|
Post by Bruce Robert on Nov 2, 2016 14:04:04 GMT -6
Greetings, I am a new member (though I have been reading some of the threads for some time), and want to thank everyone responsible for the existence of this forum. Also, to thank all the contributors for their insight and interesting discussions.
My question is in relation to Roger Darling's "A Sad and Terrible Blunder." In chapter 11, he discusses the orders Reno received at the "lone tepee" village site. On pg. 205 he says, "There is no evidence whatsoever that Custer even knew of, or ordered Reno at some time to attack the large village northward in the valley."
His contention is that Reno didn't disobey the order to attack the large encampment in the LBH valley, because no such orders were given.
I know Darling's work has been criticized in general, though the maps, diagrams and photos are quite good (thank you Fred for this info.), but on this point, what is the consensus regarding Darling's position.
Thanks, Bruce
|
|
|
Post by tubman13 on Nov 2, 2016 14:44:54 GMT -6
Welcome Bruce, I have not read Darlings work. so I can not comment on that. First let me say that some have said that I am in the Reno camp. Reno made tactical mistakes, in the valley and his breakout was poorly executed. Having said that where was his support, was that explained to him?
Let me share something from The History Net, just an out take. It is condemning, but the larger article is even harsher.
"Another point of contention was Custer’s practice of sharing with subordinates as little as possible about his intentions. First Lt. William W. Cooke, the regimental adjutant general, was firmly in the Custer “camp,” yet even he once exclaimed that when it came to being informed of critical matters, George never told him anything. Custer made officer calls—such as the one held before the attack at the Washita and through the Little Bighorn campaign—purely to give out instructions; input was neither requested nor tolerated. This approach to command did much to erode relations between Custer and key subordinates, stunting initiative and clouding mission objectives.
Custer’s prickly personality exacerbated problems with the officers and men in his command. According to John Burkman, the lieutenant colonel’s orderly, his boss had a tendency to overreact, “flying off the handle suddenly, maybe sometimes without occasion.” He did not have the capacity to counsel men on points of dissatisfaction, preferring to believe the officers would resolve such problems themselves. Even with brother Tom, George depended on wife Libbie to curb the younger Custer’s excessive drinking habits. By 1869 Custer had stopped caring whether his officers liked him; the criticism he had received over the loss of Elliott had helped push him in that direction. In a letter to Libbie that year he confessed, “I never expected to be a popular commander in times of peace.” His expectation was fully realized.
When the 7th Cavalry rode to the Little Bighorn—and death and glory—in June 1876, it was a military column fractured by internal dissent. Other such units on the frontier had their share of personality conflicts and cliques, but few to such a degree. The mistrust, resentment and fear of betrayal many 7th Cavalry officers harbored toward Custer were in no small part a result of the Elliott affair. Whether it adversely affected the regiment’s martial performance after the Washita is a point for de-bate. But certainly the regiment would have performed its frontier duties with more confidence and less second-guessing had it not been for all the suspicion and mistrust. Custer’s tragedy at the Little Bighorn dwarfed Elliott’s tragedy at the Washita, but it is impossible to forget or dismiss the obvious links between the two.
Maryland attorney Arnold Blumberg has indulged his passion for military history as a visiting scholar with the History and Classics Department at John Hopkins University in Baltimore. Suggested for further reading: A Hoosier Quaker Goes to War, by Sandy Barnard; The Battle of the Washita, by Stanley Hoig; Crazy Horse and Custer, by Stephen E. Ambrose; and Custer: The Controversial Life of George Armstrong Custer, by Jeffry D. Wert.
|
|
|
Post by benteen on Nov 2, 2016 15:07:58 GMT -6
Greetings, I am a new member (though I have been reading some of the threads for some time), and want to thank everyone responsible for the existence of this forum. Also, to thank all the contributors for their insight and interesting discussions. My question is in relation to Roger Darling's "A Sad and Terrible Blunder." In chapter 11, he discusses the orders Reno received at the "lone tepee" village site. On pg. 205 he says, "There is no evidence whatsoever that Custer even knew of, or ordered Reno at some time to attack the large village northward in the valley." His contention is that Reno didn't disobey the order to attack the large encampment in the LBH valley, because no such orders were given. I know Darling's work has been criticized in general, though the maps, diagrams and photos are quite good (thank you Fred for this info.), but on this point, what is the consensus regarding Darling's position. Thanks, Bruce Bruce, Welcome aboard.Like so much of the LBH story there are different opinions and thoughts. However, like Tom I dont know much about Darlings works, but one theme seems to be consistent with all I have read and that is that Custer said "Major Reno you are to take a pace that you seem prudent, attack the Village and you will be supported by the whole outfit" Be Well Dan
|
|
|
Post by fred on Nov 3, 2016 18:45:57 GMT -6
Bruce, First of all, welcome here. It is nice to "see" a new face. My question is in relation to Roger Darling's "A Sad and Terrible Blunder." In chapter 11, he discusses the orders Reno received at the "lone tepee" village site. On pg. 205 he says, "There is no evidence whatsoever that Custer even knew of, or ordered Reno at some time to attack the large village northward in the valley." This statement is somewhat disingenuous. No... no one had seen the village at the time Custer issued his orders to Reno, but you would have to be a real dolt not to have known, by that time, where the village was. Anyone telling you different is playing jacks in a sandbox. The only people who claimed Reno was ordered to attack the village were PVT Peter Thompson and Giovanni Martini. They, however, said it in a matter-of-fact manner, implying attacking the village would be understood rather than a specific reference to attack the village, per se. Reading their comments makes one believe they substituted "village" for "Indians." There is no other mention, by anyone, about attacking "the village." The two descriptions of Reno's orders most alike were Reno's and Davern's... and remember, Davern was Reno's orderly that day and was sitting next to Reno, so it is understandable-- if both were telling the truth (they were)-- their comments would be similar. The only other allusions to "village" came in the form of, The village is three miles away... the general directs you; and so on. In my opinion, Roger Darling's description of the battle in A Sad and Terrible Blunder is dreadful... [let that sink in a moment]... while the rest of the book is superb... as is much of Darling's work. So again, in my opinion, Darling is 100% correct regarding Reno's orders and the fact he did not disobey them. And anyone claiming Reno "disobeyed" his orders is only trying to build a partisan case against the man. One can build a much stronger case Custer disobeyed his orders by leaving the Rosebud when he did. Best wishes, Fred.
|
|
|
Post by Bruce Robert on Nov 4, 2016 12:10:30 GMT -6
Thank you for the replies. My impression based upon my limited reading/thinking about this battle was that Reno did not disobey Custer's orders (and where was the "support" Custer is said to have told Reno he would receive?) It seems that much of the "known" story stems from what I like to call The Libby Lies. While I can understand her grief, I can't understand her lifelong crusade to vindicate her husband by damning others.
It would seem that Reno was following his orders until he ran into a new set of overriding circumstances. My understanding is that halting and forming a skirmish line would be the correct tactic. I can only imagine, as the enemy resistance grew, Reno looking around for the promised support and wondering where the hell it was.
And this idea that if only Reno would have continued his charge into the village Custer's plan would have worked seems ridiculous. Reno's command would have been destroyed.
Bruce
|
|
|
Post by fred on Nov 4, 2016 14:17:36 GMT -6
Thank you for the replies. My impression based upon my limited reading/thinking about this battle was that Reno did not disobey Custer's orders (and where was the "support" Custer is said to have told Reno he would receive?) It seems that much of the "known" story stems from what I like to call The Libby Lies. While I can understand her grief, I can't understand her lifelong crusade to vindicate her husband by damning others. It would seem that Reno was following his orders until he ran into a new set of overriding circumstances. My understanding is that halting and forming a skirmish line would be the correct tactic. I can only imagine, as the enemy resistance grew, Reno looking around for the promised support and wondering where the hell it was. And this idea that if only Reno would have continued his charge into the village Custer's plan would have worked seems ridiculous. Reno's command would have been destroyed. Bruce I won't delete a single word of this quoted response. In my opinion it is an absolutely accurate summation of fact... to the letter. Best wishes, Fred.
|
|
|
Post by dave on Nov 4, 2016 17:21:46 GMT -6
Bruce Fabulous post! Concise and to the point. As to Libbie, she had no scruples attacking, smearing or casting aspersions on anyone's character as long as it protected or supported her beau soldier. She spent 56 plus years careful constructing his "legend" and successfully supporting herself selling his life and career.
She personified Rudyard Kipling's "The Female of the Species" poem as did other women. "When the early Jesuit fathers preached to Hurons and Choctaws,
They prayed to be delivered from the vengeance of the squaws.
'Twas the women, not the warriors, turned those stark enthusiasts pale.
For the female of the species is more deadly than the male." Regards Dave
PS Welcome to the board!
|
|
|
Post by dave on Nov 4, 2016 20:04:55 GMT -6
Robb To each his own as you would say. A demagogue by definition is a person who appeals to desires and prejudices instead of rational arguments yet the female of the species has shared so many different stories that I find it impossible to discern the truth. You go ahead and support the person you believe to be best qualified to lead this nation and I will do the same as God gives me the light to see.
I kinda of think that Trip in Glory said it best about this election: "Yeah, It stinks bad. And we all covered up in it too. Ain't nobody clean. Be nice to get clean, though." Regards Dave
|
|
|
Post by dave on Nov 4, 2016 21:35:44 GMT -6
Robb Be that as it may, you brought up the word demagogue so what's good for the goose is good for the gander!
As to being blinded by the light that is a chance I am more than willing to take as it worked out very well for a man named Saul along time ago.
I would like to thank all our vets for insuring that you and I have the opportunity to express our political beliefs. Regards Dave
|
|