|
Post by analyst on Jul 28, 2006 12:31:08 GMT -6
DC: As we all know you are quite ignorant and are completely uneducated. The only time you have been on campus is to try and score a baggie. 1. If anyone is short on understanding it appears to be you.
|
|
|
Post by markland on Jul 28, 2006 12:49:38 GMT -6
DC: As we all know you are quite ignorant and are completely uneducated. The only time you have been on campus is to try and score a baggie. 1. If anyone is short on understanding it appears to be you. *sigh* Paul, address the issue rather than the personality. Billy
|
|
|
Post by armand on Jul 28, 2006 15:24:05 GMT -6
Plotting out the Custer side of the battle will always be conjectural, unless we accept that the hundreds of survivors - the NA - told the truth. Now maybe they were telling the white man what he wanted to hear, maybe individual warriors were reliable only when they described the immediate vicinity of their war band, but it's all we've got. I still find it difficult to believe that five companies led by a charismatic figure such as Custer could dissolve in panic and be slaughtered in as much time as it took to eat a meal (Indian style, of course, not some Diamond Jim Brady banquet at "Rector's"). And most witnesses tell of a hard fight.
But there is enough evidence on the Reno side of the field. I don't pretend to know as much as most of the posters here, but hard evidence does point to incompetence on Reno's part and deliberate sluggishness on Benteen's. Now I won't dispute that Reno might have been in emotional turmoil, compounded by Bloody Knife's brains splattered over him and the tragic demise of his favorite adjutant. But it should be easy to determine whether - Reno abandoned a position easy to defend,that threatened the village as well, - conducted this dangerous maneuver carelessly, spelling doom for a hefty fraction of his force, - was in his cups. If the answer is yes then you don't need the conspiracy theory to realize that this spelled doom for the whole attack. Granted, Reno does not come across as a likable character (I once had a colleague who was a dead-ringer for him and accordingly we bickered for three years), but there does appear to be conclusive evidence that he was "weighed in the balance and found wanting".
Oh, and by the way, DC, I'm curious to know about the business with the El Paso lyrics - I happen to be a Marty Robbins fan. Maybe we can agree on something there, but it's perhaps too sentimental for your tastes (to compound my felony, my favorite M. Robbins song is "They're hanging me Tonight"... Dreadful, ain't it?)
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on Jul 28, 2006 16:07:15 GMT -6
Powell was under the impression that there was a racial animosity, as I recall. It was the story of an ignorant cowboy who didn't quite get the professional nature of Felina's existence, and there was no racial element to the song, nor could there be on pop radio in the late 1950's. I learned to play guitar to that album, which I still listen to. As Voltaire said, when things are too stupid to be said, they're sung, but that's a great album, and last great Country and Western recording and about the only one in high fi.
But, you've got to expand your horizons.
1. Reno did abandon a position relatively easy to defend, sans fire and with plenty of ammo. As from your detailed reading of the RCOI, you know pretty much everyone said the ammo, prudently employed, would last four to six hours. Reno knew nada of the train or Benteen. He did know he did not want to be there and run out of ammo surrounded by the Sioux, especially at night.
2. No doubt, could have been done better. The issue is whether or not they had the training and ability to do so. Perhaps you could show us on the map how it could have been done better with less casualties? If you cannot do it - and everyone else has chickened out - than you have no standing to condemn Reno. They surprised the Indians and got out. Reno could well have considered it a charge, and in fact much testimony at the RCOI says the word "charge" was used when people enquired what was going on and about to happen.
3. There is much testimony about officers clearing out skulking packers and soldiers from the horses and mules on the night of the 25th. They were probably looking for booze. Lots of people no doubt drank. Girard and Reynolds shared a drink before the battle. Nobody would have tolerated a drunk Reno for ten seconds, and nobody who was there says he was. As his subsequent history shows, he'd have been violent and belligerant if he were. He was noted neither as a drunk or coward till LBH. The known problem drunks were French and Weir and Yates among the officers.
Reno was an ass, short story, and not glamorous, and not the world's greatest soldier. Nobody there was. Because Reno and Custer did much the same thing - charge, rebuff, a sloppy retreat - and Custer got totalled while Reno survived, the FanBoys who adore Custer have to re-interpret against common sense and install new 'testimony' from Indians that is barely a coherent set of stories.
Just apply the same standards to Custer as are applied to Reno and Benteen. Your friends are horrified by the very thought.
|
|
|
Post by Melani on Jul 28, 2006 23:06:06 GMT -6
Gee, I just love it when you guys get personal. It's so entertaining. Armand, please hurry with the English translation of your book. I am woefully undereducated in languages, and I would love to read it. DC (and everybody), I really need to think about it more, but I can't believe that Reno couldn't have done a more orderly retreat. At the very least, he could have let everybody know he was leaving, so they could all come too. If this just shows my lack of understanding, I'm sure somebody will tell me about it.
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on Jul 29, 2006 8:27:46 GMT -6
Melani,
No doubt, Reno could have done a more orderly retreat/charge from the timber. But the issue is, could he have done anything that would have produced fewer casualties, not followed manual procedure more closely for procedure's sake. Many, many people - including Military Giants of Our Age - claim exactly what you suggest, and therefore it must have merit on its face.
The problem, though, is that aside from shoulda/coulda's, and some vague accusations about putting out a line to protect the river crossing, all the condemnations are void of specifics even though we now have photographic evidence to apply to a map and could clearly demonstrate where this covering fire could take place. And I, and no doubt many others, have asked people to show the world, and other military men, exactly how Reno should have done it.
Nothing. Subject dropped. Not to be obnoxious, but isn't it still considered rude to accuse someone of incompetence/cowardice/treason and not be required to demonstrate the correct and superior method yourself?
For starters, the RCOI demonstrates that the term "charge" was used before the movement among the men on the ground, so this wasn't made up by Reno after the fact. Previous to the movement, Reno is accused of being possibly drunk when he gave a mount, dismount, mount order by Girard, who himself by his own testimony was drinking. Yet, the dismount order was prompted by shots being fired from 30 feet away that killed Bloody Knife and another mounted right by Reno. Had Reno just screamed "Get Down!" - which is understandable - instead of 'dismount', a major condemnation vanishes.
The river crossing where Reno should have thrown out a covering line is over three quarters of the way there, and virtually all of the dead (Reynolds, DeWolf, Isaiah, McIntosh others) were killed well before this. It's sometimes suggested the three companies should have run sequentially out, formed covering lines for each other, and leapfrogged across. Timing this out - stopping, forming lines, stirring volleys by terrible shots surrounded already - allows the three units to be slaughtered in toto before getting to the river to some minds. Mine, for example. It's pretty much exactly what Custer's guys did. Once stopped, the horses are hit and they run, and the guys are on foot in the open.
But the proof is in the pudding. Since nobody has ever demonstrated how Reno could have done this with fewer casualties, we can pretty much snark about the accusations. They haven't put up, so they can shut up.
|
|
|
Post by elisabeth on Jul 29, 2006 13:20:24 GMT -6
Sorry, DC, but (1) DeWolf was killed, was he not, after the river crossing; (2) much of the RCOI made clear what military witnesses thought could/should have been done. (I'm sure I don't need to cite the references, since you know the text so well.) As I understand it, SJC as I am, no fancy maps are needed; they simply thought that the first guys across could have provided a covering fire for the others. No lines, no volleys, no leapfrogging, necessarily; just common sense. And no, it wouldn't have saved those killed in the initial run from the timber, but a few more might have made it -- Benny Hodgson for one.
|
|
|
Post by d o harris on Jul 29, 2006 13:21:43 GMT -6
Billy---Paul? Is this a return? A resurrection? Or a new guy?
Is this turning into a thread on Reno?
The problems I have with Reno organizing a retreat are simple. First, if there was time to organize a retreat there was time to organize a defense of the woods, and that would have been his first objective, and. perhaps, his only alternative. Secondly, others, including DC, have touched on this, Reno did not have at his command three troops of well drilled cavalry. He had a mish-mash, as did Benteem and Custer. If the 7th had been a well trained cavalry regiment then, regardless of the flaws of command, it likely could have won an expensive victory at the LBH, and all officers would have returned heroes. There may not have been time for Reno to hold an officer's call, to confer before he abandoned the woods. My sole complaint with his behavior is that he did not sound the trumpet call "To Horse" immediately followed by the call to "Retreat." Twenty seconds were not available for this? By the way, DC, Dr. DeWolf died on the bluffs. One further thing. DC, to quote you: :"They haven't put up, so they can shut up." Of course, you accept this applies to you as to any other."
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on Jul 29, 2006 14:52:40 GMT -6
I stand corrected on the good doctor.
But where am I guilty of not putting up? About what?
|
|
|
Post by d o harris on Jul 29, 2006 15:40:59 GMT -6
DC---I have only wish in this exploration, and that is to determine why. I am not very interested in explorarations of could have beens, should have beens, but only what we know happened. and trying to determine why. I've never been acquainted with anyone on these boards who have convinced me they have greater tactical ability than Reno, Benteem, or Custer. The only conclusion at which I have been able to arrive is that one's interpretations depends upon how one wishes the battle to have ended. Frankly, I do not give a damn. We all kow how it ended. Custer and his command was destroyed. How, why, whatever, all else is speculation.
|
|
|
Post by armand on Jul 29, 2006 16:37:27 GMT -6
Guess I'm originally responsible for reopening the Reno-Benteen Pandora's box. And we haven't even reexamined Benteen's purported sluggishness. Just one snide comment on Reno's fear of being stranded in the woods at night with depleted ammunition: how can we imagine that so early in the battle he assumed that Custer wouldn't support him, or was doomed to defeat (therefore unable to support him)? All these points, of course, have been debated over and over again, so I'll refrain from any further suppositions. I concur with d o harris: we tend to read into the bits and pieces of evidence and eye-witness accounts our own expectations. My own feelings are mixed: I would like to believe that Custer was let down by R. and B., because this would tally in with the ancient pattern of the doomed hero, who goes down in defeat not because he was simply out-general led by his enemies, but because of betrayal. Then again, I relate to the "hamartia" theme: Custer who follows the banks of the river and hesitates for some unexplainable reason, for the first time in his career, and this gives his foes the opportunity to infiltrate and overpower his small battalion. True, as personalities, I prefer Custer to R. and B. - but was that how their men and brother officers felt back then? Siegfried comes across as such a self-confident, big-talking hero, crushing all around him with his insufferable superiority, that we only feel for him when Hagen thrusts his lance in his back (hey, back to the conspiracy theory, just can't help that!) So I've nothing against finding out that Reno was simply an ordinary man, a run of the mill officer , who found himself against too much to deal with, while Ben teen, Custer-hater as he was, saved what little could be saved when he showed up. Having said that, we might as well turn from the RB controversy, to this rather new debate about NA casualties. Pretty momentous stuff, because deduct these losses from a war band estimated at no more than 1500, and we've got Civil War style losses. If so, no wonder the tribes were disinclined to fight a new battle of that scale.
|
|
|
Post by AZ Ranger on Jul 29, 2006 20:14:51 GMT -6
Elizabeth
My thought is there was no way to set up cover fire before crossing if the Indians were in all directions. If three companies failed at the skirmish line then one would not be likely to succeed.
As the crossed the Indians were among the troopers and in all directions. I wouldn't trust the troopers that went across first to not hit troopers including Benny Hodgson. If they had demonstrated how good of shots they were then Reno would not have had to move off the original skirmish line.
I don't know how steep it was once you crossed maybe you could not dismount.
I agree that sounding the bugle would have been an improvement.
AZ Ranger
|
|
|
Post by Melani on Jul 30, 2006 1:34:07 GMT -6
Interesting point, AZ, thanks. That gives me a rather clearer view of the situation. I must say that when I actually saw those bluffs last month I couldn't believe a horse could get up there at all--though it was pointed out that all the Indians in the world chasing you could be a great encouragement.
As for Reno and Gerard drinking--I doubt Reno was drunk at that point. If he drank as much regularly as has been implied, a few swallows wouldn't have had that much effect.
|
|
|
Post by sonofacavalryman on Jul 30, 2006 21:45:01 GMT -6
Reno ran, Benteen faltered, Custer died.
Son of a Cavalryman
|
|
|
Post by AZ Ranger on Jul 31, 2006 7:32:21 GMT -6
Reno was unsupported, Benteen trotted in proper military tactics for horses covering several miles, and we are not sure what Custer did from MTC on except that he died
|
|