|
Post by twomoons on May 15, 2005 21:16:58 GMT -6
Thankyou George, Shan, PGB All are very insightful and thoughtful ideas and comments. If I haven't said welcome to you, I do now. Welcome and enjoy your time here.
Ps And that goes for you too Hunkpapa. ;D
|
|
|
Post by crzhrs on May 16, 2005 11:29:14 GMT -6
Diane:
Delete my response?!?!!?
Weir saw nothing? Edgerly said he saw something and told about it ". . . the hills black with Indians . . . shooting at objects on the ground . . . Custer's men dead . . ."
Maybe Weir was so traumatically affected that he went blank. No accounts of him afterward on Reno Hill leaves me to think he was psyhcologically impacted. What was his actions on the hill? His downward slide and rapid deterioration from alcohol and depression seems to indicate that he saw more than he ever said.
Or are you talking about my "environmental" post?
|
|
|
Post by Walt Cross on May 16, 2005 15:27:22 GMT -6
Hi all, Look, there is a possible compromise here, which ought to satisfy all but the most polemic partisans. That is the concept of the benefit of hindsight. Think about it: having seen indeterminate activity in the vicinity of Custer Hill from Weir Point, Weir subsequently, following the arrival of Terry's column, saw at first hand the aftermath of what had actually ocurred in that vicinity. In the days and weeks that followed isn't it understandable that the issues of what Weir actually thought he saw , and what he subsequently knew had happened became blurred and merged into one? In other words, once Weir had seen at close quarters ('oh, how pale they look') the carnage on Custer Hill, he may have begun to believe that the clouds of dust and smoke and heat tremors which he saw from Weir Point were actually the death throes in combat of those whose bodies he surveyed on June 26. Whereas, in fact, he saw no detail whatsoever, and at the time he was on Weir Point, could not tell whether he was watching the closing stages of a battle or the triumph of the victors over a field already won. I don't know, of course, whether this scenario is valid - no-one ever will now - but at least it is one interpretation which manages to include all the facts that we do know............ Ciao, GAC I said the same thing back on page 2, but not in your detail. Walt
|
|
|
Post by George Armstrong Custer on May 17, 2005 3:18:58 GMT -6
[/quote]
I said the same thing back on page 2, but not in your detail.
Walt[/quote]
Hi Walt - yes, and the later imaginations of those I'll call generically the 'Weir Pointers' was no doubt fired by the all too real evidence of what lay before their eyes as they stood on Custer Hill on June 28.
The scene of what they actually saw from Weir Point on June 25 could have been either that depicted by Eric von Schmidt in 'Here Fell Custer', or that by J. K. Ralston in 'After the Battle'. Viewed from Weir Point through the heat haze, with smoke and dust clouds being raised and shots being fired (whether in combat or celebration), either scenario could have been the case.
Regards, George
|
|
|
Post by weir on May 17, 2005 7:44:37 GMT -6
Xav; No one ever said they couldn't determine a fight was going on, or ending. Obviously they did. The perception was that Custer had been engaged but yielded the field and was retreating toward Terry, leaving Reno's men to fend for themselves. They were actually angry at him, thinking he had abondoned them. I hope Custer and his men up there cannot read your comment. That's maybe the reason Reno's men thought they were abandonned that Weir disobeyed.. ? This is maybe because they could hear the volleys at MTC that they knew Custer was riding to Terry...? It is completly illogical and absurd. Sitting Bull reported what his warriors told him about Custer's men : "Our warriors saw the soldiers looking to the hills, and everywhere. We knew that they were looking for the others soldiers and that they hoped they will come and help them."
|
|
Son of A Cavalryman
Guest
|
Post by Son of A Cavalryman on May 17, 2005 7:49:22 GMT -6
Buffalo chips Xav. The hills around the Little Big Horn was covered in buffalo chips, and you are spreading them here. Your agrument lacks the ring of truth.
SOACM
|
|
|
Post by weir on May 17, 2005 7:54:40 GMT -6
So, escargot, Xav is Swiss, not French at all! Shame on you for hiding in a neutral country Xav. Anything stuck in neutral can't go forward or back right. Maybe that's why you're stuck on this question. If I'm stuck in this question it is maybe because LBH is contained in that. If we can prove that soldiers of Reno's and Benteen's battalion saw Custer's men fighting, so the treason is more than evident. But of course we can continue with the american way of thinking : "brave soldiers with brave generals fought brave warriors who defended they way of life in a brave battle"... What an analysis... Walt Cross loved that one I'm sure. With the brave american hymna behind... I don't think that the neutrality is good either. That's the reason I undertake the american policy.
|
|
|
Post by weir on May 17, 2005 7:56:08 GMT -6
Buffalo chips Xav. The hills around the Little Big Horn was covered in buffalo chips, and you are spreading them here. Your agrument lacks the ring of truth. SOACM I loved your so intelligent comment.
|
|
|
Post by markland on May 17, 2005 15:22:46 GMT -6
I have no doubt that they saw the aftermath of fighting. From everything I have read, the concensus was that they were watching / hearing the rear-guard of Custer's battalion defending the retreat.
Xav, let's suppose they did see the actual end of LBH. What were they to do? The distance from Weir Point to LSH, according to my map, is approximately 3.5 miles, as the crow flies, over rough terrain with horses, in Reno's case, which had not had water since before the 'charge". Not being a horseman, I figure that trip would have taken at least 30 minutes at a hard trot. If they could see as well as you contend, they would have known that they were attacking a superior force with blown horses, tired men, on terrain unfriendly to cavalry operations. Not to mention a sizable contingent of wounded and with a large portion of Reno's survivors somewhat shell-shocked.
My simple opinion is that by the time Weir got to the overlook, it was too late for anything but an F16 or A10 to help Custer's battalion.
Best,
Billy
|
|
|
Post by crzhrs on May 17, 2005 15:46:17 GMT -6
<"I would prefer, as a soldier, have died with Custer instead of living on the hill of the survivors knowing not to have made my duty." >
Every soldier who survived on Reno Hill will tell you that it was better to be alive than dead, especially after witnessing the remains of Custer's command.
Officers as well as enlisted men all panicked, a few officers pleaded with men to stand their ground, but most ran including several officers. The horror of being captured by Indians reinforced the panic.
I for one would rather be alive on a hill than dead and chopped up by Indians.
|
|
|
Post by crzhrs on May 17, 2005 15:53:27 GMT -6
Markland:
>I have no doubt that they saw the aftermath of fighting. From everything I have read, the concensus was that they were watching / hearing the rear-guard of Custer's battalion defending the retreat>
I agree . . . except they were not watching a retreat but the mopping up by Indians of Custer's command. Whether Weir and the others realized it was the end for Custer or Indians finishing off wounded with Custer falling back is unknown.
It was only after that members of the Weir Advance realized that what they saw was the finish of Custer and and not a fighting retreat. Then they put two and two together and made the statesments about the "hills covered with Indians . . . Indians shooting at objects on he ground . . . Custer's men all dead . . ."
|
|
Son of A Cavalryman
Guest
|
Post by Son of A Cavalryman on May 18, 2005 8:48:10 GMT -6
And it doesn't make a bit of difference what they thought they were watching from Weir Point. They could not have done a darn thing about it. And for Xav to say "If we can prove..." nothing can be proved. You're beating a dead horse. And Walt is right, by the time Weir arrived Custer was as dead as Julius Caesar.
SOACM
|
|
|
Post by weir on May 18, 2005 13:17:19 GMT -6
I wrote to the battle student, members of LBHA Bruce Trinque. Some quotes from his answers :
"Overall, I tend to place greater fault on Benteen's earlier slowness in coming down Reno Creek to rejoin the main force." (May 8, 2005)
"I think Benteen was deliberately slow, as a show of resentment against Custer. [...] it is conceivable that a more rapid march down Reno Creek might have meant that Benteen would have joined Custer rather than Reno -- and that would have presented interesting alternatives." (May 5, 2005)
"But I do think Reno'a and particularly Benteen's behavior could at least be characterized as a "betrayal" of Custer's intent and wishes." (May 8, 2005)
Robert M. Utley, best West historian wrote that "nothing can excuse" Benteen's slow march and that Reno "failed to all leadership tests" (Utley, Cavalier in buckskin, have not the book under my eyes but check LBH you'll find easily)
I have General Nelson Miles, General Joseph Johnston, Captain Wittaker, General Thomas Rosser, Lt Mac Clernand of Terry's column on my side.
They wrote that Custer died because of the betrayal of his two subordinates.
They knew, as soldiers, what a betrayal means and would not have used this word if it had not been appropriate. They knew the Indians wars, they knew what a battle was, they knew what orders mean.
Their voices have more value than your screams SOACM.
|
|
|
Post by bigpond on May 18, 2005 14:48:50 GMT -6
Xav, go into a spare room,put a photogragh of Benteen and Reno on a wall,and throw darts at them for 2 hours a day,at the weekends make it 3 hours a day,and give us some peace ;D Irrespective of what we are discussing,whap,back comes the same old story. Whatever you do,dont name your cat,Benteen
|
|
Son of A Cavalryman
Guest
|
Post by Son of A Cavalryman on May 18, 2005 18:18:47 GMT -6
Xav; Bah, humbug!
SOACM
And by the way, I don't scream. But I used to be a drill instructor, I can yell your butt off.
|
|