|
Post by alfakilo on Mar 3, 2013 16:18:24 GMT -6
One of the aspects of the LBH event that confounds new folks is the number of different opinions about what happened that day. What are the major issues in question?
Perhaps one way to answer this question is to ask those of us with 'models' to explain the major points in their theory of events. I'm sure there are many areas of agreement in the various models...but what of the differences? Any 'big deals' that would help the rest of us understand where the main unknowns are?
AK
|
|
|
Post by wild on Mar 3, 2013 16:47:11 GMT -6
The only unknown lies beyond MTC. The real differences are in interpretation of the knowns. For example "Benteen deserting his post".
|
|
|
Post by montrose on Mar 3, 2013 19:19:39 GMT -6
AK,
Good idea, but hard to apply to LBH.
The vast majority of writing and concepts on LBH are emotional. People flogging their own pet theory, or trying to validate their personal itineraries, despite massive evidence to the contrary.
Fact based discussions are difficult to sustain.
I am open to the effort. I recommend we identify a single hypothesis, and wag the dog from there.
Here is one: the most incompetent performance of any officer at LBH was conducted by Myles Keough.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Mar 3, 2013 21:17:32 GMT -6
That is as good a place to start as any. I want to see where this one goes. It was either incompetence, or he was holding the bag for Custer. Only two possible directions it could go the way I see it, but who knows.
|
|
|
Post by alfakilo on Mar 3, 2013 21:40:24 GMT -6
The vast majority of writing and concepts on LBH are emotional. People flogging their own pet theory, or trying to validate their personal itineraries, despite massive evidence to the contrary. I posed this same topic on the other forum and got a similar reply. I agree with you and that poster. Another post there added details regarding subjects that result in differing models...all were good and interesting questions, but I am not sure that determining answers to them really puts us that much further ahead in our understanding of the battle. My thought is that I am more interested in why these differences are being contested. For example, regarding the number of warriors who engaged Reno...other than to satisfy the desire to know a number, does it really matter if it was a big bunch or a really big bunch? If so, why? For folks like me, knowing this should materially increase our appreciation of the battle's twits and turns. AK
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Mar 3, 2013 21:50:55 GMT -6
AK: The number of warriors that engaged Reno are of no real importance. We know it was big enough, so that's really all that matters specificly to that incident. What is important is the number of warriors that engaged both Reno and Custer. If it was all of them then you can say, that a failure of Reno to hold was indeed critical to the final outcome. If on the other hand it was somewhere between a small portion and half, then the only conclusion you can possibly reach is that Reno in the valley holding or not holding made no material difference, and that there were more then sufficient left to deal with Custer who had not been engaged, and that any and all warriors reaching the Custer field after fighting Reno was more a matter of piling on.
I think Fred has identified on the order of 400 who fought both. His computer is out at the moment. If you have his phone number call him to check that 400 number. If you don't have it PM me and I will provide it. I am sure he would love to discuss it with you and I personally think his numbers are very solid.
|
|
|
Post by wild on Mar 4, 2013 0:41:33 GMT -6
AK You will find the other board a much more fertile ground for fantasising if that's your thing. Is there anything more futile than contesting the differences between fantasies?Keogh's fantasies v Conz's fantasies perish the thought.
Far far more interesting is why QC has done a 180 on the Cooke message.[Custer had every reason to believe that Benteen would follow him. Following him was Custer's intention for Benteen's actions] A few thousand posts back he was posting that all Benteen was required to do was to send a messenger through to Custer.
|
|
|
Post by Yan Taylor on Mar 4, 2013 5:21:06 GMT -6
AK, this village was so large, that Reno may have only been repulsed by warriors from tribes from the southern end of it, the tribes closest to Reno were, the Hunkpapa, San Arc and Oglala. A bit further north we have the Minneconjou, Santee, Yankton and Yanktonai tribes. So Warriors from the Cheyenne, Blackfoot and Brule tribes may well have still been in the village when Custer struck.
Richard, poking a stick at QC is doing no body any good, it will only add fuel to any fire that is still burning, I am hoping that this does not explode again, so let’s keep it civil because ‘’all is for the best, in the best of all possible worlds.
Ian.
|
|
|
Post by alfakilo on Mar 4, 2013 6:48:42 GMT -6
AK: The number of warriors that engaged Reno are of no real importance. We know it was big enough, so that's really all that matters specificly to that incident. What is important is the number of warriors that engaged both Reno and Custer. If it was all of them then you can say, that a failure of Reno to hold was indeed critical to the final outcome. If on the other hand it was somewhere between a small portion and half, then the only conclusion you can possibly reach is that Reno in the valley holding or not holding made no material difference, and that there were more then sufficient left to deal with Custer who had not been engaged, and that any and all warriors reaching the Custer field after fighting Reno was more a matter of piling on. That's what I'm looking for...an explanation of why something is or isn't material to the battle. Good words. I tend to go with your second possibility. That Reno had been defeated and put out of the battle, at least in the short term, doesn't seem to be up for question. Then, as Ian pointed out, it would appear that only part of the village warriors were involved with Reno...at least initially. So, in my reckoning, it's only a matter of piling on, as you put it. This was a done deal from the moment Custer left the divide as I see it. The numbers of warriors only impact how short the fight lasted. AK
|
|
|
Post by alfakilo on Mar 4, 2013 6:50:26 GMT -6
AK, this village was so large, that Reno may have only been repulsed by warriors from tribes from the southern end of it, the tribes closest to Reno were, the Hunkpapa, San Arc and Oglala. A bit further north we have the Minneconjou, Santee, Yankton and Yanktonai tribes. So Warriors from the Cheyenne, Blackfoot and Brule tribes may well have still been in the village when Custer struck.Ian. Thanks, Ian...it seems that way to me also. When the question comes up of how many warriors there were, the answer is simply 'more than needed'. AK
|
|
|
Post by Gatewood on Mar 4, 2013 7:15:23 GMT -6
You might find this useful. The author condenses all of the various theories down into what he calls the three main ones, with all of the others just being slight variations on those three. www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a387464.pdf
|
|
|
Post by wild on Mar 4, 2013 7:37:39 GMT -6
Hi Ian Really appreciate the sentiments. Regards
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Mar 4, 2013 9:48:30 GMT -6
AK: I am coming more to believe that the thing most important to understanding this battle, the most material thing, is two words contained in the message to Benteen - "Big Village". The trail I really wish to explore is those actions before those words were written, and actions subsequent to it. I believe those two words serve to explain all that transpired before, but while not explaining, point a finger of responsability to what occured after.
Ian: Your post above was valuable. Going back and recalling several large scale confusing situations I have been personally involved in I think it highly likely that many of those in the down river villages did not immediately know what was going on, other than hearing firing and probably a lot of other noise. I would imagine immediate confusion, that would take some little time to sort out, before they (the warriors) could respond. That time would be insufficient for many of them to reach Reno, but just in time to meet Custer's approach.
|
|
|
Post by Yan Taylor on Mar 4, 2013 10:35:21 GMT -6
Thanks Chuck; I agree, you hear various Indian accounts that’s say, we were bathing or we were fishing and even we were sleeping, when the firing started. So Reno must have initially faced Warriors that were around the southern end of this vast village.
Concerning the note; the phrases ‘’Big Village’’, ‘’Be Quick’’ and ‘’Bring Packs’’, if the village was bigger than Custer thought, then the one of the reasons he still went through with the attack could have been the ‘’run theory’’, Custer thought the village would not stand and fight , but if he had seen any of the Reno Fight (not the advance, but skirmish lines), then he would have seen the opposite to that, the village not only standing but taking the battle to Reno. ‘’Be Quick’’, this again is confusing, how can a Battalion of Cavalry be quick if it had to bring a pack train along, but Cooks writes ‘’Bring Packs’’ not only once but twice.
Ian.
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on Mar 4, 2013 10:38:48 GMT -6
I don't think there is much of any 'mystery' whatever. We know more about this battle than many others. I find it hard to get worked up over whether this group was killed on their way to another place or killed fifteen minutes later returning from the other place. In the chaos, what matters that?
The model by the naval lieutenant assumes the Indians were under Crazy Horse, just like Ambrose falsely assumed, and he claims Benteen was 'slowly' making his way back to Custer, a falsehood AZ has blown out of the water rather irrefutably. So, right off he purports the Indians were far more similar to the Army than they were and attaches a nonexistent issue. Garbage in, garbage out.
The issue of warrior numbers is worked to appeal to emotion rather than fact. If there were tons of Indians, Custer was a fool or suicidal since there was no point to attacking such a huge number. Also, stunning coincidence, it allows the overlay of European/Norse literary templates of sacrifice and courage in the face of No Hope. Etc. If the numbers were much less, however, then he was attempting the possible and only the treason/cowardice/drunkeness of Reno and Benteen were responsible.
This is idiotic, as any obvious dereliction of duty would have been called out by other officers and rescuing Custer would have all the plusses and none of the horrors attendant to willingly letting him and a bunch of friends and others die horribly.
When the Native Americans got organized in the 20th Century and recognized how publicity and history worked in the modern era, they also noted that if there were so many Indians, they had done a terrible job in letting the 7th get so close and had obviously no organized scouts out. So, over time the Custer Fanboys and Indian Fanboys found love in presenting a much lower number of Indians that allowed the Last Stand by Treason and forgave the Indians for allowing soldiers getting near the village and this also made the Indians braver without overwhelming numbers. Win-win. Cue Jules Steiner.
But the battle was won by the marginally less incompetent side that day, is all.
There are evidenced explanations for the detritus of the cavalry up north that doesn't require soldiers being there which everyone ignores. There is no reason to think reason departed from whoever was in command and they kept dividing an already insufficient number in the face of the enemy and placing them out of mutual support. There is no military reason to think anything could be seen from eastern high ground not visible from Weir Point or Sharpshooter Ridge, and it's not coherent that they would abandon shock and move north to assume a defense on the worst possible ground for it.
|
|