|
Post by Melani on Jul 10, 2006 11:41:01 GMT -6
I've heard lately from a couple of different sources (Lakota Noon for sure, and I think John Doerner as well, in that stupendous lecture on the 23rd) that the whole thing lasted about 3 hours, from Reno's charge to scalping and looting. The idea is that all the stuff that happened simply couldn't have been compressed into such a small time period as half an hour. So maybe that is just the hand-to-hand part the Indians were talking about. I spoke to a rancher from the area when I was there on Sunday, and he said even a tired horse could have made it from Reno Hill to Custer in about 15 minutes, but I question that, regardless of the fact that the guy raises horses and I haven't even ridden one in years. It took us about 15 minutes to drive that distance. And the horses were tired to the point of giving out.
I'm pretty sure the Indians realized that Reno was no longer a big threat by the time he was holed up on the hill, and they probably would have lost a lot of warriors trying to take him out completely from that position.
As for it requiring an experienced officer to keep them together at a trot, Benteen was an experienced officer. It's hard to tell how much of his decision to stay put was based on Reno's condition (but I'm working on it!).
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on Jul 10, 2006 12:30:16 GMT -6
You say: "I've heard lately from a couple of different sources (Lakota Noon for sure, and I think John Doerner as well, in that stupendous lecture on the 23rd) that the whole thing lasted about 3 hours, from Reno's charge to scalping and looting." This in response to a discussion about the length of Custer's portion of the battle of perhaps twenty minutes. Very different.
"...the whole thing...", being picky, can be said to have lasted over 24 hours if we're to include "scalping and looting", or months if Wooden Leg's visit is included that winter. But this isn't new. Gray claims Reno started his charge at 1500ish and everyone had returned from Weir Point to Reno Hill by 1800. That's the three hours. It's where in that time Custer fought we were discussing. Gray feels he's proven that Custer wasn't even heading down MTC for an hour after Reno went in and was done an hour later. Lotta shooting and activity still, but involving the dead. It's hard to argue with it, which is why Michno and others ignore Gray when he's inconvenient.
|
|
|
Post by PhillyBlair on Jul 10, 2006 12:41:15 GMT -6
Elisabeth, don't forget Fox's take on all of this (p. 307 of Archaeology, History...."). He claims that Custer's message to Benteen has been misinterpreted. To paraphrase Fox:
"Big village" = single encampment, not multiple villages. "Be quick" = Indians might escape. "Bring packs" = get the pack trains out of being isolated.
Using Fox's logic your question takes a different turn in the road. Benteen may still have been the key to stop the village from scattering and/or wrecking the isolated pack train. Custer was not in a desperate situation as yet.
I didn't say I agreed with Fox -- just adding another point of view.
|
|
|
Post by crzhrs on Jul 10, 2006 12:58:52 GMT -6
When the Weir Advance was sighted by warriors they didn't seem to care what the number of soldiers were . . . they attacked. Apparently the number of soldiers was not the issue . . . but the threat was . . . and that was met by an aggressive counter attack . . . just as when Reno attacked and when Custer attacked. The Indians were not aware of the size of the command but the danger to their families was the deciding factor.
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on Jul 10, 2006 14:39:14 GMT -6
It's worth saying again these are the definition of terrible orders, and if indicative of his command style, truly abominable. Also? Bring packs + be quick = huh?
Crzhrs,
"When the Weir Advance was sighted by warriors they didn't seem to care what the number of soldiers were (you know this how? In any case, not many, less than they and deserving attack). . . they attacked. Apparently the number of soldiers was not the issue . . . but the threat was . . . and that was met by an aggressive counter attack(there has to be an attack for there to be a counter-attack) . . . just as when Reno attacked(true) and when Custer attacked (he did?). The Indians were not aware of the size of the command but the danger to their families was the deciding factor."
I tend to agree, but this has the whiff of fluffing the heroic Focus on Family presentation of current Indian PC, a village of Ozzie Nelsons in beads, short only Maud Flanders with feather screaming "Won't somebody think of the children?" when of course it's a cover for some sordid adult concern, like scalps and personal glory.
|
|
|
Post by rch on Jul 10, 2006 15:10:40 GMT -6
Elisabeth,
I think both battalions were moving aggressively with Keogh fending off what Indians there were on the right or eastern flank. I doubt there was any real threat at this time from the south or west. I don't think the fighting was heavy or that it produced any significant casualties. I think it was mostly maneuvering. I don't think Custer's units were being pressed. I think they were moving freely and going where they wanted to go. I think this is similiar to what happened at the beginning of the Battle of the Rosebud. More and more Indians joined the Indians falling away from Custer until Custer had to halt his advance and retreat southward to Custer Hill.
Also forcing the retreat was the release of warriors who had been fighting Reno; this did present a threat from the south and west.
I like the question about resuming the assault on the village. I think Custer would have liked to resume the attack on the village, but in a meeting engagement you fight the enemy where you find him. I think the Indians who ran into Custer were as surprised to find him as he was to find them. Fighting the Indians were they were at least kept them away from Reno in the valley floor who could then resume his attack.
I believe there is evidence of fighting north of Custer Hill, minus a significant number of bodies. I think that this is unlikely unless at least one of Custer's battalions was advancing.
I wish Graham had never used the sufixes -phile and -phobe. Their use is almost as anoying to me as Custer's incurment of "Grant's wrath." However, I am not a Custerphile; I just like the hell out of the guy.
rch
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on Jul 10, 2006 16:37:11 GMT -6
What evidence exists, submitting to no other explanation, that Custer made it further north than Custer Hill?
You think Custer, to the exclusion of all other destinations, chose to be on the ridge further east and north of the village?
|
|
|
Post by Melani on Jul 10, 2006 21:33:18 GMT -6
I tend to agree, but this has the whiff of fluffing the heroic Focus on Family presentation of current Indian PC, a village of Ozzie Nelsons in beads, short only Maud Flanders with feather screaming "Won't somebody think of the children?" when of course it's a cover for some sordid adult concern, like scalps and personal glory. It's all part of the reaction to a bunch of armed men attacking your home and family. I mean, what would any of us do in that circumstance? And especially people who came from a warrior culture and trained in fighting from the time they were little kids? Of course they would defend their families, and if they could get scalps and personal glory at the same time, so much the better. I just finished Lakota Noon (as you can probably tell), and I was struck by the number of parents who tried to tell their teenage sons they were too young to fight or they had done enough for one day. That somehow runs counter to the image I had of the fighting Sioux, but it does rather make sense that a parent would say that sort of thing to a hotheaded teenager. Haven't read Gray yet, but it's on the agenda. I've got a lot of reading to do to catch up with you guys. The image of Ozzie Nelson in beads is downright frightening. ;D
|
|
|
Post by elisabeth on Jul 11, 2006 3:23:58 GMT -6
Thanks, all; good stuff. So would you say that, whatever our differences on what Custer was doing, the consensus is pretty firmly against any waiting-for-Benteen/holding-the-door-open-for-Benteen scenario?
|
|
|
Post by AZ Ranger on Jul 11, 2006 8:32:47 GMT -6
Melani How does this "reaction" fit with Crook? Maybe they just wanted to keep their horses fresh. Sitting Bull gave them the game plan. It would also allow the non-combatants to participate in the victory and collect useful equipment.
I can't picture Harriot Nelson bashing skulls of wounded troopers though DC.
|
|
|
Post by crzhrs on Jul 11, 2006 9:10:52 GMT -6
DK:
<"When the Weir Advance was sighted by warriors they didn't seem to care what the number of soldiers were (you know this how? In any case, not many, less than they and deserving attack). . . they attacked. Apparently the number of soldiers was not the issue . . . but the threat was . . . and that was met by an aggressive counter attack(there has to be an attack for there to be a counter-attack) . . . just as when Reno attacked(true) and when Custer attacked (he did?). The Indians were not aware of the size of the command but the danger to their families was the deciding factor.">
Much of what we discuss here is based on reading and common sense. Much of what took place at the LBH is unknown . . . thus the opinions.
The LBH was one big battle separated into four separate rights: Reno, Custer, Weir Advance, Reno/Benteen.
I would assume (again, based on reading, common sense) the Indians considered them all attacks, thus the Weir Advance in their mind would be an attack and they countered . . . the Indians probably didn't know the size of the Weir Advance, but it was an attack and/or threat to the village and the warriors responded (again common sense dictates that).
Custer approaching the village undoubtedly to the Indians would represent an attack . . . we can't assume what the soldiers did from our point of view but have to look at it from the Indians.
Soldiers from all directions were coming towards the village . . . and I don't think the Indians believed it was just to say "hi".
|
|
|
Post by George Mabry on Jul 11, 2006 10:11:29 GMT -6
Thanks, all; good stuff. So would you say that, whatever our differences on what Custer was doing, the consensus is pretty firmly against any waiting-for-Benteen/holding-the-door-open-for-Benteen scenario? That is certainly not my opinion. One thing everyone does seem to be in agreement is that Custer was not on the offensive after he left Calhoun Ridge. I think everyone will also pretty much agree that wasn't in a purely defensive posture either. So what was he doing? He was waiting. Waiting for what? There are only two possible answers. Benteen is one of them. So if you believe Benteen is what Custer was waiting for, your odds of being right are as good as anyone elses. George George
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on Jul 11, 2006 11:14:05 GMT -6
There is absolutely no evidence Custer was pro-actively waiting, which in any case goes against testimony of his officers who knew him (and weren't Reno/Benteen fans, either) and his record. This is a construct of those who can't bring themselves to think that Custer made an error, and failed to correct it, or admit it, and pushed on. Or, that he was hurt and his safety took precidence over mission goal, a possible penalty of nepotism and an actual command structure different from the formal. No real evidence for that, either, but it resonates with me. That handles the otherwise pointless move to LSH and the puzzling rictus of Keogh's group, who may not have known what was going on.
Again, the WCF photos, along with redistribution of markers by testimony, do not in any fashion suggest much of a defensive arrangement on LSH, and this doesn't conflict with the descriptions of the officers. Rather, two strings of linear dead south and west to a much reduced clump high in officer DNA at the summit of the hill. The most complicated and implausible reasons are trotted out for Custer and his officers' benefit, but Reno - who on this day is suddenly revealed as both a coward and a drunk, aspects not previously recognized in his Civil War years or with the 7th - is worthy of no better possible interpretation than the worst possible.
Still waiting for the evidence the 7th made it north of the hill, other than in the realm of wishful thinking. But then, I'm still waiting for someone to demonstrate the correct manner for Reno to have escaped the timber with less casualties than his chosen method. With maps, timed out dismounts and their locations, estimates of casualties, that sort of thing. With all the combined military combat experience - actual or virtual - within the ranks of Custer buffs, you'd think this would be a short job. But the photos and maps are problematical, aren't they? And of course, other soldiers would get to see your work as well and be free to comment...... For years to come.
Still, someone must have done it, for all the condemnation they courageously heap on brevet General Reno, a soldier in the service of the United States.
|
|
|
Post by Melani on Jul 11, 2006 11:57:05 GMT -6
darkcloud--can you recommend a good biography of Reno?
When I actually saw the terrain, I was amazed. The horses must have been part mountain goat to get up those bluffs. Do you think there was any feasible way for them to have withdrawn in good order, with some kind of covering fire provided?
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on Jul 11, 2006 12:29:26 GMT -6
No to both.
Going up was tough under fire. Heading down would have been worse and slower for Benteen or anyone. Oh, and then the packs...... But that crossing is about 80% of the total distance. No firing line till then?
The silence is deafening, isn't it?
|
|