|
Post by crzhrs on Jul 26, 2006 9:05:49 GMT -6
Benteen is often blamed for not galloping in response to the "come quick" message.
The following might be of interest. The situation: one cavalry detachment has been surrounded by Indians, their comrades must rush to their rescue.
'The next moment the bugle rang out the signal "To horse," and in less time than would be required to describe it, horses were saddled and arms ready. Then "there was mounting in hot haste." A moment later the command set off at a brisk trot to attempt the rescue of their beleaguered comrades.
Persons unfamiliar with the cavalry service may mentally inquire why, in such an emergency as this, the intended reinforcements were not pushed forward at a rapid gallop.
But in answer to this it need only be said that we had a ride of at least five miles before us in order to arrive at the point where Captain Hamilton and his command had last been seen, and it was absolutely necessary to so husband the powers of our horses as to save them for the real work of conflict.'
George Armstrong Custer, My Life on the Plains.
Puts Benteen's pace into perspective, perhaps? (my bold italics added)
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on Jul 26, 2006 12:50:25 GMT -6
Note the silence of reply vs. the number of viewings..........
An excellent point that should be made more often, Crzhrs.
This is a good example of how Custer is given the advantage of every doubt, Reno and Benteen zero. Benteen arrives watered and ready to go. Custer had already lost men before contact with the Sioux, to no point or necessity.
|
|
|
Post by PhillyBlair on Jul 26, 2006 14:55:43 GMT -6
Great stuff, crzhrs!
|
|
|
Post by AZ Ranger on Jul 26, 2006 19:59:22 GMT -6
Thanks crzhrs
Most persons that are familiar with horses would know this to be true. A horse can cover a lot of country at a trot and have a reserve of speed when needed. Custer was very familiar with horses and so was Benteen. Why some wanted to blame Benteen for not galloping 5 miles to me has always shown a lack of understanding of a mounted unit.
AZ Ranger
|
|
|
Post by mcaryf on Jul 27, 2006 7:12:44 GMT -6
I think the idea that Benteen was laggardly sprang up in the 1870's when there was a lot of confusion of watch times local versus Chicago or whatever. I think some people got the idea he was missing for an hour or so.
The more recent analyses seem to be along the lines of well he could have been 10, 15 or 20 minutes earlier or he could have gone at the same speed as Boston (who was on a fresh horse and did not need to wait whilst a whole company got water at the Morass).
To be honest I think these more recent analyses are just clutching at straws to beat him with and would probably never have come up with the idea if the earlier commentators had not got their watch times confused and created the legend of the late Benteen.
Regards
mike
|
|
|
Post by crzhrs on Jul 27, 2006 8:29:09 GMT -6
I must admit the thread I started was gained from another forum. I just wanted to add it here because I feel it may be important regarding Benteen's advance.
In the future I will include any topics I introduce with a disclaimer if not mine.
|
|
|
Post by crzhrs on Jul 27, 2006 8:33:40 GMT -6
Another interesting statement was made by Godfrey regarding the Benteen scout:
In Godfrey's Narrative published in THE CUSTER MYTH, Godfrey stated during the scout the horse were tiring (jaded) and lagging behind due to the rough terrain.
|
|
|
Post by elisabeth on Jul 27, 2006 9:05:47 GMT -6
Good point ... "the ascending and descending of hills", I think he says? Plus Benteen, like Custer, had a fast-walking horse, forcing the rest to trot to keep up even when Benteen was at a walk himself.
Even if we accept that Benteen exaggerated the extra distance he had to go and the ruggedness of the terrain, there were jaded horses in Custer's battalion too: all those stragglers who dropped out even after Custer's watering halt. (OK, some of them are suspicious, but not all.) Remembering that the animals had been on a fraction of their normal rations, with poor grazing to supplement them for much of the march, it's not surprising ...
|
|
|
Post by George Mabry on Jul 27, 2006 17:00:41 GMT -6
Its evident that this thread is populated by a bunch of slack-jawed civilians. Crzhrs, the two are not comparable. Comanders and subordinates are held to different standards. In the one case, you have a subordinate being issued an order. The other case is simply commander's perogative.
Somewhat Respectfully Submitted,
George
|
|
|
Post by crzhrs on Jul 27, 2006 17:30:40 GMT -6
George M
If you want to disagree with me and others here that's fine . . . but the insults are unnecessary.
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on Jul 27, 2006 17:54:54 GMT -6
It's hardly an insult being called a civilian. And as I age, I do drool. But Mabry's point is bogus.
Even in Texas reality has an enclave. I've read. Benteen's "order", if such it can be called, was to come on quickly with the packs, a mutual exclusive. It didn't need to be said to come as quickly as thought prudent and to arrive ready to go, and given the new charge of the train, he did well.
Yes, Elizabeth, ALL the horses were tired, but the only ones that finked out were with Custer. There could have been more of which nothing is known. The Indian Tales say they were tired and hungry.
It's those who damn Benteen - not a few of whom frequently remind us were soldiers, apros pos of nothing - for not racing to Custer who are the idiots. And if Custer were to give such an order, he'd be an idiot, something he was not. And he refers to the gait as a necessity in those circumstances. He'd be hard put why it would be necessary for common sense to fly out the window to rescue him, when his serious obligations as ranking officer and field commander - reportedly stronger than mere "orders" - didn't obligate him to rescue Hamilton by the same, if stupid and unlikely to succeed, method.
For all the talk about Reno and Benteen's obligation to Custer (iffy), there is no talk about his obligations to them and ALL his men.
Again. At what precise point did the mission of the 7th change to risking everything to search for a missing unit?
|
|
|
Post by George Mabry on Jul 27, 2006 17:56:56 GMT -6
Crzhrs, I don't consider that what I said was anymore insulting than the question itself. I too am a SJC. And proud of it. But long ago and in a land faraway, that wasn't the case.
I enjoy debating various aspects of this battle with the historians on this board. And there are many good historians here who have invested a lot of time and effort into research and evaluation. I respect them and seek their opinions. When a thread introduces the playground concept of fair into evaluating a commander's battlefield decisions, and the respondents think it is sooooo relevant, I cannot let that pass without comment. And that comment is going to have a bite to it.
As far as Benteen's actions are concerned, I've never had any trouble with them. Granted, he didn't exactly dislocate a hip responding to his orders, but his actions were within reason.
George
|
|
|
Post by George Mabry on Jul 27, 2006 18:14:41 GMT -6
DC, apparently you too took offense at the label SJC. Actually I was thinking specifically of you when I wrote that. But that is beside the point.
Once again you've missed my point. For your benefit, my reply to this thread was in response to the comparison of Benteen's supposed failure to come to Custer's aid as opposed to Custer's supposed failure to go to Elliot's aid. Those two incidents are not comparable.
In regards to your post, I agree that Custer had an obligation to support Reno and it is my opinion that he failed to do so.
|
|
|
Post by elisabeth on Jul 28, 2006 3:45:27 GMT -6
With respect, while the ghost of Elliott inevitably hovers over much discussion of the battle, no-one's been talking about hhim in this thread. The person being rescued (in this case, successfully) was Hamilton in the '67 Hancock campaign, and the point being made was about the simple practicalities of cavalry operations: selecting the most practicable pace for covering a distance at speed when expecting to be in combat at the other end.
Crzhrs cites the Custer quote to demonstrate what was standard practice in such a situation: known to Custer, known to Benteen, known to any experienced cavalryman. It's not so much a question of "fairness" as of dispelling the myth that Benteen not galloping proves he was derelict in his duty. That's all.
|
|
|
Post by mcaryf on Jul 28, 2006 4:15:25 GMT -6
I have joined in the discussion on the "other" forum re the speed or otherwise of Benteen, I have previously disagreed with the main protagonist there wrt his timeline for Benteen which is interesting but somewhat flawed.
This is an extract from the post I made there aimed at the person mentioned above which touches on a different aspect of Benteen's actions, I would be interested in comments on the question I raise in it.
There is a reasonable criticism of Benteen in not sending Weir or someone to a high point to spot for Custer earlier than happened but in reality there was not much that they could have done even if they became aware of where Custer was. Most modern theories suggest that Custer's own units would not have thought they were in trouble until near the end so any spotting from Weir Point might not have suggested that Reno/Benteen would need to move before the packs were up. I think you amongst others would assess the "bring packs" order as being about protecting the train not fetching the ammo. Plainly if Benteen had set off earlier from Reno Hill he would have been disobeying that aspect of the order. Unless the observers on Weir Point had reported Custer in serious trouble why would he move earlier?
I am not actually aware of any feedback from Weir to Reno or Benteen as to what he was seeing - is there any report of that?
Regards
Mike
|
|