|
Post by rangersmith1867 on Jun 24, 2012 8:26:41 GMT -6
L.P. Bradley's mission was to locate, close with, and destroy the enemy. He knew there was a unit isolated, cut off, and surrounded by at least 800-1000 Sioux, knowing that he out gunned, out soldiered, and had units already in place giving him Intel...he could have acted. They ended up acting anyway, so I do not see the point in suggesting that he was following his mission to defend the fort...his mission was protect civilians operating on the Bozeman trail and to conduct offensive operations to keep the Indians at bay...
Like I said, he left the fort 3 maybe 4 times, and never any further than a few miles from the fort, he would however send units out 20-40 miles away on operations...that he never led.
Not to mention the fact that to suggest this battle was not much of an incident at all...its essentially the American version of Rourkes Drift, over 800 warriors, against 26...and only 3 KIAs...the enemy withdrew from the field of battle and the army avoided another Fetterman...after the major defeat at Fetterman this is EXACTLY the sort of thing the Army should NOT sit on because it would have been a major boost to the people back home...as well as troops in the field.
This was a major clash and victory for the American Army at that time, and it was most certainly an incident worth noting.
|
|
|
Post by rangersmith1867 on Jun 24, 2012 8:34:10 GMT -6
Keeping in mind of course, killing 18-40 possible warriors and wounding double that...I appraise those numbers as accurate based on losses at other battles and the fact that the hayfield was not overrun, so the Sioux would have had to sustain decent enough casulties to not venture out there, of course the soldiers there being armed with Conversion Trapdoors helped. So killing lets say 20 out of 800, that is a major blow to them.
Losing over 80 US Soldiers at Fetterman...is not even compareable in terms of percentages of losses...so this was a big deal to defeat them at the Hayfield.
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on Jun 24, 2012 9:59:41 GMT -6
Contrary to myth, the America of those years was not focused on the West or the Indians, as they were later in memory. There was a lot going on.
People did not think of the Indian wars as wars, if they thought of them at all. They were all police actions and small. People didn't huddle around newspaper offices awaiting news of these skirmishes.
It's to be doubted there were Indians above 500 or near it, the ridiculous claims of enemy numbers at this and the Wagon Box Fight's plaque and Fetterman's notwithstanding. People get scared and fact is exaggerated in memory. We know this. If there had been that ratio as you purport, the Sioux could have killed them all if they were motivated.
I'm going out on a limb to venture the opinion you've not served, and not been in combat. Correct? Neither have I, and the joy and enthusiasm to prove someone long dead a coward is not attractive in anyone but especially in those who don't know what the hell they are talking about. As I recall, ephriam served and is informed. I'll leave judgement to AZ, Fred, and the others.
To start with, who gave Bradley that mission as you've claimed it? His mission was to destroy the enemy? Really? Who gave him that mission?
|
|
|
Post by rangersmith1867 on Jun 24, 2012 12:07:42 GMT -6
I am looking back at my posts and not once did I say L.P. Bradley was a coward, I just presented facts and interpretation as I saw it.
I honestly have no wish to continue this conversation, my service, what I have done or have not done should not enter into a discussion about events that happend long before any of us were born. I just wanted to add my part to the discussion, and you can feel free to draw whatever conclusions you like.
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on Jun 24, 2012 12:31:47 GMT -6
I'll bet and I have. You titled the thread to be about Cowardice, and now you run from it when held to account.
|
|
|
Post by benteen on Jun 24, 2012 13:20:12 GMT -6
Dark Cloud,
I dont get involved in discussions between two forum members, and I certainly could be wrong (Not a rare occurrence) but I believe you have mis-read this young man. It appears he is a Park Ranger in this areaand simply wanted our take on it. He himself is not calling this Colonel a coward
Rangersmith 1867.....My opinion on this Colonel Bradley is what I believe about all soldiers, and that is that there are no cowards on a battlefield. Men like Benteen and Custer are a rare breed, what I mean is men who dont fear anything or anybody. I believe the rest of soldiers do have fear going into combat, but the vast, vast majority are able to overcome that fear and do what is expected of them, do their duty and do it well. There are those few that simply cant, they tried but couldnt do it. They failed the ultimate test and have to live the rest of their lives knowing they let down their buddies and themselves. That is punishment enough, we dont have to use that ugly word coward on them. Just my opinion for what its worth.
Be Well Dan
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on Jun 24, 2012 13:33:02 GMT -6
benteen,
Yes, you do.
That's he's a Park Ranger makes it worse. Second, he goes on about speculating - his word - about cowardice and does so. He obviously thinks Col. Bradley a coward but doesn't have the courage himself to say so. Just as well, unless he has the standing of a combat vet.
What I have read is that NObody is always on top of things, and that a significant number of men, otherwise great, have bad days. Nothing for it. Only those who've been in combat would understand, we've been told, and reasonably so I suspect.
|
|
|
Post by benteen on Jun 24, 2012 13:49:34 GMT -6
benteen, Yes, you do. What I have read is that NObody is always on top of things, and that a significant number of men, otherwise great, have bad days. Nothing for it quote] OK .. You got me what I should have said is I usually dont get involved ;D Your second statement rings true also, sometimes in the same day. Look at Peter Thompson, at first a drop out then turns it around. Then the soldier who fought on Reno Hill but then couldnt charge with the others and was dead in his rifle pit. Be Well Dan
|
|
|
Post by rangersmith1867 on Jun 24, 2012 16:08:50 GMT -6
I did not title this thread, this was not my thread...I just commented on it when I found it. So take it up with the person who titled the thread, I was just offering up what I had found. Again, not once, did I...say anything about L.P. Bradley or anyone being a coward...I have been shot at, plenty...and I know how I reacted in those situations, and I would never speculate on how I would react in situations outside of my own experience. All I said was the information that I had found and researched.
I just said the facts and added my insight on the matter, but if you want to draw a conclusion and be rude about it that is fine. I joined this board to discuss things and learn more about the history of the west...as a new comer to the west I thought it would be nice to talk with people and share their love of history...what I did not expect was to have my background called into question, and then have words put in my mouth...so to speak...by someone who does not know me.
You say its wrong for me as a Park ranger to voice my own opinion on the matter? Is that not what historians do...its why its called interpretation...and not science.
IF you want to know my full blown opinion on L. P. Bradley, I think that he had Ft. Fetterman in his mind still, and was not about to have a company wiped out to save the lives of 19 enlisted men, 1 officer, and 6 civilians. I think he acted slowly on intelligence he was given, and given the fact that he left the safety of the Fort hardly at all, and lead no offensive actions personally...he at least was not the best officer, at least not an infantry officer.
He had a great record in the Civil War, and it stands to reason that general officers at the time did not wish to tarnish the mans reputation, but it is clear that they felt that he may in fact be a "coward" and that is even cited in "Warpath and Bivouac" as a reason that the battle was talked about very little in the army. So serving line officers at least saw the possibility of him being branded a coward for his actions there...so I can see why other historians could easily draw that conclusion...and I wanted to add that insight as well.
Do I...think he was a coward? I do not know the man, I was not present with his command. I only know what I have said, and that leads me to believe he was NOT a coward, but he did take his time in finally organizing help. His report does not match up with anyone else's report from the fight, and he turned it in a full month and a half after the battle...after he was asked several times from higher up to report it.
As far as his orders to locate, close with, and destroy the enemy...that was his mission at Fort C.F. Smith, maybe not in those modern of terms, but his mission was clear and if you would like when I have the time I will scan his documents and orders as well as morning reports, and his entire journal that he kept during his time as commanding officer of the 27th Regiment.
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on Jun 25, 2012 7:05:05 GMT -6
I would very much like to see your resume. Sign it. Soldier of Fortune in published in Boulder, and I might still know people who could vet it at a glance. If not, other options.
POB 623 Boulder, Colorado 80306-0623
Put no words in your mouth. You said his orders were to "locate, close with, and destroy" the enemy, which were not his orders. Who's putting words in who's mouth?
That said, you did not start the thread, and for that I was wrong and apologize. You did vector right in on a discussion of dead man's cowardice issues.
Look forward to your resume.
benteen,
I'm not convinced the guy in the rifle pit who chickened out wasn't shot by Benteen or someone else. I understand that stuff happens and is legal and probably not discussed once done. Obviously, no proof, but it's not likely a bunch of guys would stand and charge with no casualties to speak of, yet a partially hidden soldier gets it between the eyes. That's the tell, I think.
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on Jun 25, 2012 8:31:33 GMT -6
I look forward to getting your promised resume. Don't mistake the audience of Soldier of Fortune - pudgy white wannabes for the most part - for Col. Brown's guys who run it. They, at least, are the real deal.
Convincing photo. You look quite the soldier.
|
|
|
Post by rangersmith1867 on Jun 25, 2012 8:52:59 GMT -6
I am not sending my Resume to someone who cannot even comprehend the very simple and basic things I have said. You have ruined this entire experience for me that should be happy...I should be happy that I found a group of people who want to talk about History, and instead I am getting mistreated by someone who cannot even follow the conversation he is in.
So sorry, I am NOT going to send you my resume...because its frankly none of your business. I am embarrassed that I allowed you to illicit a reaction from me and I am unhappy that I fed into your obvious troll like behavior.
What you have done here has lead me to believe that now you are just going to try and dig at me to try and discredit me because I put out some information that supports why SOME people might brand him a coward...leaving out the fact that I have said...and even said in my opening post...that I did not feel that L.P. Bradley was a coward, and I said that there is no way to prove it one way or another, but you can speculate...because you CAN. That is what Historical interpretation is, and the way I do it is...I tell the whole story, and let people draw their own conclusions...CRITICAL THINKING AND READING COMPREHENSION ARE KEY TO UNDERSTANDING AN INTERPRETING THE PAST.
So through your terrible spelling, the speed in which you jump to wrongful conclusions, the fact that your reading comprehension has been shown to be sub par on countless occasions, the fact that you have personally attacked me, and the fact that you REFUSE to even listen or read through an entire one of my posts and be able to understand what I am saying...this all leads me to believe that either you are just trying to run me off, or you honestly do not have a CLUE.
You have no combat experience, and question mine. You have clearly a limited grasp on historical interpretation and you question mine, you say that I put words in peoples mouths because I said something you have NEVER heard before, you called me a coward for not saying something that I never said or believed anyway, you have badgered me, belittled me, insulted me, and questioned me and my personal history.
Why?
I wanted to talk about the Hayfield Fight, not my personal history...its frankly none of your business what I have or have not done...I do not need to be in combat to be able to present FACTS and let people DRAW THEIR OWN conclusions...furthermore...I said no less than three times...HE WAS NOT A COWARD...and yet you INSIST that I think he is one...what is your problem?
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on Jun 25, 2012 9:07:01 GMT -6
I've never said you're a pudgy white wannabe, either. I just keep making references to it as you do in your initial posts about Bradley. He never left the fort much, and you have your opinions about that but you never call him a coward.
The issue is that even discussing something as unknowable as another's cowardice demands standing to do so. I have no standing whatever. I AM a coward, never served, and finished third grade. Never pretend to be what I am not remotely.
YOU have said you're a combat vet. I don't believe you. You offered a resume. I told you I'd vet it through combat vets I've dealt with who work or worked at SOF, where they stay informed about messy wars around the world and military contractors and all that. Now you say you will not send me a resume.
No surprise.
|
|
|
Post by rangersmith1867 on Jun 25, 2012 9:19:45 GMT -6
I don't feel that my resume is any of your business. I spoke out of turn and I regret that. You can keep grasping at straws all you like. The fact of the matter is, you were wrong about nearly everything you have said about me, and you jumped to conclusions and assumed I felt someway about something, when clearly I did not.
Besides, my brain kicked in after I said I was going to send you my resume...because I let you make me angry...you are the type of person that is SO vindictive and so desperate to be right that you would no doubt try and possibly get me fired, or at least try and get me in trouble.
I know what I have and have not done. Combat is relative, and I have never been in Combat like the Hayfield fight, but I was unaware that the situations I was involved in...has any bearing on events that happened on 1 August 1867.
So I figured you would just assume that means I am full of poo because I don't want to share my resume now. I do not typically go back on my word, but I am this time. You do not deserve to know anything about me, and no doubt no matter what I send you...you will just throw your own spin in it.
So lets just agree to disagree. You have already pushed me off this board, and I have no further interest in being a part of it. You can claim victory because I am leaving. I am glad that I could help you have some merit for your day...knowing you defeated a stranger on the internet...who just wanted to talk.
Good job.
|
|
|
Post by rangersmith1867 on Jun 25, 2012 9:21:31 GMT -6
I would however suggest a career in politics for you, since you have a problem sticking to issues...and when proved wrong you like to attack peoples personal history. You must have quite a sad life.
|
|