|
Post by wild on Jun 10, 2007 0:58:23 GMT -6
Leading on from the questions raised on the defending the timber thread and in particular the resolve of the Indians I would ask this was defending the hill such a big deal? Benteen salvages his reputation in this "heroic action" and yet nowhere did the Indians mount a serious assault against this position. Nowhere are large bodies of Indians seen or engaged.A few isolated groups driven off when they infiltrated too close.Just how many Indians were ranged against our heros on the hill? Everything points to there never being more than a few hundred,probably not even matching the numbers of defenders.What is ever seen of the Indians but a few distant snipers?The cordon around the position was so thinly manned that men could leave their lines and get to the river 700 yards off for water.Reno fancied their chances of breaking out and getting away. The Indians only required a covering force to pin down the defenders.If time allowed hunger and the elements would work just as well as bullets and at a much lesser cost in casualties. The stand on Reno Hill was a PR exercise to salvage something from the mess.A hero emerges to much applause. Benteen the bashful hero is generious in his praise of Reno.Reno aknowledges Benteen's role and the surviving troops canvass their promotion. This is a tale of two hills. But Benteen is no Sydney Carton .
|
|
|
Post by mcaryf on Jun 10, 2007 8:50:37 GMT -6
Hi Wild
The position on Reno Hill was subjected to attack by gunfire. The total number of guns (not including pistols) in the warriors possession was probably only around 600 and of these something like half would not have the range to shoot at the position whilst having a degree of cover. Thus the two forces were not dissimilar in size in terms of their ability to participate in exchanges of gunfire. The warriors did, however, have much better opportunities for cover and to change position. That is why the US Army seems to have suffered much heavier losses in horses and mules as well as numbers of dead and wounded troopers.
The warriors knew that the troops could not get away or attack their families hence they did not need to press the fight. When Terry came they took the sensible decision to depart.
Reno Hill was, however, under real threat. The warriors did have a significant advantage in terms of numbers for a short range or melee fight. if at any stage the cavalry line had seriously weakened due to panic or infiltration up the bluffs then the position could have fallen.
Changing tack and looking at the Custer fight. He too would have enjoyed parity or even an advantage in long range weapons if he had chosen better ground on which to fight and a better deployment of his forces. Reno and Benteen chose much more wisely and Benteen especially helped to maintain the morale which was the key element. Even if they had expected Terry to arrive in the LBH valley when he did, there was still a good possibility of his force being held off or even defeated. Morale was an absolutely key issue and Benteen's actions helped to sustain that.
Regards
Mike
|
|
|
Post by Banned on Jun 10, 2007 11:59:45 GMT -6
"He too would have enjoyed parity or even an advantage in long range weapons if he had chosen better ground on which to fight and a better deployment of his forces. Reno and Benteen chose much more wisely"
It's the worse example of pro-Reno revisionism I've ever seen.
Reno left his men, didn't put any rear guard, didn't give any order during the whole siege, never obeyed his orders, never took care of Custer, never supported his superior... Benteen didn't obey his orders, didn't rush to the sound of the guns, didn't fire any shot on Weir Point (Godfrey deployed as a rear guard on his own initiative) and then... mcaryf is just applauding two of the worst officers that have ever fought for the US.
US general in chief Nelson A. Miles said clearly that Benteen and Reno had no chance of being defeated. They not only suffered no casualty on Reno Hill until the end of the real battle of June 25, 1876, (except Charley, left behind), but they never tried to threaten the Indians.
Reno and Benteen were at best a decoy for the Indians. They never felt threatened by the two clowns who were staying on their position with 2/3 of their forces. AS Red Horse said, it was not logical, and these men were probably lacking ammunition...
|
|
|
Post by Banned on Jun 10, 2007 12:02:23 GMT -6
Lieutenant Edward McClernand, of Terry’s column, arrived on the battlefield on June 27, 1876. He drew maps of the battlefield and wrote several articles on the battle. Here’s what he wrote on Major Reno, who was the senior commander of Reno Hill: “Some of (Reno’s) officers looking from the edge of the bluffs (from Reno Hill) at the large number of mounted warriors in the bottom below (the valley of the Little Bighorn), observed that the enemy suddenly started down the valley, and that in a few minutes scarcely a(n Indian) horseman was left in sight. Reno’s front was practically cleared of the enemy. It is not sufficient to say that there was no serious doubt about Custer being able to take care of himself. (Custer) had gone downstream with five troops, heavy firing was heard in that direction, it was evident a fight was on (…) Reno with six troops (…) still ignored the well known military axiom to march to the sound of guns.”
|
|
|
Post by mcaryf on Jun 10, 2007 12:50:38 GMT -6
Hi CSS
I agree with Nelson Miles quote that Reno and Benteen had little risk of being over run because they chose sensible ground on which to fight.
I am sure that General Miles would also say if he was here to speak that there should have been no chance of Custer's column being defeated. Indeed the whole strategy of the US Army was based on the idea that none of the 3 columns deployed in June 1876 was in any serious risk of being defeated. Unfortunately the tactics Custer adopted on the day split his force into bite sized chunks before he had formed any proper idea of what the enemy might be doing. He then fed the chunks to the Sioux and they duly chewed them up, it was only when three of his columns managed to reunite that the cavalry was given an opportunity to apply their superior fire power. The fact that they did reunite was not as a result of Custer's own orders or intentions but as a result of the warriors driving one unit back towards another one.
As you know my estimate has Custer's own column pretty well defeated and largely destroyed by 5pm so there was absolutely nothing the rest of his command could do to change that.
Regards
Mike
|
|
|
Post by wild on Jun 10, 2007 13:50:01 GMT -6
The defence of Reno Hill was apparently a long range fire fight.I have never read that Reno/Benteen deployed their forces as to win this fire fight.At no time does it appear that 360 professional soldiers led by experienced civil war officers with an ample supply of ammo achieved or attempted to achieve fire superiority.The defence was totally passive and incapable of inflicting casualties or driving off the attackers.
|
|
|
Post by Banned on Jun 11, 2007 8:14:00 GMT -6
Hello mcaryf,
If the battle ended at 5 p.m., how do you understand this (my article from http://www.custerwest.orG):
Benteen eventually followed Weir (see "Reno Hill"), but only 30 minutes after him. The battle was still raging on, as Historian Gregory Michno shows in his book “Lakota Noon.” (he makes the timeline of Custer’s movements with Indian testimonies) Despite what countless books said, when Weir reached a peak named afterwards Weir Point, Custer’s battle was still raging. Little Bighorn specialist Wayne Michael Sarf admits that many officers on Weir Point “apparently saw more than they would later admit. There is little doubt that (Lieutenant) Edgerly destroyed the portion of a letter to his wife dealing with the Weir Point episode.” Sergeant Charles Windolph, of Benteen's company H, remembered what he saw on Weir Point : “Way off to the north you could see what looked to be groups of mounted Indians. There was plenty of firing going on.” Lieutenant Hare was interviewed by Walter Camp, who wrote: “While out in advance with (Captain Weir’s) Company D, the Indians were thick over on Custer ridge and were firing. (Hare) thought Custer was fighting them.” Private Edward Pigford: “at first when looked toward Custer ridge the Indians were firing from a big circle, but it gradually closed until they seemed to converge into a large black mass on the side hill toward the river and all along the ridge.” Captain Weir was watching his comrades battling without helping them, because Benteen and Reno were still on their hill. When Benteen eventually reached Weir Point, he put an American flag on the peak to “show my position to Custer. The bugle began to sound on Custer Hill (according to Beard, Crazy Horse...), which means that Custer was watching the flag or the dust of the other battalions and was using the bugle as a signal. Custer’s men asked for help, after having waited for Benteen and Reno… during more than two hours! Sitting Bull: “As (Custer’s soldiers) they stood to be killed they were seen to look far away to the hills in all directions and we knew they were looking for the hidden soldiers (Benteen’s and Reno’s soldiers) in the hollows of the hills to come and help them.”
A little band, led by warchief Low Dog, eventually attacked the men on Weir Point while the battle on Custer Hill was still raging (see Michno). Benteen decided to withdraw his troops, according to Private George Glenn and Lieutenant Francis Gibson. The troops fell back without any rear guard, just like Reno had done in the woods. Lieutenant Godfrey decided to deploy his men on his own initiative. He later said to the Reno Court of Inquiry: Question by the court: “Was the engagement severe in and around (Weir Point)?” Answer by Lieutenant Godfrey “No severe engagement at all (on Weir Point).” Question by the court: “Was there much firing on the part of the Indians down at that point up to the time to command started to go back (from Weir Point to Reno Hill)?” Answer by Lieutenant Godfrey: “No, sir.” Question by the court: “State if the Indians drove (Weir’s and Benteen’s) command from that position (Weir Point).” Answer by Lieutenant Edgerly: “They did not. The orders were to fall back and we fell back.” 400 men fell back without ever supporting the last stand. Custer would never have the support he had asked for during more than two hours. His heroic last stand would end at 6.20 p.m., almost at the time Reno had reached Reno Hill again. A betrayal had just happened at Little Bighorn. A betrayal that would be covered during a century, and which is still covered up by many scholars and historians. Major General Thomas Rosser, cavalry officer during the Civil War, wrote in 1876: “As a soldier, I would sooner lie in the grave of General Custer and his gallant comrades alone in that distant wilderness, that when the last trumpet sounds, I could rise to judgment from my part of duty, than to live in the place of the survivors of the siege on the hills.” _____________________________________________ Sources: The official recording of the Reno Court of Inquiry, 1879 Nightengale, Little Big Horn, pages 129, 184-185, 190 Unger, The ABCs of Custer’s Last Stand, pages 191-218 Sklenar, To Hell with Honor, page 302 Michno, Lakota Noon, page 233-287 General Thomas Rosser, Chicago Tribune, August 8, 1876
|
|
|
Post by Banned on Jun 11, 2007 8:21:18 GMT -6
I am sure that General Miles would also say if he was here to speak that there should have been no chance of Custer's column being defeated. Yes he said that. He said that 12 companies with Custer would have never been defeated if they had worked together. The Indians told Miles that they were fearing attacks by Reno and Benteen even after Reno's defeat. The light resistance that Weir faced on Weir Point (see my post above) is the proof that the Indians didn't protect their rear, and Red Horse clearly stated that he was worried about it (and he thought that Reno and Benteen didn't have any ammunition). Miles, by his own experience, knew the Indians skills (individual fight) and weakness (lack of organization). Custer knew too. He moved quickly, surprised the Indians even in the afternoon, surprised them with a front attack, with a flank movement, with an other movement (North Ford) but his orders weren't obeyed. As Bruce Trinque said, and I agree with him (Michno's quoting Trinque in Lakota Noon, and I've been in contact with Trinque), Custer fought a guerilla and used every good tactic to fight it. Quickness and offensive are the key. By dawdling, Benteen ruined this tactic. By running away, Reno destroyed the actual plan. By staying on Reno Hill as if the Indians were good tacticians (and they were not, despite what political correctness tries to say), they just let Custer die.
|
|
|
Post by Banned on Jun 11, 2007 8:23:37 GMT -6
The defence of Reno Hill was apparently a long range fire fight.I have never read that Reno/Benteen deployed their forces as to win this fire fight.At no time does it appear that 360 professional soldiers led by experienced civil war officers with an ample supply of ammo achieved or attempted to achieve fire superiority.The defence was totally passive and incapable of inflicting casualties or driving off the attackers. I agree. But the Indian attacks were passive too. Benteen and Reno never thought offensive during the whole battle, June 25-27, 1876. Exactly the contrary of what they should have done. They were slow and passive, they should have been quick and agressive.
|
|
|
Post by AZ Ranger on Jun 11, 2007 8:44:51 GMT -6
I agree. But the Indian attacks were passive too. Benteen and Reno never thought offensive during the whole battle, June 25-27, 1876. Exactly the contrary of what they should have done. They were slow and passive, they should have been quick and agressive.
Reno's approach to the village was a defensive move? Please explain
|
|
|
Post by crzhrs on Jun 11, 2007 9:11:57 GMT -6
<The light resistance that Weir faced on Weir Point (see my post above) is the proof that the Indians didn't protect their rear>
Then why didn't Weir continue? He made his own decision to go to Custer without orders. If there was little Indian resistance he should have gone right on in and saved Custer.
|
|
|
Post by crzhrs on Jun 11, 2007 9:15:04 GMT -6
<Major General Thomas Rosser, cavalry officer during the Civil War, wrote in 1876: “As a soldier, I would sooner lie in the grave of General Custer and his gallant comrades alone in that distant wilderness, that when the last trumpet sounds, I could rise to judgment from my part of duty, than to live in the place of the survivors of the siege on the hills.”>
Had Rosser ever fought Indians before?
Rosser wasn't there.
Most of the Reno survivors would not have agreed with that.
|
|
|
Post by crzhrs on Jun 11, 2007 9:19:35 GMT -6
<By staying on Reno Hill as if the Indians were good tacticians (and they were not, despite what political correctness tries to say), they just let Custer die>
I don't think the Reno survivors were thinking about how good the Indians' tactics were. They had already experienced it in the valley, then warriors chasing the Weir Advance back to Reno Hill, and the constant firing by armed warriors that took out and/or wounded more soldiers.
|
|
|
Post by Banned on Jun 11, 2007 10:10:47 GMT -6
I agree. But the Indian attacks were passive too. Benteen and Reno never thought offensive during the whole battle, June 25-27, 1876. Exactly the contrary of what they should have done. They were slow and passive, they should have been quick and agressive. Reno's approach to the village was a defensive move? Please explain Reno wasn't agressive at all. His charge was never a charge, it was at best a quick movement. He never tried to theaten the Indians and even when he had the advantage of ground, he ran away.
|
|
|
Post by Banned on Jun 11, 2007 10:11:31 GMT -6
<By staying on Reno Hill as if the Indians were good tacticians (and they were not, despite what political correctness tries to say), they just let Custer die> I don't think the Reno survivors were thinking about how good the Indians' tactics were. Stop smoking grass.
|
|