|
Post by mcaryf on Jul 27, 2006 2:52:58 GMT -6
Hi Phillyblair
I do not want to get too involved with justifying every remark that Benteen made about the fight because they don't all make sense but I would point out the following.
Lt Wallace testified at the RCOI that he had heard subsequently from Indian sources that there were 9,000 warriors at LBH. I do not think that Benteen gave "absurd" numbers when describing what he had actually seen, I think he did use the same 9,000 number as Wallace in some published remarks but qualified it by saying his estimate from what he had seen was xxx but he now beleived there were 9,000 warriors present so he probably had the same source whatever that was.
Seven miles is pretty well the distance from Reno Hill to the Morass. It seems to me that Benteen fixed on the train or at least part of it being at the Morass for all the time he took to get to Reno Hill. He tended to say 7 miles whenever asked where the train was relevant to him (e.g. to Kanipe) when actually he should have known the front was at the Morass which was then only about 4 miles back but I do not think this would fall into the absurd category. Most accounts agree that the train took getting on for 1.5 hours to completely come up after Benteen was on Reno Hill and if it travelled at around 4 mph then that would be 6 miles.
Do you reckon there was line of sight from where Custer's body was found and Weir Point? I am not so sure about that and I think DC has a reasonable point in suggesting that smoke and dust would obscure the further points anyway.
Returning to my original post - Benteen was asked at the RCOI how long he thought the Custer fight would have taken. His reply was something between 15 minutes and 1 hour, certainly not more than 1 hour. Yet something did seem to be occupying the Indians when he surveys the situation from Weir Point at around 1745. This must have been very hard for him to understand as Martini has told him Custer was charging the village at 1545, he might have little faith in Martini but other evidence would support that Custer should have been in position to attack at that time - so Benteen has to wonder (as do we) what has happened to the lost 1 hour?
Regards
Mike
|
|
|
Post by PhillyBlair on Jul 27, 2006 7:34:11 GMT -6
azranger, I honestly do agree with you in regard to different perspectives would put the EMPHASIS on different parts of the battle. I also think if you and I were in a room discussing this there wouldn't be a disagreement. But I still say that when you are the CO of several companies of troops, and your written order was to bring the packs, then you MUST know how far the packs are behind you? I would ask you to check Hare's testimony to Camp and compare it to Martin's. Hare actually went back to the packs from Reno Hill. If memory serves me correctly he stated that it took 10 minutes to get there, and has the packs being on Reno Hill very quickly. I don't have Camp in front of me, but will check it later. Again, I have no interest in discrediting Benteen, and the point about Wallace's testimony is a good one, but things were just not kosher at the RCOI (to me).......By the way, regarding your quote about being suspicious when two stories are exactly alike -- are you in politics? Mike, see above for where Benteen claimed his "seven mile" distance, and also see Hare's testimony. Your point about Benteen's confusion of the length of Custer's fight is well taken and I had never thought of it from that perspective. Good point. DC and Mike -- I'm sure you've both stood on Weir Point and you know that you can see the Custer field (all of it) from there. I would give some credence to the "smoke" theory except that Edgerly destroys it with his "shooting at objects on the ground" account. To me, he is likely talking about LSH, as the Keogh and Calhoun sectors had already been overrun. Edgerly's image is very clear. Also, if the firing had died down later in the battle (as Indian accounts and ear witnesses agree upon), and if LSH was physically overrun after some mid to long distance firing, then there's not a lot of evidence for the "smoke filled valley" theories of what was seen from Weir Point. I've always wondered what "it" was that Weir wanted to share with Libbie if he'd ever had the chance. Finally, I've never read anyone who said that Edgerly's advance is PROOF of how much they clearly saw at Weir Point. Weir and company stood on the point while Edgerly advanced cautiously (perhaps on the trail that Custer had taken). From the high point, Weir signals to Edgerly to retreat because Indians are pouring over the hills. So the logical question: Why was Edgerly advancing so cautiously if nothing could be seen? Why were they so hesitant that Weir remained on the hill to survey the danger for Edgerly? I've never seen this addressed. If someone has, please let me know because I'd like to read it. Good points guys. Thanks for the feedback and perspectives.
|
|
|
Post by crzhrs on Jul 27, 2006 8:27:11 GMT -6
PhillyB:
I don't believe Benteen was in charge of the pack train . . . it was Mathey (?) so the pack train was not his responsibility.
Edgerly advanced cautiously due to not knowing where Indians may have been hiding or waiting in ambush. He also may have been lower down than the Weir Advance and possibly had a better angle to observe what was taking place.
By all accounts it was a warm, if not hot day, and smoke would hang in the air for quite a while.
|
|
|
Post by analyst on Jul 27, 2006 10:23:53 GMT -6
I find the 9,000 warriors estimate quite within the parameters of a cool after action report, to be quite believable. The first reports of scouts and others giving reports of 800 to 1200 warriors are most likely early indian elements encountered by people who were unacustomed to estimating large numbers of enemy in the field. Ex-civil war officers more acustomed to dealing with large numbers of troops like Benteen, was upon reflection, appears to give the truer account of numbers. It is also very fashionable with pseudo historians to down play reported numbers in all battles, makes them look more professional you know! There are also some political factors involved, but that would complicate even more a simple numbers estimate. In light of the many indian warriors jumping the reservations, many reported not even living in the teepees but using rough shelters, the 9,000 figure is not unrealistic, it might even be a little low.
|
|
|
Post by crzhrs on Jul 27, 2006 10:42:11 GMT -6
9,000 warriors?
Benteen estimated he saw 900 warriors fighting Reno . . .
Martini stated he saw only children in the village as Custer approached MTC . . . where were the other 8,100 warriors?
And if there were 9,000 warriors there had to be at least 2 or possibly 3 times as many non-com which makes the village size 18,000-27,000!
If Custer caught the village "napping" and Martini saw only children . . . where did all the Indians go?
Do you think the inflated numbers were used to justify the defeat and the actions of survivors!?
|
|
|
Post by PhillyBlair on Jul 27, 2006 16:36:54 GMT -6
I don't believe Benteen was in charge of the pack train . . . it was Mathey (?) so the pack train was not his responsibility.
crzhrs, I know he wasn't in charge of the pack train, but ... "BENTEEN, come on, be quick, BRING PACKS .... PS BRING PACKS." I think someone wanted Benteen to bring the packs, wouldn't you say? And I would think that receiving such an order would make him discover how far back they were.
analyst, I'm with crzhrs on the 9,000. I've read several things about what the size of the village would have been if it had 9,000 warriors and I just don't think it's reasonable. I think it's far more easy to say you were beaten by an insurmountable force than to admit you just plain got outmaneuvered. Benteen not only covered his own tail with the 9,000 number, but he did two other things: First, he paid tribute to the soldiers who died. If it was 9,000 warriors, then they died fighting against incredible odds. Second, he took yet another swipe at Custer for getting them into the mess to begin with. I think his guess of 9,000 was very calculated.
|
|
|
Post by analyst on Jul 27, 2006 18:11:11 GMT -6
Captain Benteen later after reflection estimated there were up to 9,000 warriors involved at the battle. Actually, some estimates have been made that up to 3 or 4 warriors who left the reservation were sleeping in each of the reported 1800 (another estimate) tepees which equals 7200 warriors not counting many seeking shelter in temporary shelters of limbs and brush. Now 9000 may not in actuality been present, but it certainly would not be out of the ball park as a high end estimate. Just as 800 is unrealistically low. We must remember Benteen had the experience (civil war) and was present at the battle in more than a first hand way. There is no doubt that most estimates have been much lower including Benteens initial one. I myself make no claim to the one validity over another, I was not there. I do think most historians tend to underestimate the number at many battles throughout history. Nevertheless, it can be seen there was one hell of alot of indians at LBH. A second point, if I might address it, is it would be much more advantageous politically to the army to claim smaller amounts of indians were causing their losses. The army was desperate for funding for men and weapons etc.. Claiming larger amounts of enemy faced might cause even more of a loss of immediate funding as congress might want to form commissions to study such large disparities. It also paints the indian as much more dangerous, individually. In other words the congress might be dubious of large claimed numbers, as is the board members, thus slowing much needed funding and re-inforcements.
|
|
|
Post by elisabeth on Jul 28, 2006 4:00:26 GMT -6
Several of the army witnesses at the RCOI complained that it was difficult to assess warrior numbers because they wouldn't keep still (!). It may be that even Civil War veterans, used to judging numbers of soldiers operating in formation, would have trouble making an accurate guess at numbers of warriors; there'd be something of a "stage army" effect, with the same warriors turning up now in one place, now in another ...
Might there have been another factor at work here, too? The higher the warrior numbers claimed, the more egg on the faces of the agency superintendents who (as was suspected, and I believe proved) had suppressed the news of the numbers leaving their agencies in order to go on pocketing their extortionate profits. So perhaps that could bring an additional agenda into play?
|
|
|
Post by mcaryf on Jul 28, 2006 4:41:59 GMT -6
A lot of commentators critical to Reno and Benteen like to say that there were no Indians near them during the hour or so they waited for the pack train. Thus the whole force of the Indians had gone against Custer and therefore there were not that many.
The Indians on horseback in the valley had all apparently disappeared, but why should this be a surprise? They did not have anything to do there once they had finished off Reno's remnants. However, when a party did go down to try and get water they were fired upon. It seems to me there might well have been reasonable numbers of Indians in place between Reno Hill and the village ready to turn back any move towards there. The eventual move by Weir and then the command along the bluffs is actually less immediately threatening to the Indians and it is a little while before they respond.
On a similar basis it seems Custer thought there were not too many Indians near his force until he belatedly found out that there were.
My point is that there probably were significant numbers of Indians ready to respond if Reno/Benteen had made threatening moves to the village but there was no reason for them to be displaying themselves in the open.
There is at least one Indian account that states that some warriors were told to watch the Reno force.
Regards
Mike
|
|
|
Post by crzhrs on Jul 28, 2006 6:23:43 GMT -6
Civil War veterans had an idea of the size of their opponents armies basically because there was uniformity in the ranks of numbers. A company was a given number, a battalion was a given number, and so on.
When it comes to "counting" Indians it was a guess . . . an estimate, count the number of tepees and maybe you could come up with a number. But at the LBH it was a different situation. It was a camp made up for protection from the military so the numbers could be all over the place. Maybe more to a tepee maybe less.
Again, there is evidence of the Indians moving camps around immediately after the initial fighting: 1: to get further away from the soldiers on Reno/Benteen Hill and to get away from the stench of rotting bodies from Custer's fight. This would give the impression of move tepee circles than there actually were. And the wickiups may have been temporary shelters erected rather than setting up tepees again when everyone knew the camp would probably be disbanded soon.
One old-time frontiersman gave an idea of to counting Indians: "Try stirring up an an ant hill . . . then try counting the ants."
We can all agree that it was a large village, but the numbers probably were not the staggering figures presented LATER once the full impact of what happened took place and every one pointing fingers.
|
|
|
Post by AZ Ranger on Jul 28, 2006 22:21:54 GMT -6
PhillyBlair -- That order has always seemed confusing to me. The pack train was always behind and never moved quick. If Benteen had to seek out the pack train then how could he come quick? He could move no faster then the animals carrying the packs. Also if Custer only saw a large sleeping village why did he want more ammunition. If he was going to charge it he wouldn't charge with the pack animals.
AZ Ranger
|
|
|
Post by markland on Jul 28, 2006 23:22:28 GMT -6
" A second point, if I might address it, is it would be much more advantageous politically to the army to claim smaller amounts of indians were causing their losses. The army was desperate for funding for men and weapons etc.. Claiming larger amounts of enemy faced might cause even more of a loss of immediate funding as congress might want to form commissions to study such large disparities. It also paints the indian as much more dangerous, individually. In other words the congress might be dubious of large claimed numbers, as is the board members, thus slowing much needed funding and re-inforcements."
Huh??? After reading the above, I now know how the duck from the commercial feels after listening to Yogi Berra.
Best,
Billy
|
|
|
Post by PhillyBlair on Jul 29, 2006 15:21:39 GMT -6
AZ Ranger, I don't want to stray too far from the subject here as the real point is how far were the packs from Benteen, not Custer's intentions. But as a quick aside, I'm sure you've read Fox's theory on the note. Not sure if I totally buy into it, but it's a theory. Also, it may not have been the immediate ammo that Custer needed as much as it was the need to keep the ammo from the Indians. He identified the village and wanted to get his command in order and near the fight. Perhaps he had Major Elliott in mind from Washita? Also, if he knew the village was large then he knew there had to be many warriors somewhere. Maybe he saw a pitched battle coming?
Billy, you weren't nearly as confusing as Yogi. 90% of your thread was mental, the other half was physical ;D
|
|
|
Post by AZ Ranger on Jul 30, 2006 9:25:04 GMT -6
PhillyBlair-- I believe that both close and far is the correct answer for the the packtrain depending on ones perception. It was strung over the country and the first packs may have arrived an hour ahead of the last. Benteen was engaged in conversation with Reno and making assessments of the conditions. After some time he may have seen the packtrain still coming in.
Those that looked for the packs reached it when they discovered the lead animals which were closer. If you were concerned for the whole packtrain's, "packs", security then it would father away. Benteen at best was making a guess where it was since he didn't physically ride to find the end of packtrain.
As Fox states page 29 "Eventually McDougall and the packtrain straggled in."
AZ Ranger
|
|
|
Post by mcaryf on Jul 30, 2006 10:22:17 GMT -6
Hi AZR and Phillyblair
I think you will find from the RCOI that the pack train actually stopped to close up when it got into sound of firing. McDougall and Mathey do not make much of this (they had been told to come on quick) but it was obviously sensible to close it up and get the escort to the front if they are likely to be attacked. Thus I do not think the train straggled in other than the two ammo mules that went on ahead with Lt Hare.
The current thinking is that the end of the train got to Reno Hill about 5.30 when the command was moving off.
Remember you could have seen the train coming for about 4 miles from the hill which would have taken them at least an hour to traverse so Reno and Benteen could time their move to fit in with the train's arrival.
Regards
Mike
|
|