|
Post by Walkaheap on Jan 25, 2008 12:41:46 GMT -6
Greetings from not-sunny-California! Just wandered onto this board yesterday and I thought I'd introduce myself. I've always had an interest in history in general and especially that concerning the US Army during the period 1865-1918 along with an interest in the American West in general. I've also done living history/reenactment in various periods to include Indian Wars. One of my interests has been the role of the infantry (hence the name "Walkaheap") which I believe has been greatly under-appreciated/ignored while the cavalry gets all the glory (it was the infantry and the Crow scouts that saved Crook's scalp on the Rosebud, after all ). Anyway, the overall Great Sioux War and the various events leading up to it have always been fascinating and especially the way the campaign ended so disastrously. I'm not a partisan for any party and I believe they all contributed one way or another. The Rosebud has also been an area of interest and I do believe that Crook's lack of energenic leadership and mistakes (in some cases, criminal negligence, IMHO) greatly contributed to the disaster at the Little Big Horn. Anyway, that's all for now! ;D P.S. While I do infantry, I do have a horse and I keep threatening to do a mounted infantry impression but the idea of riding with a .45-70 rifle slung accross my back leaves me hesistant- visions of landing with a rifle jamming me in the back. ;D
|
|
|
Post by harpskiddie on Jan 25, 2008 13:02:16 GMT -6
Howdy and Welcome!! Pitch in as you see fit, or not.
Gordie MC
|
|
|
Post by conz on Jan 30, 2008 8:32:11 GMT -6
Walkaheap,
Maybe you can become our specialist in Miles' command and his role in ending that Sioux Campaign. I don't think we have a comprehensive thread on everything the 5th U.S. Infantry did under incredible conditions. It was really Crazy Horse's demise...
Clair
|
|
|
Post by Walkaheap on Jan 31, 2008 18:10:53 GMT -6
Maybe you can become our specialist in Miles' command and his role in ending that Sioux Campaign Thanks! I'm no expert by any means but I have done a little digging around from the infantry perspective and especially in relation to the Battle of the Rosebud. I used to belong to a living history group, the General Miles Marching and Chowder Society (silly name but a good bunch of guys) and every year we'd hold an encampment at a significant site to include the Rosebud. I've had a chance to walk some of the terrain that played a part in the Great Sioux War and it's given me a greater appreciation of what was involved, at least from the perspective of the enlisted soldier. IMHO, you can read a ton of books but until you've walked the ground, and sampled a bit of the "life", it's hard to appreciate. My time at Ft. Laramie was especially an eye-opener and it's easy to see why soldiers deserted. In terms of the Rosebud, I'd be inclined to make the following observations/opinions: 1) Crook was completely out of his element- his complete inattention to even the most elementary of military procedures on the morning of the Rosebud battle is inexcusable- he's very lucky and his force could have easily been destroyed. 2) To continue, Crook's behavior after the battle is even more inexcusable. Going fishing for a month? In the middle of a major campaign? The excuse was that his force had expended a good part of his ammunition in the battle and he felt he couldn't continue any further. It doesn't appear that he expended much energy in quickly re-supplying his force and moving on. It's hard to fathom what Crook was thinking but personally, I believe that what worked for him in Arizona failed him in Wyoming. Crook was used to dealing with Apaches where the numbers involved were relatively small (although the Apache's fighting ability was excellent) and the fighting methods were vastly different, involving small groups of soldiers and scouts- he just wasn't able to transition to large scale actions as found during the Great Sioux War. Anyway, these are just theories on my part so if others have greater knowledge to contribute, have at it. People may blame Custer for the Little Big Horn Disaster but I believe that Crook is as much to blame, if not more. By basically pulling out of the campaign, the Sioux were able to completely turn on Custer's command, something that was not intended. Crook was supposed to be the "anvil" while Gibbon and Crook were the hammers. Gibbon was another one who seemed to lack the competence to pursue a campaign and his debacle at Big Hole a year later. Crook should have been court martialed for his actions (or lack of action). Anyway, there's enough blame to go around and as usual, it was the individual enlisted soldier who suffered for it.
|
|
|
Post by bc on Jan 31, 2008 21:23:27 GMT -6
Welcome walkaheap. Be advised that I would rather rideaheap. I'm thinking about taking a horse up there this summer but it may be easier and cheaper to rent one from the 7th Ranch during the week before 6-25-08. I'd also like to do some re-enacting but no tango tiempo.
Interesting observations about Crook. I won't play the blame game here though. What he did with his withdrawal is really reminiscent of what I've seen a lot of commands do in the CW under similar circumstances (withdraw and regroup). Supply and logistics were always of a major concern. And during the cw, armies would sit out the winter to avoid many of those problems.
As far as a couple woulda, coulda, shoulda's go, two seem to stand out. 1. If only he would have sent out messengers to the other commands after his battle. 2. If he stayed in a slow pursuit, he might have forced the NAs up to the Yellowstone or beyond by 6-25. His battle site was not that far from the LBH battle site.
|
|
|
Post by Walkaheap on Feb 1, 2008 11:29:15 GMT -6
Interesting observations about Crook. I won't play the blame game here though. What he did with his withdrawal is really reminiscent of what I've seen a lot of commands do in the CW under similar circumstances (withdraw and regroup). Sure, I can see drawing back to regroup but for over a month? Given the nature of Terry's plan, it would seem logical that one would move with a bit more speed. In what I've read, I just don't get the sense that Crook was working with any sort of speed. Any sense of urgency seems to be absent from Crook's actions. Even if Crook's force was too mauled to go on the offensive, it still could have shadowed the Sioux and put some pressure on them and in turn not be able to turn the their full strength on Custer's force (or if they did, they'd have to be looking over their shoulder, so to say). In view of his record in Arizona, Crooks performance in Wyoming was poor and when I first read about it, it came as a bit of a surprise. I suppose there may have been good reasons but the record seems to be pretty silent on this aspect.
|
|
|
Post by Melani on Feb 1, 2008 21:11:02 GMT -6
Welcome, Walkaheap! Whether he withdrew and went fishing or resupplied quickly, I've always thought it would have been nice if Crook had made some attempt to communicate with the other commands and let them know what had happened on the Rosebud. Part of what did Custer in was his expectation that the Indians would try to run, as they had in his previous experience. Crazy Horse's very different attitude came as a most unpleasant surprise.
|
|
|
Post by Walkaheap on Feb 4, 2008 11:26:34 GMT -6
Part of what did Custer in was his expectation that the Indians would try to run, as they had in his previous experience. Crazy Horse's very different attitude came as a most unpleasant surprise. And that right there, IMHO, captures the essence of the whole campaign- the Sioux and Cheyenne actions were 180 degrees from what the Army expected how they'd react. For Crook, it was a rude awakening. For Custer, it was fatal. And I completely agree about the communication gap- no matter what happened, he should have made an effort to communicate what had happened. Perhaps the outcome of the campaign might have been different- it's certainly a ripe area for speculation. I do believe that had he had the information on the results of Crook's battle, Custer might have re-thought his campaign plan. It's certainly an interesting "what-if".
|
|
|
Post by conz on Feb 4, 2008 12:47:15 GMT -6
My time at Ft. Laramie was especially an eye-opener and it's easy to see why soldiers deserted. Perhaps the question should be..."why didn't more desert?!" Aye...same problem at Cedar Creek...some guys never learn... Study of this would make a good thread on the subject boards. Fully agree. Crook's forte was civil-military relations, not tactics. Debacles fighting Natives are easy to befall even conscientious officers. <g> Hell, if Custer can be killed, ANYBODY can be killed! A couple thousand Sioux did what 10,000 of the South's finest cavalrymen couldn't. Soldier, that's what they're there for..."you can't make an omelette without breaking a few eggs..." ConZ
|
|
|
Post by conz on Feb 4, 2008 12:49:40 GMT -6
Interesting observations about Crook. I won't play the blame game here though. What he did with his withdrawal is really reminiscent of what I've seen a lot of commands do in the CW under similar circumstances (withdraw and regroup). Supply and logistics were always of a major concern. And during the cw, armies would sit out the winter to avoid many of those problems. Hmmm...isn't this what every commander of the Army of the Potomac was relieved for before Grant took control of it? Grant's great claim to fame, I think, is that he didn't pull back and regroup when he got his nose bloodied. He said "to Hell with the Soldiers," and kept throwing them right back into the fight, without allowing anyone a break...Overland Campaign (slug fest). Clair
|
|
|
Post by gocav76 on Feb 4, 2008 13:38:27 GMT -6
ConZ, Perhaps you are a little harsh on General Crook. You wrote-"Fully agree. Crook's forte was civil-military relations, not tactics." Perhaps you forget that it was Crook who won the 3rd battle of Winchester for Sheridan. Also it was Crook who conceived,and planned the victory at Fishers Hill. Colonel Rutherford B. Hayes wrote " At Fishers Hill the turning of the Rebel left was planned and executed by Crook against the opinion of the other corps generals. General Sheridan believes in Crook... but intellectually he is not General Crooks equal, who is the brains of this army." At Cedar Creek it was Sheridan who picked the ground and Wright who was in command that day. I also remember Crook giving General Heth a drubbing in Lewisburg, Va as well as the victory at Cloyds Mountain. So its not fair to say he lacked in knowledge in tactics. Oh yes, and Grant's 1864 Overland Campaign was a masterpiece. I have respect for Grant as a General.
|
|
|
Post by Scout on Feb 4, 2008 15:22:54 GMT -6
Well, gee, Conz, refresh my memory on when Grant said, " To Hell with the soldiers." They needed a break? That was the problem with 'little Mac" wasn't it? Grant won because he wouldn't allow the rebel army time to regroup as all the other Union generals did but chased them down and pounded them. Without Grant the war might have dragged on another year or two.
|
|
|
Post by conz on Feb 4, 2008 16:00:01 GMT -6
LOL...we need a new Civil War forum. <g>
I'm not a big Crook fan, neither in the Civil War nor the Indian Wars, but he was a smart and capable Soldier. Just not a flashy stand-out, in this Hussar's opinion.
Infantry officers idolize him, of course.
As for Grant, he is great because he got the job done, regardless of the resources at hand. He ruined his army, but the Confederate army was ruined too, so he just slugged it out, when conventional wisdom said that he should have pulled back and regrouped.
I think the simple fact was that the American army simply wasn't capable of "decisive" Napoleonic-style battles at this time...poor capabilities managing large armies combined with more difficult technology to fight against.
So if you can't win a "knock out' blow in the ring...you simply bludgeon your opponent to death over dozens of rounds until he lies unconscious from exhaustion...that is what Grant did to Lee.
In the more decisive western theater, the South simply screwed up its strategy there, and Sherman walked all over them. But win a decisive battle? Unless somebody allowed themselves to be surrounded, it never happened.
That kind of combat is very hard on the common Soldier...quick, decisive battles that win a war in one shot are much easier on the Soldiers, no matter how bloody the one event is.
Clair
|
|
|
Post by gocav76 on Feb 4, 2008 16:24:49 GMT -6
ConZ, I agree-wish we had a Civil War section. Over the years I have changed my views on US Grant and now see him as a great military leader. Before the war, Grant had been a nobody, a failure as a farmer and a businessman.I remember reading a story of how Grant was down and out in St. Louis and selling firewood to the Army before the war. He was wearing a faded army overcoat-an officer asked another "who was that man" and 'he replied thats old Sam Grant who used to be in the army.' As Commanding General, he was called an incompetent, a butcher. But he did indeed win every campaign he ever fought. He went from rags to riches . He had experienced humiliation and he had understood failure. That was what made General Grant great.
|
|
|
Post by Scout on Feb 4, 2008 16:32:43 GMT -6
"As for Grant, he is great because he got the job done" AMEN. Isn't that the bottom line in war? Regrouped? I can tell that if you'd been around back then you would have been just another fired general. LOL. I hardly think he ruined his army. Just his reserves were ten times the rebel army.
|
|