|
Post by Walt Cross on Jun 24, 2005 15:45:42 GMT -6
West; These are old arguments. I happen to think the biggest blame goes on Custer himself. He should have kept his command closer, he should not have split them up. If Reno had attacked through the village his command would have been destroyed. If Benteen had gone to Custer's aid and remember, the pack train was far behind his battalion, he would have shared Custer's fate. Then, the Indians would have taken out the pack train. No one betrayed anyone, they made errors. They were human. Of course every officer tried to put the best countenance on his actions, that too is human. I do not believe in any conspiracy by Reno or Benteen. Sorry.
Walt
|
|
|
Post by weir on Jun 24, 2005 16:31:00 GMT -6
I told you Walt, don't ignore ! Ignoring is the first way to pull out the truth ! Don't call "old arguments" a major part of the most recognized Custer and LBH scholar works ! Do you imagine that you wrote to another member of this board that you never read "Benteen protected his ass after the battle" ?? That's maybe your great lack in LBh study : you are really good about C company moves but you have lacks about what happened on Reno Hill while Custer was fighting.
He should have kept his command closer, he should not have split them up. Please, I won't be bad but no historians, Utley, Fox and Michno, never wrote Custer moves and dispatch of battalion was a mistake. This is an old debate that should no more be part of the debate. It is something as old and false as the Crazy Horse North move. Historians and scholars have made progress since.
If Reno had attacked through the village his command would have been destroyed. Reno had never had to enter the village. It was a diversion. Reno himself, although he was a extremly bad commander, knew that. Reno had to deploy his men and fought the warriors, while Custer (and Benteen, as Custer supposed) was flanking them. I would repeat it, but I have never read a book when they say Reno was supposed to enter the village. I don't think it deserves a debate, it is so logical.
the pack train was far behind his battalion Anyway, I already wrote I have proves that it was not, but the debate is too long to begin it here.
No one betrayed anyone, they made errors. They were human. Of course every officer tried to put the best countenance on his actions, that too is human. I do not believe in any conspiracy by Reno or Benteen. Sorry. I read and print Benteen's letter, because I read what you did and want to have all elements to have an opinion.
I invite you, in reciprocity, to read the Reno's Court of Inquiry and to check out the books I quote for you.
Do that, by honesty of a LBH scholar.
|
|
|
Post by alfuso on Jun 24, 2005 19:45:32 GMT -6
Shudda. Cudda. Wudda. Custer used Army SOP. His timing was off. alfuso West; These are old arguments. I happen to think the biggest blame goes on Custer himself. He should have kept his command closer, he should not have split them up. If Reno had attacked through the village his command would have been destroyed. If Benteen had gone to Custer's aid and remember, the pack train was far behind his battalion, he would have shared Custer's fate. Then, the Indians would have taken out the pack train. No one betrayed anyone, they made errors. They were human. Of course every officer tried to put the best countenance on his actions, that too is human. I do not believe in any conspiracy by Reno or Benteen. Sorry. Walt
|
|
Son of a Cavalryman
Guest
|
Post by Son of a Cavalryman on Jun 25, 2005 8:59:01 GMT -6
Custer rarely used Army SOP.
SOACM
|
|
|
Post by weir on Jun 25, 2005 13:51:29 GMT -6
Custer rarely used Army SOP. SOACM What is SOP ? I guess the military code ? If so, SOACM your remark shows you miss to read Urwin's "Custer victorious".
|
|
Son of a Cavalryman
Guest
|
Post by Son of a Cavalryman on Jun 25, 2005 14:57:35 GMT -6
Stard Operational Procedures
SOACM
|
|
|
Post by markland on Jun 25, 2005 20:05:26 GMT -6
Stard Operational Procedures SOACM Errr, actually SOP means "Standard Operating Practices." Not trying to be too anal but Billy
|
|
|
Post by Lawtonka on Jun 26, 2005 6:06:00 GMT -6
First of all, Custer was the Commanding Officer. He is responsible for actions and he suffered for them. As far as Benteen, I feel like he drug his feet after being told to rejoin the unit (not that it would have made any difference. It is known that he dipised Custer, but after being sent of to scout away from the column as they neared the battlefield, what else could he do. By the time he met up with Reno on the hill, they were forced to make a stand there --- Custer was already four more miles away. Reno had followed his orders and made his attack on the village - organized or not - if they had not of retreated from the valley they too would have been totally wiped out. And look at Crook, he was pretty lucky to get away with his scalp also. He nearly made the same mistake Custer made only he was able to finally regroup and take the high ground at the Rosebud. If they could have been successfull in catching up with Custer, thinks might have been differest. Remember, Reno's men and horse were tatally exhasted and used up, as were the rest of the 7th. They should have spent the night at Davis Creek and rested.
|
|
Son of a Cavalryman
Guest
|
Post by Son of a Cavalryman on Jun 26, 2005 8:44:50 GMT -6
Perhaps in civilian life SOP means Standard Operating Practices, in the U.S. Army I served in it meant "Standard Operating Procedures".
SOACM
|
|
Son of a Cavalryman
Guest
|
Post by Son of a Cavalryman on Jun 26, 2005 8:46:34 GMT -6
Tim; And if it weren't for the bravery of Cooks' Indian allies, the Shoshoni, he would have suffered a disaster.
SOACM
|
|
|
Post by Tricia on Jun 26, 2005 9:46:50 GMT -6
Custer rarely used Army SOP. SOACM Actually, in this circumstance, i.e., LBH, Custer did employ SOP within the context of current tactical manuals. Regards, Leyton McLean
|
|