|
Post by tubman13 on May 29, 2015 14:11:49 GMT -6
I hate this program grabs and wont let go!
|
|
|
Post by fred on May 29, 2015 14:22:32 GMT -6
I thought evidence was presented that he did throw up at some point after drinking. While this evidence is not the sine qua non of being drunk it seems to tilt the conclusion in that direction. If we are examining his initial decision not to continue forward into the camp however as opposed to his subsequent actions does it really matter? The question in my mind is whether the decision to stop and dismount was a proper decision even if sober. Wouldn't the Indians have had a harder time massing sufficient warriors to thwart an all out charge and a run by Reno forces through the camp at a cantor? Would the ensuing havoc have forced the women and children to flee? Would the warriors been as effective fighting in the camp? There is considerably more evidence Reno was not drunk than evidence he was. His main detractors were the two civilian packers, Frett and Churchill, and you might expect them to dislike Reno and accuse him of being drunk when you think about Reno's threat to shoot them if he caught them again pilfering the packs during the night of the 25th. Benteen had expressly forbidden anyone to go near those packs.. who knew how long they were to be there on a scorching hilltop, under siege by 2,000+ Indians? There are a number of absolutely definitive accounts-- officers and enlisted men-- that say Reno was not drunk. As for his actions in the valley, again, Reno is accused of not following through with his charge, when in reality it becomes quite convenient to distort facts to fit opinions. First of all, Reno did not order a charge... and accounts support that. The village was three miles from Ford A; Reno did not allow the troops to stop, re-cinch saddles, or allow horses to drink. They had just traveled 11.81 miles at an average speed of a slow gallop-- 8½ MPH-- and were now moving down a valley loaded with an unknown number of hostiles. He needed to save some horse flesh along the way!! Reno followed the general course of the river-- not a straight line-- and while doing so, the Indians were raising all sorts of dust, obscuring the village and whatever was building on the other side of the dust screen. Then, as he got nearer, the timber jutted out, obscuring even more, and to make matters worse, they spotted a ravine supposedly loaded with-- or certainly beginning to fill with Indians. Unknowing the size or depth of the ravine or what he was about to confront (Luke Hare claimed there were 200 Indians in it... which I tend to doubt), Reno ordered a dismount. He then tried to clear the timber with a portion of G Company so his horses would be safe, all the while advancing his men down the valley: almost a mile in width with 75-78 men. How, precisely does one do that? Why would any good, competent officer send his command into the bleakness of the unknown: deep ditches, a valley filling with dust, unknown hundreds of Indians, increasing numbers of warriors... why? While it is all well and good for a student, a teacher, a historian, a writer to say a military guy should have done this or that, it becomes a whole different thing when the military guy is confronted with reality. It's like George Crook asked Phil Sheridan: "How do you surround three Indians with one soldier?" And in Reno's case reality became 900+ Indians, more and more mounting as time went on. That is if you want to believe the accounts of those who fought the battle. If you prefer to believe the modern-day clowns, the so-called hussars who have never seen the working end of a rifle, then that's fine, go ahead; but it ain't the truth and it ain't what happened at the LBH. The problem with most people is they fall too much in love with heroes and too much in love with their own theories and ideas. None of that interests me; I want only the truth: what happened that day at the LBH? Unless someone can prove me wrong, I believe I have-- through my timing analyses in that book-- figured it all out. So far, no one has been able to refute a single thing I wrote in that book: at least not with facts or better evidence. Best wishes, Fred.
|
|
jaguar
Junior Member
Posts: 74
|
Post by jaguar on May 29, 2015 14:53:46 GMT -6
Beth: I am not sure about the length of the ravine or gully but it is given as a reason for Reno to have stopped his charge against the village having seen Indians pouring out of it. This assumes of course that he was in a charge at this point. What is and what is not a charge is a matter of debate. They were very unlikely to have been at a gallop. What is confusing about this claim is that the witnesses differ greatly as to how close Reno got to the main village. Scout Billy Cross said 400 yards, Private Davern a 1,000 yards, Corporal Hammon claimed they dismounted 3/4 of a mile and advanced on foot to within 200 yards. These varying accounts do not seem to be consistent with a barrier stopping their advance otherwise they would have used this feature to judge the distance. It was 7 shots without reloading 6 for the revolver and 1 for the rifle not 7 bullets. I am not sure how many Warriors were mounted at this point but those on foot were not going to out flank moving cavalry. The risk of being outflanked was far greater once a skirmish line was established and they were off their horses. The number of Indians based on the witnesses range from no less than 300 to between 1,000 to 1,200. This is not however the number that Reno faced when he made the decision to stop and dismount, but after the decision had been made. Then 40 to 50 were seen harassing his troops with the greater numbers attacking him from a distance. One more thought. If the ravine was a physical barrier to a charge against the village how is it that 2 soldiers got carried away into the village by run away horses?
|
|
|
Post by Colt45 on May 29, 2015 15:04:55 GMT -6
The runaways you refer to I believe came from Custer's unit at ford B. I don't recall any runaways from Reno's unit getting into the village. Maybe I am wrong.
|
|
jaguar
Junior Member
Posts: 74
|
Post by jaguar on May 29, 2015 15:12:31 GMT -6
I thought evidence was presented that he did throw up at some point after drinking. While this evidence is not the sine qua non of being drunk it seems to tilt the conclusion in that direction. If we are examining his initial decision not to continue forward into the camp however as opposed to his subsequent actions does it really matter? The question in my mind is whether the decision to stop and dismount was a proper decision even if sober. Wouldn't the Indians have had a harder time massing sufficient warriors to thwart an all out charge and a run by Reno forces through the camp at a cantor? Would the ensuing havoc have forced the women and children to flee? Would the warriors been as effective fighting in the camp? There is considerably more evidence Reno was not drunk than evidence he was. His main detractors were the two civilian packers, Frett and Churchill, and you might expect them to dislike Reno and accuse him of being drunk when you think about Reno's threat to shoot them if he caught them again pilfering the packs during the night of the 25th. Benteen had expressly forbidden anyone to go near those packs.. who knew how long they were to be there on a scorching hilltop, under siege by 2,000+ Indians? There are a number of absolutely definitive accounts-- officers and enlisted men-- that say Reno was not drunk. As for his actions in the valley, again, Reno is accused of not following through with his charge, when in reality it becomes quite convenient to distort facts to fit opinions. First of all, Reno did not order a charge... and accounts support that. The village was three miles from Ford A; Reno did not allow the troops to stop, re-cinch saddles, or allow horses to drink. They had just traveled 11.81 miles at an average speed of a slow gallop-- 8½ MPH-- and were now moving down a valley loaded with an unknown number of hostiles. He needed to save some horse flesh along the way!! Reno followed the general course of the river-- not a straight line-- and while doing so, the Indians were raising all sorts of dust, obscuring the village and whatever was building on the other side of the dust screen. Then, as he got nearer, the timber jutted out, obscuring even more, and to make matters worse, they spotted a ravine supposedly loaded with-- or certainly beginning to fill with Indians. Unknowing the size or depth of the ravine or what he was about to confront (Luke Hare claimed there were 200 Indians in it... which I tend to doubt), Reno ordered a dismount. He then tried to clear the timber with a portion of G Company so his horses would be safe, all the while advancing his men down the valley: almost a mile in width with 75-78 men. How, precisely does one do that? Why would any good, competent officer send his command into the bleakness of the unknown: deep ditches, a valley filling with dust, unknown hundreds of Indians, increasing numbers of warriors... why? While it is all well and good for a student, a teacher, a historian, a writer to say a military guy should have done this or that, it becomes a whole different thing when the military guy is confronted with reality. It's like George Crook asked Phil Sheridan: "How do you surround three Indians with one soldier?" And in Reno's case reality became 900+ Indians, more and more mounting as time went on. That is if you want to believe the accounts of those who fought the battle. If you prefer to believe the modern-day clowns, the so-called hussars who have never seen the working end of a rifle, then that's fine, go ahead; but it ain't the truth and it ain't what happened at the LBH. The problem with most people is they fall too much in love with heroes and too much in love with their own theories and ideas. None of that interests me; I want only the truth: what happened that day at the LBH? Unless someone can prove me wrong, I believe I have-- through my timing analyses in that book-- figured it all out. So far, no one has been able to refute a single thing I wrote in that book: at least not with facts or better evidence. Best wishes, Fred. Fred: As I am new here please let me know the title of your book so I can read it. I think the gully or revine is a key issue. If it was a barrier how was it that 2 troopers got carried off into the village. The horses would have been at a full gallop and could not in any event have jumped the ravine. Unless these tired horses had trained for the derby that should also help us estimate how close Reno got to the village. If we include motivations would not subordinates also have a reason to fear testifying against a superior officer? Like I said however this need not be resolved to explain why he stopped his advance.
|
|
|
Post by fred on May 29, 2015 15:45:56 GMT -6
Fred: As I am new here please let me know the title of your book so I can read it. The book's title is The Strategy of Defeat at the Little Big Horn. It can be purchased almost anywhere, but here are the URLs from the publisher and Amazon: www.mcfarlandbooks.com/book-2.php?id=978-0-7864-7954-2www.amazon.com/gp/product/078647954X/ref=s9_psimh_gw_p14_d0_i1?pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_s=desktop-1&pf_rd_r=06DAQFM14V9H6B5KAQSJ&pf_rd_t=36701&pf_rd_p=2079475242&pf_rd_i=desktopYou are correct. Again, they were not at a full gallop. Based on a proper timing analysis they were probably traveling at about 12 MPH, not an unreasonable speed for the distance involved, and certainly not at a full gallop. (If you want to do a study in horse speeds, we can do that as well. It is another of those crazy topics where facts, opinions, and ideas are all over the place.) The ravine was spotted a couple hundred yards away, so there was time to rein-in. If you read the accounts within their specific contexts, you will see those "two" riders were either "one" or "three" and only one wound up "riding" into the village: an M Company trooper named Turley or Farley, depending on which one he used at the time. The other two were troopers who remained in the timber after Reno's "breakout": an A Company man named Armstrong and a G Company trooper named McGinniss. As for the ravine, once the troops dismounted they easily negotiated it and whatever Indians were in there had pulled out and the Farley/Turley incident occurred after the troops had crossed the ditch. I cover this in pretty lengthy detail (21,000 words worth) in one of the book's chapters. I do not recall how close he got to the village. Several lodges were seen in the extended timber and some of those were burned. Also, there were several-- 30, I think-- lodges across the river. Reno probably never got closer than a few hundred yards to the beginning of the main encampment. I would have to go back and check my notes for more accurate figures, however. As for those EM "testifying against a superior officer," that would only pertain to the RCOI held in January and February 1879. And only three EM were called: Culbertson (A), Davern (F and Reno's orderly), and Martini (HQ/H). Anything else from enlisted personnel came well after the fight, so there would be no fear of any sort of retribution from officers. Besides, while no one wanted to see Reno disgraced, he did not have a lot of heartfelt supporters at those hearings. If you read the testimonies very, very carefully, you can see the snide remarks made by a number of people: Benteen, Moylan, DeRudio, Mathey.... Best wishes, Fred.
|
|
jaguar
Junior Member
Posts: 74
|
Post by jaguar on May 29, 2015 16:11:54 GMT -6
Fred: Thanks I will order the book. If a horse runs away with someone they do it at a gallop. Were it otherwise you could just jump off. The issue remains how could a rider cross a 10 foot wide gully at any speed other than a walk if it was truly a barrier? The half gallop you refer to would be called a canter. This seems like a very fast speed to have travelled for 11+ miles. You estimate a pace of 8 1/2 miles an hour. This seems like too fast a pace for a canter of that length for horses in that condition. I assume this was arrived at by gauging the start and stop time. Is there any chance one or both these times are incorrect? Back to the drunk issue. Camp's notes state "at Court of Inquiry there was a private understanding between a number of officers that they would do all they could to save Reno." One newsman also wrote there was a great disparity between the officers testimony and what they said outside the courtroom.
|
|
|
Post by Beth on May 29, 2015 16:14:37 GMT -6
Beth: I am not sure about the length of the ravine or gully but it is given as a reason for Reno to have stopped his charge against the village having seen Indians pouring out of it. This assumes of course that he was in a charge at this point. What is and what is not a charge is a matter of debate. They were very unlikely to have been at a gallop. What is confusing about this claim is that the witnesses differ greatly as to how close Reno got to the main village. Scout Billy Cross said 400 yards, Private Davern a 1,000 yards, Corporal Hammon claimed they dismounted 3/4 of a mile and advanced on foot to within 200 yards. These varying accounts do not seem to be consistent with a barrier stopping their advance otherwise they would have used this feature to judge the distance. It was 7 shots without reloading 6 for the revolver and 1 for the rifle not 7 bullets. I am not sure how many Warriors were mounted at this point but those on foot were not going to out flank moving cavalry. The risk of being outflanked was far greater once a skirmish line was established and they were off their horses. The number of Indians based on the witnesses range from no less than 300 to between 1,000 to 1,200. This is not however the number that Reno faced when he made the decision to stop and dismount, but after the decision had been made. Then 40 to 50 were seen harassing his troops with the greater numbers attacking him from a distance. One more thought. If the ravine was a physical barrier to a charge against the village how is it that 2 soldiers got carried away into the village by run away horses? 1. Reno was not charging. See Fred's message 2. Define main village. There were at least 7 tribes each with their own area stretching along a river. It wasn't like a town with set border and a center. 3. What do other accounts say? Don't just cherry pick the ones you want. You have to take them all into account and also realize that not all people might not have advanced down the valley the same distance. Also not everyone is equal when it comes to estimating distance. The final thing to consider is when and were did those reports come from. I tell to weight accounts closer to 1876 higher than ones that are given later in life. Memories fade with age. 4. People on feet aren't going to flank moving cavalry? Please prove. Because I believe there is evidence to the contrary all over the battlefield. 5. You say you know horses. What is your experience with truly terrified runaway horses and inexperienced riders? Also explain how Reno charging into the village on horseback was supposed to work--even if he could reach it (not just referring to the ravine.) What happens when the 7 shots are gone and they find themselves in the middle of the Hunkpapa circle with 6 other annoyed tribes gathering themselves to fight. It's not like Reno could move all seven tribes. Remember once in the village, ever member of the tribe becomes a combatant. If you think NA women and youths were shrinking violets and couldn't fight you would be mistaken. Think of it this way. If you lived in a small town in the middle of nowhere and suddenly 200 armed men came rolling in planning to destroy everything you hold important, what would happen. Those who had guns would grab them but those who did't would be grabbing knives, rocks, bats... You know Jaguar, you are not unique with your approach to this group, you don't seem to understand though others keep pointing it out that it is not really a general knowledge or beginner type group, which is why the other board has been recommended to you. You have sort of created the classic newbie message board mistake, you jumped into the pool without knowing how deep the water was. If you had read up before you started posting you would find that ever point you try to make about Reno's 'failed charge' has been disproved and explained over and over again. You have been told politely this group is about military tactics and information and not the fluffy stuff you find in books that claim to be the history of Little Bighorn but are really nothing more than rehashed historical fiction. If you are interested in extremely well informed discussion on LBH, stick around, do a lot of reading and ask questions. But please don't just keep recycling the same old, same old. Beth
|
|
|
Post by Beth on May 29, 2015 16:17:35 GMT -6
The runaways you refer to I believe came from Custer's unit at ford B. I don't recall any runaways from Reno's unit getting into the village. Maybe I am wrong. isn't there the story of the runaway that kept circling everyone? I thought that happened in the valley. I can't remember the details and I can't look it up but I suspect I read it in Philbrick's book, though I've encountered it elsewhere.
|
|
jaguar
Junior Member
Posts: 74
|
Post by jaguar on May 29, 2015 17:08:19 GMT -6
The runaways you refer to I believe came from Custer's unit at ford B. I don't recall any runaways from Reno's unit getting into the village. Maybe I am wrong. isn't there the story of the runaway that kept circling everyone? I thought that happened in the valley. I can't remember the details and I can't look it up but I suspect I read it in Philbrick's book, though I've encountered it elsewhere. Beth: Read Fred there is no dispute that it was one or two of Reno's men whose horse ran off with one for sure going into the village.
|
|
|
Post by fred on May 29, 2015 18:13:19 GMT -6
The issue remains how could a rider cross a 10 foot wide gully at any speed other than a walk if it was truly a barrier? You are not paying attention and you are distorting what I have said. They did not "charge" across that ravine: they dismounted before it, then moved the horses of two companies into the timbered area. The troops crossed the ravine on foot, M Company's horses behind the men, walked across the ditch. No one said they "galloped" across anything but clear, flat, level land. If you want a lesson in horse speeds I have all the data you can stomach... just ask. The speed I quoted for the 11.81 miles was sl;lightly below standard cavalry practice: buy the book; read the book and you will see all the sources you want for those speeds. Standard cavalry: nothing too fast; nothing too slow. And... I make no representations that it was a constant, maintained, steady speed. I am quite sure-- from the eye-witness accounts-- the trip was made with slow-downs, speed-ups, and some walking. Furthermore, there isn't a single account that says Custer moved down the valley slower than a "fast trot." If you would like me to define "fast trot," I would be happy to do so. Your assumption is incorrect, and no, there is no chance these times are incorrect. Now... I am sure your eyes are spinning, but I can assure you the timelines are virtually unimpeachable. Again, however, you will have to buy the book and see the timelines for yourself. At the risk of being redundant... and risking you are not someone else... I will post this once more. The book contains 25 separate timelines. More than 60 pages worth. There are 800 timed entries (a number of which are duplicated for the sake of continuity), more that 525 of which are single. These entries are taken from more than 600 pages of Excel data, comprising more than 34,000 individual modules of first-hand, participant data, every one of which I have gone over, developed, read, studied, and vetted. If you-- or anyone else-- thinks you can "bust" it, just try. I am up for the challenge. Point. I have no issue with that... but read your own post again. Where does it say, "Reno was drunk"? Here is my take on Reno: (1) He was drinking... but not drunk. (2) His actions in the valley fight were extremely competent. (3) His decision to move into the timber was correct. (4) His decision to "break out" of the timber was the right one. (5) His choice of how to break out-- and his control of the situation-- can be questioned, but unless you or anyone else can come up with a better way, a way to have saved lives (elucidate, please!!) I cannot criticize him. (6) His control of the situation on the hilltop is highly questionable... and suspect... at least until the 26th. Reno was not well liked and some believed he should have stayed longer in the timber. To what end? And by the way, I deal with the "release of Indians to fight Custer" issue in the book. Best wishes, Fred.
|
|
|
Post by tubman13 on May 29, 2015 18:22:55 GMT -6
SSDD, jag, you begin to bore. You have talked much and said nothing of merit. Opinion is not fact.
|
|
jaguar
Junior Member
Posts: 74
|
Post by jaguar on May 29, 2015 18:25:52 GMT -6
Beth: Why all the vitriol I will address your insulting remarks anyway 1. Reno was at a half gallop Fred wrote. That is called a canter. The reason the ravine would pose a danger for horses at that pace or any other pace faster such as a gallop is that they would fall into the ravine. This is one justification for Reno not charging the camp. That is what I was letting you know. 2. There are different descriptions of where the so called main village began as distinguished from a few tepees. Here "main village" refers to that part of the village on the far south from which Reno's closest advance was measured by the Board of Inquiry. 3. I don't know what other accounts means since you don't provide a context. If you are referring to the testimony concerning how close Reno got I provided the full range of the testimony and was not at all selective. 4. Unless you can run as fast as a horse can gallop I am not sure how you would get on the flank of cavalry unless they were not mounted. I can see how cavalry could maneuver to put infantry on its flank. 5. I have no experience with a run away horse thank god. I can tell you how you might try and stop one but that is not the point. It cannot be disputed that a runaway horse does so because the are spooked by something such as a noise or object and as a result gallop off as fast as possible. In such instances it is very difficult to stop them and sometimes impossible. The point is that if the Ravine was a barrier preventing Reno's charge on the village it would have been a barrier to the run away horse and its rider. You will have to point out where I wrote that such a charge by Reno would be successful? I simply questioned whether or not it would have provided him a better chance of success. You ignore the fact that in many previous missions of this type the women and children fled as did the Warriors. Had the Warriors chose to fight in the village they also would have been impeded by the havoc that ensued. These were of course question not statement of fact. Now what you call fluffy stuff in books I guess would have to include Fred's book by definition. I detect a pattern here that when ever uncomfortable questions are asked the reply attacks the person asking the question as either uninformed or of a certain opinion. Perhaps I stumbled upon some cult that worships a single view in all respects. If that's it why not just post some manifesto stating here are the conclusions we reached and there can be no others. I am not sure how insults and prejudice to questions can ever serve to inform a person who claims "always a student" You did not see me beating you up about your error in the number of cartridges each soldier had. We all make mistakes at times so why not be a little nicer?
|
|
|
Post by welshofficer on May 29, 2015 18:29:29 GMT -6
Never have re-enacted but I am not sure costume is the proper word to use unless you can't resist the pejorative. Please read back on threads I posted to I don't need to take a quiz every time I receive a reply. The last question you pose really is putting the cart before the horse as it assumes a Custer victory. In the past the Indians were quite adept at packing up fast and fleeing so to have burned a village that size would have been quite a feat indeed. Perhaps I am not understanding the reason for the last question. Jaguar, That is the entire point. GAC should have won. He had more than enough combat power against an individualistic native society. The LBH was a one-off fiasco, nothing like it 1854-1890. You don't carefully pack up when a regiment is bearing down on you. Scatter, not disperse. WO
|
|
|
Post by welshofficer on May 29, 2015 18:31:09 GMT -6
SSDD, jag, you begin to bore. You have talked much and said nothing of merit. Opinion is not fact. He makes SF look intelligent in comparison. Who would have thought that possible.....?
WO
|
|