|
Post by dcb188 on Dec 22, 2005 17:05:13 GMT -6
Besides some people just not liking Maj Reno, was there any legitimate reason back in 1876 (or now) to suppose that he had not done the best he could when he sought refuge on the bluff? Charging the village would seem to be out of the question. Staying in the timber would not seem to have been a good idea either. What was he supposed to do? I think going for the hilltop was a fine idea. Why the controversy, outside of plain old dislike of Reno by some folks?
|
|
|
Post by crzhrs on Dec 22, 2005 17:20:59 GMT -6
Reno's decision to halt his attack was probably right. He was ordered to attack a "fleeing village", "Indians running". Instead of Indians/Village running he saw a large, stationary camp, with warriors gathering in front showing signs of a fight. Reno did not see the promised support of Custer and made the decision to stop. He formed skirmish lines but Indians were starting to flank his left. He then ordered a fall back to the timber where he had cover, but failed to establish a strong defensive position. After Indians infiltrated his position and fired point into a group of soldiers near him, killing one trooper and blowing Bloody Knife's brains/blood over Reno, he ordered a retreat. It was his failure to fall back in a orderly and protected fashion that causes most to fault Reno. His panicked retreat and heavy losses were his fault. Whether he could have held out in the timber and change the course of the battle is a major controversy that is still debated. If he stayed he and his man may have been added to the list of casualties along with Custer or he could have given Custer more time to attack from the far end of the village.
|
|
|
Post by dcb188 on Dec 22, 2005 17:40:05 GMT -6
If trooper's descriptions of the number of Indians are correct--that they were becoming very very numerous and very very quickly, I wonder how much time he had to do fall back in an orderly manner. Does not seem like too much time went by before the Indians multiplied in numbers right before their eyes. Perhaps more order and more casualties would have been the order of the day had he taken time to "do it right". I don't know that he had the time to do it the right way. Maybe he did. But the trooper's eyewitness accounts suggest that this all happened very quickly, I mean the numbers of Indians grew in a hurry.
|
|
|
Post by crzhrs on Dec 22, 2005 17:47:18 GMT -6
The Indians numbers may have grown quickly, but they would not have charged the soldiers if they had formed some kind of defensive retreat. The Indians were not stupid enough to charge into the face of the soldiers' guns. It was only when the soldiers started running that the Indians saw their chance to enflict casualties. The worse thing to do was to run from Indians, this emboldened them and as it turned out they were able to ride right up to fleeing soldiers and kill/knock them off their horses and also fire into them. An orderly fall back would have prevented that.
Lt. Varnum was pleading for the men not to run and even Dr. Porter tried to get the men to fight back, but to no avail. Once Reno lead his "charge" it was every man for himself. The casualties were staggering and it was only luck that more were not killed by Indians. Once on the bluff Reno and most of the men were in shock and it was only Benteen's arrival that pulled the command together and saved them from further casualties.
|
|
|
Post by dcb188 on Dec 22, 2005 18:14:04 GMT -6
I see what you mean. Reno could have reduced casualties. But it still seems like the numbers of Indians increased so quickly that little more could be done as a practical matter. I don't know or pretend to know. It just seems like Reno's conduct is not that unbecoming because of the rapid increase of Indians on the scene. It is that multiplying of numbers so quickly that makes me think he may have had no real time to act differently. Can you go to the books about LBH on the message boards so I can see what you think about my inquiry there? Thanks, crzhrs
|
|
|
Post by dcb188 on Dec 22, 2005 18:44:26 GMT -6
I see more of what you mean the more I think about it, crzhrs. If Porter and Varnum did not think things were so urgent that they could not get out of there in an orderly fashion then I guess Major Reno did act hastily, literally.
|
|
|
Post by crzhrs on Dec 22, 2005 18:55:42 GMT -6
I'm not saying the situation was not desperate for Reno's men . . . but if they had fallen back in an orderly fashion they may have been able to reduce casualties and possibly, possibly affected the outcome of the battle. If they had consumed more time in falling back and holding off the Indians Custer may have had more time to maneuver and attack the far end of the battle. That's only a hypothesis . . . it may not have made much difference owing to the fact that the command was already divided into 4 units and too much distance was between them for immediate support. But who knows . . .
|
|
|
Post by elisabeth on Dec 23, 2005 0:20:26 GMT -6
Plus if they'd fallen back in an orderly fashion, two other things could have happened: a) they might have been in better shape, once on the bluffs, to regroup and either join Custer's attack or keep more of the Indians occupied; or b) they might still have been in the valley when Benteen came along. In which case Benteen would inevitably have "marched to the sound of the guns" and given the Indians another front to fight on. This, too, might not have made much difference in view of the sheer numbers -- but who knows.
With Custer given a chance to do something useful at his end of the village, and yet ANOTHER body of soldiers (McDougall and the packs) appearing from the south, it might just have been enough for the Indians to call it a day. Unlikely, in the mood they were in; and even if conceivable, more likely to result in the dreaded "scatteration" rather than surrender. (As Crook said, you can't surround three Indians with one soldier!) The best result one can imagine for the army would be to force the Indians to abandon most of their posessions, thus throwing them back onto the reservation; or to capture a chief or two -- ideally, Sitting Bull himself -- as hostages, and so force negotiation. That had worked elsewhere.
But even if it had made no practical difference, Reno would have come out with his (meagre) reputation intact if he hadn't led the race to the bluffs as he did. His men didn't panic until HE panicked. If he had done what Varnum and Dr. Porter tried to do -- set up a rearguard -- and, like a good commander, had stuck around to supervise it, he'd have been a hero. Instead, it was plain to all that he "showed the white feather". Maybe he suffered all the worse because a lot of the others were none too proud of their own part in the debacle either, and it became convenient to shift all the blame onto the senior officer ... but he wasn't impressive, one's got to admit!
|
|
|
Post by dcb188 on Dec 23, 2005 2:15:51 GMT -6
That sheds more light on it. thanks. At first glance, to a novice, it appears that Reno did the best he could have, but that ignores what the average commander was TRAINED to do in those situations, and there are a lot of factors that go into it also So thank you......I have learned a lot in one day
|
|
|
Post by shatonska on Dec 23, 2005 7:39:47 GMT -6
Plus if they'd fallen back in an orderly fashion, two other things could have happened: a) they might have been in better shape, once on the bluffs, to regroup and either join Custer's attack or keep more of the Indians occupied; or b) they might still have been in the valley when Benteen came along. In which case Benteen would inevitably have "marched to the sound of the guns" and given the Indians another front to fight on. This, too, might not have made much difference in view of the sheer numbers -- but who knows. With Custer given a chance to do something useful at his end of the village, and yet ANOTHER body of soldiers (McDougall and the packs) appearing from the south, it might just have been enough for the Indians to call it a day. Unlikely, in the mood they were in; and even if conceivable, more likely to result in the dreaded "scatteration" rather than surrender. (As Crook said, you can't surround three Indians with one soldier!) The best result one can imagine for the army would be to force the Indians to abandon most of their posessions, thus throwing them back onto the reservation; or to capture a chief or two -- ideally, Sitting Bull himself -- as hostages, and so force negotiation. That had worked elsewhere. But even if it had made no practical difference, Reno would have come out with his (meagre) reputation intact if he hadn't led the race to the bluffs as he did. His men didn't panic until HE panicked. If he had done what Varnum and Dr. Porter tried to do -- set up a rearguard -- and, like a good commander, had stuck around to supervise it, he'd have been a hero. Instead, it was plain to all that he "showed the white feather". Maybe he suffered all the worse because a lot of the others were none too proud of their own part in the debacle either, and it became convenient to shift all the blame onto the senior officer ... but he wasn't impressive, one's got to admit! i totally agree
|
|