|
Post by Walt Cross on Jun 25, 2005 8:57:30 GMT -6
In all of this talk of decisions by Army officers, don't forget the Indians had a say in how this thing came out too.
Walt
|
|
|
Post by weir on Jun 25, 2005 9:55:42 GMT -6
In all of this talk of decisions by Army officers, don't forget the Indians had a say in how this thing came out too. Walt Coud someone quote me Indians testimonies ? But you agree too I guess that retreating the entire 1'300 soldiers from Montana while still having lost 97% of the outfit is very strange. Of course all historians say Crook was defeated. Because at the end the Indians wanted the soldiers to fall back and they did. My question is the "why". Why did they fall back when we can see that the Indians, at the end of the day, were out of the battlefield ? Could someone explain me the reason of such retreat other than Crook's behavior ?
|
|
|
Post by Walt Cross on Jun 25, 2005 10:16:58 GMT -6
West; Crook was in command, its his behavior that caused the retreat. Not that the soldiers objected I'm sure. Had he pushed on there is little doubt he would have made contact with Terry's column and most likely with Reno who rode to within about 30 miles of the Rosebud fight about the time it happened. Regardless of what claims were later made, there was no intent of joining all three columns in a concerted campaign. However, had Crook made contact with Reno and joined the advance, think of what could have been done! Not to mention that Reno would likely have been hailed a military genius for disobeying Terry's orders and even a hero for "Riding to the sound of the guns." How individual careers and history often hinge on minor actions!
As it was, Crook had suffered a sharp reverse. His soldiers did not fight all that well, in fact it would likely have been a disaster similar to LBH had it not been for his Indian allies' ferocious defense of their white brothers, especially the courageous and gorgeously attired Shoshoni. Those tribesmen knew how to dress for a fight.
Crook's supply line was overstretched, he did not use supply wagons, only pack mules to ferry his supplies a concept he pioneered and proved its worth against the Apache. However, I don't think he needed much of a reason to abandon the effort, his heart wasn't in it. The Shoshoni despised Crook for his lack of intestinal fortitude. His own troopers wrote him a ditty that goes:
I’d like to be a packer And pack with George F. Crook And dressed up in my canvas suit To be for him mistook. I’d braid my beard in two long tails, And idle all the day In whittling sticks and wondering What the New York papers say.
Walt
|
|
|
Post by Inkpaduta on Jun 25, 2005 11:31:09 GMT -6
West; The Battle of the Rosebud a skirmish?! Maybe in numbers of men killed but NOT a skirmish. What Crook got a taste of there was the new 'determination' of the Sioux & Cheyenne. Have you read 'With Crook at the Rosebud'?
As far as Benteen 'saving' Custer... fat-chance. Benteen's 'assistance would have sealed the fate of the whole regiment!
|
|
|
Post by weir on Jun 25, 2005 13:13:18 GMT -6
West; The Battle of the Rosebud a skirmish?! Maybe in numbers of men killed but NOT a skirmish. What Crook got a taste of there was the new 'determination' of the Sioux & Cheyenne. If you read how I wrote that, I call Rosebud a skirmish for the losses, as you do. As far as Benteen 'saving' Custer... fat-chance. Benteen's 'assistance would have sealed the fate of the whole regiment! This is in fact what he wants you to believe. Easy conclusion. Others parts of LBH have already proved the battle was much more complicated that this sort of quick assertion.
|
|
|
Post by guidon7 on Jun 25, 2005 13:31:18 GMT -6
West: You are correct that Martini in testimony at RCOI told Benteen that "Custer was making a charge into the Indian village" rather than they were "skedaddling" and I can see that as a foreigner you would not be acquainted with that word. It seems to me that Martini used it at one time or another from my reading. Be that as it may, for your information, it was a very common term in the 19th century U.S. Army and civilian life as well. It crops up in much Custer material. As a boy more years ago than I like to remember, it was commonly used in civilian life. Martini, who by the way, seems to give a good account of himself in English at the Reno Court -- foreigner or no -- while he might have some difficulty with the English language, would certainly be familiar with cavalry lingo, and he knew darn well what "skedaddling" meant. He had better.
And on that note, I am going to skedaddle out of here.
|
|
|
Post by crzhrs on Jun 27, 2005 12:26:40 GMT -6
Re: Crook WON the battle at the Rosebud?
Any time an army falls back after a battle . . . it is a defeat. A winning army continues forward, either chasing remnants of the defeated army or advancing further into their territory.
The battle itself may have been a draw . . . but it was a TACTICAL victory for the Indians. They forced Crook back, kept him from advancing any further toward the Indians, kept him from communicating with other commands in the area . . . and in the end Crook's command almost perished from starvation.
A victory for Crook? NO WAY!
|
|
|
Post by Tony on Jun 27, 2005 13:24:32 GMT -6
I don't think Reno's action even if changed would have mattered much. If Reno continues his charge, his entire command is wipped out in 10 minutes. If he reached the village, he would have been engaged with 5 times the number of warriors. As it was, only the warriors he engaged was the lower end of the vallege, and he was defeated. Now, if he would have remanined in the timber, and Custer did as he did and approached from the East, I believe the warriors would have reacted the same as they did from Reno Hill. They would have withdrawn to meet Custer who was now an immediate threat to the non-coms and families, leaving Reno in the timber. Reno now sees his chance and retreats--this time with little or no casualties. Now if Reno meets up with Benteen, which he would have, you now have 5 companies plus the pack train to come to Custers assistance--maybe a different outcome?
|
|
|
Post by weir on Jun 28, 2005 10:50:07 GMT -6
Re: Crook WON the battle at the Rosebud? Any time an army falls back after a battle . . . it is a defeat. A winning army continues forward, either chasing remnants of the defeated army or advancing further into their territory. The battle itself may have been a draw . . . but it was a TACTICAL victory for the Indians. They forced Crook back, kept him from advancing any further toward the Indians, kept him from communicating with other commands in the area . . . and in the end Crook's command almost perished from starvation. A victory for Crook? NO WAY! A tactical victory for Indians, no. They fled 5 miles away from the battlefield, with 20%of their forces out of combat. Crook lost 3% of his command, and his troops held the ground at the Rosebud. A strategical victory for Indians, yes. Crook fled, it was the goal of the indian attack. My word here is that I cannot understand his decision, nor could Sherman who said "I cannot close my eyes and accept this" when he read Crook's report of the battle of the Rosebud. On my point of view the Indians lost the battle but won the beginning of the campaign.
|
|
|
Post by weir on Jun 28, 2005 10:54:54 GMT -6
I don't think Reno's action even if changed would have mattered much. If Reno continues his charge, his entire command is wipped out in 10 minutes. If he reached the village, he would have been engaged with 5 times the number of warriors. As it was, only the warriors he engaged was the lower end of the vallege, and he was defeated. Now, if he would have remanined in the timber, and Custer did as he did and approached from the East, I believe the warriors would have reacted the same as they did from Reno Hill. They would have withdrawn to meet Custer who was now an immediate threat to the non-coms and families, leaving Reno in the timber. Reno now sees his chance and retreats--this time with little or no casualties. Now if Reno meets up with Benteen, which he would have, you now have 5 companies plus the pack train to come to Custers assistance--maybe a different outcome? Reno lost in his first skirmish line in the valley because he ordered rees and crows scouts to be in his left flank, which is a stupid error. Indians attacked the left flank, the indians scouts who were not supposed to fight fled, and the line broke. According to Charles DeRudio and warriors Brave Wolf and Red Feather, the position of the soldiers in the timber was really good. De Rudio said Reno could have been able to hold it 2-3 hours. Brave Wold testified he never understood why the soldiers abandonned a so good position- Red Feather said he thought the soldiers could have been wise to stay in their position in the timber. Reno holding in the timber...? Another script for LBH...
|
|