, even if it meant getting chewed on a little by General Custer. That should not relieve the General of his responsibility to explain the plan, but Reno and Benteen should not cry that they were in the dark either.
Often, COs are so wrapped up in overall strategy and their numerous responsibilities that they don't communicate well. They also assume that the years of training and procedures that have been drilled into their men will allow their men to understand the situation intuitively without having to be told. These are people who have above average intelligence after all, so having to explain things in detail is not expected.
When Reno started his charge, he had to be wondering what kind of response he was going to receive. Maybe he thought the Indians would scatter, but based on my understanding of the Sioux, they were often very ferocious fighters, especially when they outnumbered the enemy as was the case here. To charge that camp with the feeling the Indians would scatter is a little naive in my opinion. Thus, I would hope a part of him was thinking about what to do if the Indians put up a great fight. This is why I don’t really buy into the concept that General Custer left Reno in the lurch. I believe that Reno and Benteen throw out the naive card or the "we didn't know what the plan was" card in order to suit their needs.
I wonder too how concerned the General was to keep his plans private so that they didn’t get in the hands of the enemy, especially considering all the Indian Scouts he had. I’m not saying he was betrayed, but he probably feared to a certain extent that his plan might be compromised. I believe his plan all along was to get in their rear and surprise them. This required a flanking move, and if this got out to some of the soldiers, how hard would it have been for the Indian Scouts to know as well? If that’s the plan, and it relies on surprise to be effective, I would guard it carefully.
I can only guess that General Custer had other good reasons for not telling them what the plan was. I can imagine the General telling Reno that his job was to act as infantry and pin the Indians at the far southern edge (so that Custer can get around behind them) despite Reno being outnumbered something like 15 to 1. I can imagine Reno objecting to that and possibly trying to call the whole thing off, when a more courageous officer might have said ok I will pin them for as long as I possibly can. Besides, the role Custer was reserving for himself was just as risky as Reno’s. Imagine having to ride at a gallop around Weir point down Cedar and MTC and charge across the river straight into the middle of the village? Custer was taking a big risk too, so it was not like he was asking his subordinates to assume all the risk.
|
|
|
Post by AZ Ranger on Apr 28, 2010 7:30:58 GMT -6
Seems to me "You have your orders" ends discussion. At least it did in the Marine Corps. Communication is only one way from top down under those conditions.
The failure to engage all 12 companies at the same time rests with the commander who was acting more like a battalion command rather than making sure all battalions were cooperating.
|
|
|
Post by crzhrs on Apr 28, 2010 9:10:13 GMT -6
<They were veteran, seasoned officers who should have asked for more information>
It was said that Benteen told Custer (paraphrase) If the village is as large as the scouts say it is, maybe we should keep the command together. Custer's response: "You have your orders"
If true, then Benteen did make a suggestion and was rebuked.
Reno's orders was to bring the Indians to battle . . . nothing about charging a stationary village (which the command thought was on the run). And by the way Custer et al's greatest fear was the Indians WOULD run rather than make a stand.
Custer's "plan" was based on the report of Indians running . . . nothing about attacking a stationary village.
|
|
|
Post by crzhrs on Apr 28, 2010 9:16:01 GMT -6
I doubt any Indian Scout had any idea what Custer's plans were, let alone told about them other than capturing Sioux ponies. The Indian & White Scouts job was to "scout" and/or make suggestions which Custer apparently disregarded most of.
Of course there's that absurd theory that Mitch Boyer had secretly met with Sioux leaders and told them he would warn them of Custer's approach (a gunshot) and would then personally killed Custer for his treatment of Meotzi.
There are things that are probable . . . then there are things improbable . . . some of your "ideas" are improbable.
|
|
|
Post by benteen on Apr 28, 2010 12:08:40 GMT -6
Gen K It is certainly allowed in a debate to guess at what someone may have been thinking but to suggest that Custer didn't let his battalion commanders know of his plan or contingency plan because some scout may have warned the village, I believe is a stretch.When Custer gave his order to Reno "advance on the village at a pace you deem prudent and you will be supported by the entire command" that its safe to say that his plan was for Reno to hit one end while he hit it from the flank.Is a flank maneuver a good tactic,Yes sometimes even preferable.However lets examine this foolish plan which was doomed from the start. Why Custer thought Reno with 150 or so men was going to be able to hit,drive or even reach this village,check that,this small city, is Known only to God and Custer. Secondly when Custer tells Reno he will support him he puts himself on the other side of the river from his objective, and doesn't know where of even IF he can cross it. As to sending Benteen off to proceed from one bluff to the next and so on WHY. The supposition is that the Indians would scatter. Lets examine that also.Indians were a warrior society but when they thought there was no hope of victory yes they scattered to protect their families However in Custers only real fight with them at the Wichita after his initial charge,he saw first hand that the Indians when in sufficient numbers not only didn't scatter, but actual attacked and drove him from the village.Why he thought that this group far larger than the Wichita, would run,is another example of his poor judgment.Had he been opposing Lee,Jackson, or others and they saw Custer divide his already inferior force into three individual units, they would have thought it was Devine intervention. Gen K as I have stated ,your posts are well thought out, on point and have in my opinion much merit but in this case sir I dont believe you were on your A game
|
|
|
Post by Melani on Apr 28, 2010 17:50:07 GMT -6
I agree that it's silly to think that Custer was worried about the Indian scouts betraying his plans to the hostiles, and the thing about the Bouyer assassination plot is beyond silly. Custer may have been worried about the Indians figuring out his plans, but that would have been because they saw his approach.
"You have your orders," certainly does end that conversation. The fact that he sent Benteen off to scout/block escape shows that he was totally fixated on the Indians running--and that maybe he had learned one thing from Washita--there might be more villages out of sight. I have often wondered if Benteen was meant to eventually come around and hit the village on the west side, away from the river. I have always felt that the main problem was that timing was off, partially due to the sheer size of the village.
Another thing to wonder about is whether or not Reno and Benteen knew as little about what was planned as they said afterwards, or whether it was another CYA moment.
|
|
|
Post by Gen. Kuster on Apr 28, 2010 18:08:37 GMT -6
Gen K It is certainly allowed in a debate to guess at what someone may have been thinking but to suggest that Custer didn't let his battalion commanders know of his plan or contingency plan because some scout may have warned the village, I believe is a stretch. I agree with you that it is a stretch. But my comment was not a statement of fact. I was thinking out loud, which I thought was somewhat clear when I prefaced it by "I wonder". Then again, thinking in terms of "stretches" is exactly how I believe we need to think in order to understand some of the mysteries of this battle. Nevertheless, the battle plan would have been confidential and only a few, if any, probably knew what it was. Is a flank maneuver a good tactic,Yes sometimes even preferable.However lets examine this foolish plan which was doomed from the start. Why Custer thought Reno with 150 or so men was going to be able to hit,drive or even reach this village,check that,this small city, is Known only to God and Custer. All Reno needed to do was "pin" the Indians. What I mean by "pin" is create enough of a nuisance such that the Indians felt the threat was significant for most of them to move to engage Reno just long enough for Custer to circle around. I believe Reno came pretty close to achieving this such that Custer was at the river and had light resistance there. I would even go so far as to say Reno's charge was not really an offensive tactic in a sense that the goal was not to achieve any significant offensive objective like killing many Indians or charging into the village. The goal was just to engage and keep the Indians busy. I don't think that's a stretch. Difficult, but not a stretch. Secondly when Custer tells Reno he will support him he puts himself on the other side of the river from his objective, and doesn't know where of even IF he can cross it. True, but you have to take certain risks and that was one the General was willing to take. I think most people believe that MTF was fordable, even though it was not a natural ford because it was not a natural route for travelers to take (like the ford Reno had). I don't really see a problem with the route that Custer took. As to sending Benteen off to proceed from one bluff to the next and so on WHY. The supposition is that the Indians would scatter. Lets examine that also.Indians were a warrior society but when they thought there was no hope of victory yes they scattered to protect their families However in Custers only real fight with them at the Wichita after his initial charge,he saw first hand that the Indians when in sufficient numbers not only didn't scatter, but actual attacked and drove him from the village.Why he thought that this group far larger than the Wichita, would run,is another example of his poor judgment. Having Colonel Benteen going off in a left oblique is certainly a controversial and critical part of the battle. As such, I need to tackle that one later when I have more time. Had he been opposing Lee,Jackson, or others and they saw Custer divide his already inferior force into three individual units, they would have thought it was Devine intervention. Custer was a lot like Lee. Lee liked to divide his forces and attack the enemy from different sides (including his flank) even in the face of a superior enemy. See "Seven Days Battles" "Battle of Chancellorsville" and "Battle of Gettysburg". Lee often took huge risks, but was successful most of the time.
|
|
|
Post by Gen. Kuster on Apr 28, 2010 18:47:42 GMT -6
Communication among the leaders of the unit should be across lines such that Benteen, Reno, and Custer should have communicated freely (assuming Custer did not have a good reason for not doing so). If Custer did not express the plan, then it was incumbent upon Reno and Benteen to ask. That's what officers do. They take the initiative and do the right thing. In the case of Benteen providing a suggestion, that's not the same as simply asking Custer what the plan was.
Once the commanders have the plan and their orders, then I agree orders are "followed from the top down" unless there is an extenuating circumstance.
On the topic of communication, I still think Benteen and Reno knew more than they led on.
|
|
|
Post by benteen on Apr 30, 2010 10:06:09 GMT -6
Melani I make no secret about being a Custer detractor.One of my points to show his foolishness has been his sending Benteen off as a blocking force against scattering Indians.My fact to support this was Custer should have known from the Washita that Indians when in sufficient numbers dont run, they attack.You have turned that around on me and of course you are correct Custer also learned from the Washita that the warriors may have other camps down river from the main one and Benteen wasnt sent as a blocking force which would have been stupid, but on a scout to be assured that he wouldn't be hit from another direction by addition forces, which would make perfect sense.Outstanding point Melani.I stand corrected and agree with you completely.As to your second theory about a benteen flank attack and cya I have to reject that.I base it mainly on the fact that if this was planned,as you point out timing would be important since they had no walky talkys the signal to Benteen would have been a bugle call. By sending the message Benteen come quick,big village,bring packs p.s. bring packs it tells me there was no such plan. If there were,Custer would have just had a bugle call sounded and he knew benteen would be on his way.There would have been no need for a time consuming message.Isn't it ironic Cook sent the message with the bugler Martini.Although I reject your second thought, your first again was outstanding. You see its never too late for an old goat like me to be taught a lesson and learn something.
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on Apr 30, 2010 11:45:15 GMT -6
Really. When, at the Washita, did the Indians ever attack? What did they consider a 'sufficient' number?
Most that happened was some odd firing from distance, and vague groups from other villages headed towards them to see what was going on. Kildeer Mt., on the other hand, was the closer comparison.
|
|
|
Post by benteen on Apr 30, 2010 14:03:56 GMT -6
Before I reply to DC I need a favor from someone. I notice that other than mine, the postings are put in proper format with new paragraphs starting new ideas. All I have is this little white box in which one thought and sentence run into each other. Would someone please send me a message and tell me how to do it. It would be greatly appreciated. Thank You
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on Apr 30, 2010 15:00:55 GMT -6
Shouldn't make a difference. I'm answering in the Quick Reply Box and I....
...can start a new paragraph with the same keys used in any other typing for format and spacing.
To use italics and all, hit the 'reply' button beneath a specific post to which you're replying.
|
|
|
Post by benteen on Apr 30, 2010 22:25:06 GMT -6
Darkcloud in my previous post I alluded to the fact that at the Washita the warriors did not run but in fact attacked Custer.Your reply to that was "Really, when at the Washita, did the Indians ever attack?"also "most that happened was some odd firing at a distance". Allow me to read to you a section of a report that pertains to your statements. THE WASHITA-GENERAL CUSTERS REPORT TO GENERAL SHERIDAN and I quote "The Kiowas under Satanta, and Arapahoes, under Little Raven,were encamped six miles below Black Kettles village and the warriors from these two villages came to attempt the rescue of the Cheyennes. They attacked my command on all sides about noon."Let me repeat that last sentence." they ATTACKED my command ON ALL SIDES about noon"Now I realize that you believe you have more knowledge than me about this event(you may very well be correct about that) but unless you believe you have more knowledge than Custer about it, I suggest that you rethink your statement/opinion on it as you have been proven by Custers own words to be wrong I also stated in that post that when Indians feel they have sufficient numbers to fight that they will not run they will fight you.Your response was "What did they consider a sufficient number" That DC I am not qualified to answer.To some a sn would be a 2-1 advantage, to others, even would be OK,to others depending on the circumstances,element of surprise, position on the battlefield.weaponry,etc even a lesser force would be suitable.My opinion doesn't mean a hill of beans,the responsibility for that decision rests souly on the opinion of the combatants. By the way thank you for the advise on posting I sure have I great way to show my appreciation dont I.
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on Apr 30, 2010 23:12:23 GMT -6
The "attack" of Custer's report was the "odd firing from distance" I referenced. There arguably could have been shooters around the compass, but doubtful. As Custer seems to have lied in that report about the composition and number of the enemy dead, and this 'attack' didn't seem to require all hands of deck to defend the regiment, it can be viewed as an exaggeration. Outside of Custer, who else who was there mentions this noon attack from all sides? You'd think more would have noticed, and there would have been many casualties from such an incident.
Godfrey's scouting unit called attention to itself from the further villages, and were under attack all the way back to the battlefield. They lost not a man, to give an idea of the size of the 'attack.' Elliott was not as lucky with his smaller unit, or perhaps as competent, and his loss was something Custer would find easier to explain, given this noon attack from all sides.
They certainly were worried about an actual attack later on, which was the reason for them forming and riding towards the villages, then turning around after dark and retracing.
My point was, for a decision to be made of a "sufficient number" existing, there would have to be a command structure with someone's decision in the matter being final and, in effect, an order, but they didn't seem to be organized like that.
At Kildeer Mt., a much different story, if same result.
I did look this up in Wikipedia and in Donovan and Stewart, and neither of them mentions this noon attack from all sides. The horse culling went uninterrupted. A group of Indians were discouraged later by one company alone. There is no seeming recollection of a noon attack from all sides.
Amusingly, Donovan is given credit and a reference for using the words "captives" and "prisoners" in description of the captive prisoners, as if he'd coined the words, or they had special meaning that had not occurred to anyone previous. And it is stated as fact, because Custer thinks it true or at least so wrote, that the reason the movement to the other villages did not receive an attack was because of the captives in the middle of the column. Yet this supposed noon attack from all sides with the same regiment and same prisoners doesn't mesh with that.
It's just as likely they didn't want to fight in weather like that, because they hardly, despite only a few miles distance, seem to have gotten the other villages together to attack the 7th despite outnumbering it or even organized to defend against them after an entire day.
Like Boston meeting Martini, that issue is important to Custerphiles who need it in 1876 to have a plausible reason for Custer's northern journey beyond MTC, which according to them was to intercept fleeing civvies. Again, doubtful, because he seems to have made no serious attempt to cross the LBH, and the most likely reason they ended up on LSH is because they were driven there.
|
|