|
Post by montrose on May 20, 2015 4:47:30 GMT -6
Ian,
1. If Reno had continued to the village area, the Indians would do what they always do. Avoid the front of the US element, and swing around into their flanks and rear. Remember 5-900 Indians were already in Reno's rear, cutting him off from Ford A and the rest of the regiment. So this force would be attacking Reno against no US defense, and would have butchered every single one of them.
2. I see your point that a few members of Reno's force saw other US elements on the bluffs. The term battalion is misleading. Today it is an organized permanent unit with a staff and daily contact between BN and CO commanders. The 1876 battalion was an ad hoc grouping of two or more companies. Communication was much worse in these ad hoc, temporary grouping, than in an actual unit.
Depending on random chance to provide critical information to a commander is hopeless. MAJ Reno sent two messengers to LTC Custer. So GAC knew for fact that the Indians were not running, and that there was a battle in the valley.
Why did LTC Custer not send a messenger back? Why did he not go forward to see for himself what was going on? Instead of going to where the Indians were located, he went to where there were no Indians.
3. MAJ Reno used the river to protect his right flank. He had too small a force to cover the valley. If he had not done so the Indians would have conducted a double envelopment, exactly as they did in the Keogh sector.
Remember he started out with 2 companies forward, one back. As he saw the massive Indian counterattack, he put all 3 companies into line and sent messengers so that LTC Custer would come forward and extend his line.
|
|
|
Post by Yan Taylor on May 20, 2015 5:14:00 GMT -6
Thanks William, excellent answers.
It looks like Reno's goose was well and truly cooked after he forded the river, and if you look at it from another perspective he was lucky that he managed to get any out at all, and if we look at the battle as a whole with an open flank to the left of his defensive line and his enemies strength growing stronger as time went by, then he was fortunate that his battalion was not cut up on the field aka Keogh, add to this the ride of death against hundreds of mounted warriors on fresh ponies, fully armed with various implements designed to knock you off your horse then it could have been much worse, I mean how many men did he lose 35-36 in total out of 140-150? remarkable that he had enough to occupy that hill and greet Benteen.
Ian.
|
|
|
Post by dave on May 20, 2015 9:11:56 GMT -6
QC
I apologize for my inarticulately phrased question regarding Reno's sobriety. I realize there is no way to legally prove one way or another his sobriety. I was asking for Fred to provide eye witness testimony that enables a reader to form their own opinion instead of posters saying he was drunk in their opinion. Regards Dave
|
|
|
Post by Yan Taylor on May 20, 2015 9:20:36 GMT -6
Well Dave he rode well for a drunken man, as far as I know he never fell of his horse once during that charge out of the timber.
Ian.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on May 20, 2015 11:14:08 GMT -6
Dave: You know me better than to think that answer was for your eyes/ears.
It was directed at any damned fool that uses sobriety or the lack thereof, as a reason/excuse/fabrication/fairy tale/name your poison for anything that happened in that valley. I don't give a damn if Reno drank a distillery worth of booze, drunk or sober, he did what the situation called for. That is all that counts. Those that do not believe he did the appropriate thing given the circumstances are either damned fools, reenactors, or make believe hussars, none of which have any redeeming value. There are no extra points for pretty. At the end of the day it is simply did he or didn't he, and in this instance he did.
|
|
|
Post by dave on May 20, 2015 11:35:21 GMT -6
QC I took no offense and appreciate your insightful comments. My mother told me long ago that it is ok to ask questions as long as you listen to the answers and learn. I know Fred will present the evidence and allow the reader to make their own decision. Regards Dave
|
|
|
Post by Beth on May 20, 2015 12:34:16 GMT -6
Dave: You know me better than to think that answer was for your eyes/ears. It was directed at any damned fool that uses sobriety or the lack thereof, as a reason/excuse/fabrication/fairy tale/name your poison for anything that happened in that valley. I don't give a damn if Reno drank a distillery worth of booze, drunk or sober, he did what the situation called for. That is all that counts. Those that do not believe he did the appropriate thing given the circumstances are either damned fools, reenactors, or make believe hussars, none of which have any redeeming value. There are no extra points for pretty. At the end of the day it is simply did he or didn't he, and in this instance he did. Accusing someone else of being drunk to over his own failures appear to be right out of Custer family playbook. Custer accused Captain West of being drunk in retaliation for after Custer's court martial. He also had General Grant's son arrested for drunkenness during the Black Hills Expedition. (I am looking for details on that but it seems really stupid move, career wise.) There were also accusations against General David Stanley. I find it interesting that one of the people who supported Custer's claims against Stanley was Tom Rosser, Custer's good friend and West Point room mate. Rosser was also one of those who was very public in his accusations against Reno even though he wasn't even there. Beth
|
|
|
Post by tubman13 on May 20, 2015 14:42:31 GMT -6
Maclean's book mentiosn booze on several occasions, by several, does not proclaim drunk. Not kegs, not gallons, just pint sized flask. I am not saying it was not refilled.
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on May 20, 2015 17:43:23 GMT -6
If Benteen were like so many others he could have made a bunch lecturing on the LBH. He was a good speaker, rather tall, smart, good voice I've read (Custer had a speech impediment - lisp, I think - and a high voice and, you know, was dead....). He could have turned on Reno easily and would have had support as everyone wanted Reno as the scapegoat, and the public already believed it. He could have used the cash.
Instead, he said under oath (I think) something like there wasn't enough liquor in Montana to get anyone drunk under those conditions, that nobody was, and if someone had been Benteen had every intention of hitting them up for a few. That sounds like near every soldier I've ever known. I certainly don't doubt Reno downed a few - the receipts exist - but I do not think a drunk officer would have survived the battle, but somehow been shot. It's not far fetched to think Benteen shot the one guy who wouldn't charge with them off Reno Hill but who, somehow after they returned, was hit between the eyes by a crack Sioux marksman.
The Prohibition Movement was underway by Reno's death, and handy, all-too-perfect tales of drunks redeemed at death played into the hands of a priest who attended him and who after went to the papers with the story, although his attachment with Reno must have been brief. Just a coincidence that the Father was a big wheel in the Prohibition Movement - or wanted to be - and that the tale served a constructive purpose in his eyes for his target audience and also gave him his 15 minutes. Might have been a fib, too.
Custer shifted presentation of his addiction habit/fetish from booze to gambling. And he was cruel to those who couldn't stay sober. Jesse Grant WAS a lush, and there's a photo of him with other officers at lunch in the field looking it. His father was, unattended by Julia, so no shock there.
Our Admiral Halsey was a basket case by the end of his war, and because sleeping pills that worked back then knocked you cold for the full eight, his doctor aboard the New Jersey made sure he had a refreshing beverage or two instead before bed every night. Liquor, of course, was banned on all our ships except for medicinal purpose. During this period he messed up Leyte Gulf and uniquely managed to find and enter two (2) monster typhoons with the huge 3rd Fleet and lost ships and men. How easy would it have been to pull a Reno on him if the Navy wanted him out? Very, but Spruance took over on schedule and the war was nearly over when Halsey returned.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
The Valley
May 20, 2015 18:42:50 GMT -6
via mobile
Post by Deleted on May 20, 2015 18:42:50 GMT -6
QC I apologize for my inarticulately phrased question regarding Reno's sobriety. I realize there is no way to legally prove one way or another his sobriety. I was asking for Fred to provide eye witness testimony that enables a reader to form their own opinion instead of posters saying he was drunk in their opinion. Regards Dave Dave, In fairness, there is more than ample first and second source testimony and evidence to more than suggest our good Major was indulging in a few drinks. For anyone to suggest otherwise is selectively picking facts and innuendos to fit their agenda. Furthermore for anyone to suggest it is immaterial whether he was or wasn't is bordering on the ridiculous. A sober soldier makes the same decisions as one under the influence?? Really..... Regards Mark
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
The Valley
May 20, 2015 18:45:40 GMT -6
via mobile
Post by Deleted on May 20, 2015 18:45:40 GMT -6
1. Why did Reno follow the contour of the river instead of charging straight down the valley? Was that the appropriate thing to do? 2. Why did he charge in line as opposed to column? Was that the appropriate thing to do? Should they have initially been in column and then transitioned to line? 3. Somewhere I read that there were trunks of cottonwood trees, that the Indians had cut down so their horses could feed on the bark during the winter, littered across the valley floor. Is that true, and if so, how much disruption did that, as well as animal burrows, etc., cause to the charge. 4. What impact did the condition of the horses have? a) Do we know what portion of the new, inexperienced horses that had recently been received were in Reno's command? b) Were they tired with some falling behind? c) Did some become excited and uncontrollable? 5. Once deployed in skirmish line, was it necessary/appropriate for Reno to personally enter the timber to check the reports of Indians infiltrating there? 6. Did Reno subsequently order the entire command into the timber, or did it just sort of happen? Some say one thing, while some say the other. 7. Did the Bloody Knife incident happen as traditionally related? Did the mount/dismount/mount scenario play out as is traditionally recounted? If so, was it due to Reno's effectiveness being truly degraded, or was he only temporarily startled and recovered? 8. Why were instructions via trumpet apparently not given at any time during the valley fight, especially when beginning the retrograde? Is that an indication of lack of clear thought on Reno's part? 9. How much of a threat was represented by Indians on the far side of the river firing across into the timber location? 10. What was the performance of the various subordinates, particularly Moylan, and how much impact did that have on the overall course of the fight. 11. Why was trooper marksmanship apparently so poor, with no more casualties than there were inflicted upon the Indians (There has to be more to it than the normal reasoning that they didn't have enough ammunition for practice)? 12. Elaborate upon the portion of Indians armed with modern rifles vs. older firearms (types) vs. bows/arrows 13. Should some sort of defensive stand have been attempted at the river by the first arrivals (including Reno) so as to cover the crossing of the others? Would it have been feasible? 14. Were the troopers truly as closely pressed as is usually related? At least one was said to have arrived on the bluffs with a freshly taken Indian scalp, indicating that he had the time to take it. Most if not all of these questions are answered in Fred's book. Excellent read if you haven't picked up a copy.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
The Valley
May 20, 2015 18:50:24 GMT -6
via mobile
Post by Deleted on May 20, 2015 18:50:24 GMT -6
Dave: You know me better than to think that answer was for your eyes/ears. It was directed at any damned fool that uses sobriety or the lack thereof, as a reason/excuse/fabrication/fairy tale/name your poison for anything that happened in that valley. I don't give a damn if Reno drank a distillery worth of booze, drunk or sober, he did what the situation called for. That is all that counts. Those that do not believe he did the appropriate thing given the circumstances are either damned fools, reenactors, or make believe hussars, none of which have any redeeming value. There are no extra points for pretty. At the end of the day it is simply did he or didn't he, and in this instance he did. Fascinating that you see absolutely no importance in whether Reno was drunk or not. If a drunk commander is capable of the same performance levels as a sober one, why not let every soldier and officer get sloppy drunk before sending them into battle? Your obvious agenda leads you down the path of obsurdity.
|
|
|
Post by Beth on May 20, 2015 20:51:51 GMT -6
If Benteen were like so many others he could have made a bunch lecturing on the LBH. He was a good speaker, rather tall, smart, good voice I've read (Custer had a speech impediment - lisp, I think - and a high voice and, you know, was dead....). He could have turned on Reno easily and would have had support as everyone wanted Reno as the scapegoat, and the public already believed it. He could have used the cash. Instead, he said under oath (I think) something like there wasn't enough liquor in Montana to get anyone drunk under those conditions, that nobody was, and if someone had been Benteen had every intention of hitting them up for a few. That sounds like near every soldier I've ever known. I certainly don't doubt Reno downed a few - the receipts exist - but I do not think a drunk officer would have survived the battle, but somehow been shot. It's not far fetched to think Benteen shot the one guy who wouldn't charge with them off Reno Hill but who, somehow after they returned, was hit between the eyes by a crack Sioux marksman. The Prohibition Movement was underway by Reno's death, and handy, all-too-perfect tales of drunks redeemed at death played into the hands of a priest who attended him and who after went to the papers with the story, although his attachment with Reno must have been brief. Just a coincidence that the Father was a big wheel in the Prohibition Movement - or wanted to be - and that the tale served a constructive purpose in his eyes for his target audience and also gave him his 15 minutes. Might have been a fib, too. Custer shifted presentation of his addiction habit/fetish from booze to gambling. And he was cruel to those who couldn't stay sober. Jesse Grant WAS a lush, and there's a photo of him with other officers at lunch in the field looking it. His father was, unattended by Julia, so no shock there.
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on May 20, 2015 21:39:51 GMT -6
Beth,
1. I don't propose he bash La Custer, but Reno like everyone else was. Sell him out. Easy. Not true, but hey. That he didn't, could have, and stood by a guy he was not an admirer of speaks very well of Benteen. Like Sherman, he's easy for me to like at distance.
2. Stand corrected: I meant Temperance and used Prohibition incorrectly.
3. Everyone's selective about who they complain about. And it wasn't just for drinking Custer complained about folks. Don't know what Libby's powers were in such matters. Suspect near everyone had at least one night they'd pay big money for their friends to forget.
4. Regarding Grant, it can be seen as a smart move as by 1876 President Grant was not so widely adored anymore, and a president's drunken son could be a serious issue. Custer wasn't without some courage in the matter. And it was Jesse who brought his father into contact with con men and lost the family's money later on. Then Twain and the autobiography and salvation, at least for Julia. Grant was a good, perhaps great, man at base and was treated like crap by both friends and enemies. It just rolls out from his writing that he was (mostly) honest if not too worldly in some areas. As he is to Coates, Grant is splendid to me.
|
|
|
Post by Beth on May 20, 2015 22:59:17 GMT -6
The Fredrick Grant incident was in 1874 on the Black Hills Expedition.
Beth
|
|