|
Post by benteen on Apr 13, 2010 10:39:01 GMT -6
That Benteen (and others) thought that this was a rout is accurate.This and many other facts is part of the reason why I came to the opinion that Custer was to blame for this Cavalry disaster.One of the main essentials in military combat is command and control.Soldiers need to have confidence in their commander that he has control of a battle and a plan as to how to win a victory, or in this case how to survive.When they feel their commander is confused they begin to panick and break down.They are no longer a cohesive military unit, but a mob of men bent on self preservation. This tranlates into a rout.Good commanders always have a contingency or back up plan.We know that Custer didnt have one, or if he did he didnt bother to share it with his other battalion commanders. Reddirt I believe that Custer thought his plan (which was foolish to begin with) would work, the old Custer luck would prevail. When his plan rapidly broke down ,I honestly believe my friend that he was out of his element (the charge) and was at a complete loss as what to do. The soldiers sensed this, hense a rout. I sincerly hope you dont get too upset with me and my opinions and thoughts on this battle as I know most people will disagree with me.I respect your knowledge on this subject and enjoy very much debating the subject with you.
|
|
|
Post by AZ Ranger on Apr 13, 2010 21:51:45 GMT -6
benteen, respectfully, I believe the problem with the scenario you suggest is that 250 men or so does not a "concentration" force make. Benteen, who made a survey of the battlefield shortly after the battle believed that the fight was a "rout." He believed that orders were given but few were carried out. An example of concentrated force, in my mind, is the way Godfrey directed his company to fire in skirmish at the warriors who were in hot pursuit of Edgerly and French from Weir's Point. He not only drove them back he enabled a military withdrawal of his men and saved the day. He used a tactic that Reno could have used as well. That is the same argument Joe Wiggs made on the AAO board. ---imagine that -- In Godfrey's case the Indians were coming from one direction and it is a standard troop withdrawal tactic to have a skirmish line fire to slow the enemy advancing toward the rear of the retreating formation. Happens all the time. In Reno's case the Indians were 360 degrees which means that that a skirmish line is useless. The flanks and the rear of the skirmish line are not protected. The Indians on the flanks would simply roll up the line. That is the reason the skirmish line of Reno's whole battalion moved positions to counter the flanking by the Indians before they withdrew to the timber. When Reno left the timber the Indians were all around and they rode through them. If a company stopped then as you suggest their backs would be to the Indians Reno rode through. Before reaching the crossing they were in close quarter battle and at that range a skirmish line would do what? Remember even later on troopers were being shot from above at the crossing. Which way would you face a skirmish line in Reno's retrograde? So if Custer's 250 men are not a concentrated force how do you suggest that Godfrey's 1 company of troops is an example of concentrated force? AZ Ranger
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on Apr 14, 2010 5:19:13 GMT -6
Exactly. I still find it truly annoying that those who damn Reno's retreat/charge/rout have yet to offer a plausible description of how it could have been done better, by which is meant saving more men and mounts. I don't get the logic of damning people for abandoning the wounded but praising procedures that would increase the number and insuring increased disaster. It's most annoying when supposed military experts trot down that path.
If there was a way to do it, SHOW it with all the info we have that Reno did not, including timing it out and plotting locations on maps and explaining how stationary men and mounts firing in one direction would decrease casualties when already surrounded. And if we cannot show how Reno could have done it better, the very least people could do is shut up about it. I have no doubt that Reno and everyone was terrified, but leading a charge through the enemy across a river and then uphill to unknown quality of shelter (and possibly lots of enemy) is not evidence of cowardice, and could be construed as the opposite.
Cavalry, I read, deals with speed and shock and Reno's burst out achieved both to a degree; enough that the majority were saved. A slower procedure requiring stopping and remounting and all that atop dividing your forces has weak logic to it.
|
|
|
Post by darkmoon on Apr 15, 2010 8:29:44 GMT -6
Respectfully AZ-Ranger,
In Custer's case the Indians were 360 degrees which means that that a skirmish line was useless. The flanks and the rear of the skirmish lines were not protected. The Indians on the flanks would simply roll up the line. That is the reason the skirmish line of Custer's whole battalion moved into positions to counter the flanking by the Indians.
If a company stopped then as you suggest their backs would be to the Indians Custer rode through. They were in close quarter battle and at that range a skirmish line would do what?
Which way would you face a skirmish line in Custer's retrograde? And no matter how one slices and dices this thing....it was a "retrograde"!!!
And Custer's men never stood a chance and were never, at any one time "concentrated". And I believe... didn't Benteen use a "scattered corn" analogy to describe what he observed there on Custer battlefield? I don't think anyone needs to go further with this, rout's tend to be such terrible reminders of mans inhumanity to man.
|
|
|
Post by AZ Ranger on Apr 15, 2010 11:21:02 GMT -6
The issue was why Godfrey's skirmish line did what it was supose to do as a tactical choice. When Reno drew back from Weir the Indians were chasing him from one direction. A single skirmish line facing the Indians would slow the progress and allow Reno to move to Reno Hill.
In that location it would be harder to flank since the area is rather narrow and would be within firing distances.
In the valley the Indians flanked Reno out of carbine range, circled and moved in close wherever they could.
In Custer's case there may or may not have been a retrograde. I don't know. One could hardly argue that forming a skirmish line worked for Custer's battalion.
With 360 degrees of surrounding enemy you must form lines in mutual support of each other and covering each others back. A single line can not sustain and atttack at the flanks or rear without some adjustments.
|
|
|
Post by benteen on Apr 19, 2010 13:31:22 GMT -6
Darkcloud, as to Major Reno.I believe that many students and authors begin their examination of this battle with a wrong assumption . That is that Custer was a great civil war general (which he was) a great Indian fighter (which is a myth) and a brilliant tactician (which he was not). Therefore someone else is to blame for this defeat.Pretty hard to blame Benteen I believe his actions saved the rest of the 7th cavalry.Whos left. RENO ahh Reno. He was a coward,the fact is that Reno had a fine cavalry career and was breveted to B Gen for heroism during the CW. He panicked, the warriors did not come out to meet him they were running away he could have charged into the village.The facts as we now know them is that when these warriors were threatened by Gen Crook, with a force ten times the size of this one,they attacked.Logic dictates that if they would attack a force of 1500 they certainly would attack a force of 150 or so.And would do it in force.He was a drunk. Nothing in Renos history shows he drank any more than anyone else,up to the LBH,after that yes he became a drunk and was accused of being a peeping Tom for which he was cashiered.I believe Custer was responsible for this defeat.
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on Apr 19, 2010 14:06:28 GMT -6
A nice summation of what others have said for quite a while.
The problem is that the term 'student' cannot be applied to those who don't research whatever before they become 'authors.' The recent horror from Philbrook serves as a good example, based solely on his approved promotion since I haven't and won't read the thing. Donovan can be subbed as well, and I read that thing. Markland, now entering his second year of defending it, hasn't yet.
Just saying.
|
|
|
Post by Melani on Apr 21, 2010 9:49:09 GMT -6
I generally prefer to read a book before passing judgment on it. You may be correct in your characterization, but nobody will know that until the book comes out.
If Reno had charged into the village, he might have been able to create enough chaos to give Custer a chance to charge from the other side, but I believe the timing was too far off for that. More likely Reno would have been mincemeat. But he certainly could have organized a better retreat. Something went wrong with him, and he lost it. A lot has been said here previously about psychology of men in battle--Reno is an example of hitting some kind of wall.
I agree that the buck stops with Custer, but all three of them made mistakes.
|
|
|
Post by benteen on Apr 22, 2010 13:38:56 GMT -6
Melani as to Reno. Logic based on the facts and soldiers testamony I believe Reno didnt have a prayer of reaching the village. When he was stopped cold he didnt run away he formed a skirmish line and held it untill he was getting outflanked.He then led a retreat to the timber. Yes I would prefer a rear guard covering fire , but as AZ Ranger points out he was surrounded. The best option was to get to cover as fast as possible.He then put up a good stand ,Renos actions were as good as anyone could hope for to this point.However something happened in the timber fight(most historians believe it was when bloody knifes brains were splattered on him) after that I agree he lost it.AS to creating chaos for Custer to attack it wasnt the lack of chaos that stopped Custer.This tactical genious when he told Reno he would support him,put himself on the opposite side of a river from his objective not knowing where or even IF he could cross it.(turned out he never did).AS to mistakes, Custer created his own ,mistakes made by Reno and Benteen and youll have to explain to me what they were,were thrust upon them by Custers foolish plan.
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on Apr 22, 2010 14:32:33 GMT -6
"...that I agree he lost it." Really? Lost what? Command, his mind, what? He led the charge -which is what those there called it - out of the timber, hardly the spot for a coward, and he led them across the river, perhaps after being blunted, to high ground which might have been occupied by enemy, and was to an extent.
These quivering attempts to placate Custerphiles leads to nonsense statements. You would prefer a rear guard covering fire, comma, but follow it with the reason it would be a waste of, at least, time and pretty stupid to boot: they were surrounded already and the day is heavy with example of why dropping off covering fire units was consigning them to early and pointless death by further dividing outnumbered units in the face and lap of enthused enemies.
Reno can be shown to have done nothing totally wrong, but of course he must have 'lost it' so as not to insult 130 years of posturing frauds and those who piled on after the fact to reduce their own guilt and assuage their own depressing memories of their own actions. Benteen, who could easily have dumped on Reno in public (and you have the feeling his 'brother' officers wished he had), restrained himself from doing so. He didn't think anyone had glowed with martial greatness, including himself, but certainly thought that Custer was the damp firefly of the day.
|
|
|
Post by benteen on Apr 22, 2010 15:29:24 GMT -6
Darkcloud I respect your standing as grandmaster and your knowledge of this engagement,but where you get the idea that I in any way am attempting to placate quivering or otherwise Custerphiles is a mystery to me.I also dont know what statements you feel are nonsense. Reno a coward? where in my posting did you get the idea that I in any way considered Reno a coward.I agree that saying he lost it was too strong and uncalled for but in my research Renos deportment after the timber was in question.Statements from his men such as the commands mount dimount mount dismount all those that wish to live follow me doesnt exactly sound like a charge to me. Soome of the men not hearing any orders or knowing anything until other troopers rode by them.
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on Apr 22, 2010 17:03:33 GMT -6
"Darkcloud I respect your standing as grandmaster and your knowledge of this engagement,but where you get the idea that I in any way am attempting to placate quivering or otherwise Custerphiles is a mystery to me.""
Stop layering it on. The titles are numbers of posts, nothing more, so unless you value quantity over quality, why would you, or anyone, respect it? I don't understand why you think I'm solely addressing you, anyway, given I quote from Melanie's post. Very like fred, who views all postings as solely addressing him and his issues.
"I also dont know what statements you feel are nonsense. Reno a coward? where in my posting did you get the idea that I in any way considered Reno a coward." See above. What do you mean by 'lost it'? Explain how that differs from actions used to describe cowardice.
"I agree that saying he lost it was too strong and uncalled for but in my research Renos deportment after the timber was in question." What 'research?' Reading, you mean? Won't let you find safety in the weasel word 'deportment.' What did he do wrong, worthy of condemnation? What SHOULD he have done to improve things, especially casualty rates? Show us, with timed out tactics and casualty estimations and specific locations (all unavailable to Reno and those on the ground, anyway) and the correct decision as to what to do with casualties so that this obvious improvement might be known and clearly understood.
"Statements from his men such as the commands mount dimount mount dismount all those that wish to live follow me doesnt exactly sound like a charge to me."
Enough heard the mount order and the 'if you want to survive, follow me' variants as Ryan describes. The mount dismount story comes from one guy, a scout. Further, when you read him at the RCOI it doesn't sound hysterical at all. He orders the men to mount. Surprisingly close in Indians fire. Did he yell 'dismount' or 'get down?' Either appropriate. Danger gone, mount again. What's the horror? And what was wrong with that series of orders?
"Soome of the men not hearing any orders or knowing anything until other troopers rode by them." May or may not be true. Some may have stayed with the experienced scouts by choice. That sort of thing isn't uncommon in combat, apparently. I find it hard to believe in such limited space over a hundred mount and the others didn't notice at all, or that the activity wouldn't have directed attention to itself, of that people wouldn't have easily passed word.
|
|
|
Post by Melani on Apr 22, 2010 22:41:55 GMT -6
.AS to mistakes, Custer created his own ,mistakes made by Reno and Benteen and youll have to explain to me what they were,were thrust upon them by Custers foolish plan. Reno's "charge to the rear" and Benteen's less than enthusiastic response to the order to "be quick." To be fair, Benteen had no reason to believe that Custer was in trouble, based on the info he had been given by Kanipe and Martin, but still, he HAD been ordered to "be quick." I just don't feel that he moved with any real dispatch until he got close enough to see Reno's dilemma. And there was a great mixture of opinion by the men who were present as to Reno's conducting of the retreat. As for "If there was a way to do it, SHOW it with all the info we have that Reno did not, including timing it out and plotting locations on maps and explaining how stationary men and mounts firing in one direction would decrease casualties when already surrounded. And if we cannot show how Reno could have done it better, the very least people could do is shut up about it."--dc, you couldn't show that yourself, or use the same criteria to support your own opinion that it was impossible. I agree that a stationary skirmish line probably would not have been the way to go about it, but I think there was some way that at least some degree of covering fire could have been employed. The standard wisdom was "never run from Indians" because you wouldn't win that race--and Reno's men didn't. Prior to the "charge to the rear" he had lost only a very few men--I believe he lost 30 or so during that charge, or about a third of his total force. Do you truly think that taking off in a rush with no organization was the best course of action? Benteen at least made up for his initial leisurely response to Custer's order by essentially taking over from Reno as a commanding and steadying force while on the hilltop. I seriously doubt that any good would have come from an advance from Weir Point--just a few more companies wiped out. But of course there are endless variables, and I think that is why we continue to discuss it. If we all shut up about everything you don't agree with, there wouldn't be much conversation going on here at all. And by the way, if you read carefully, you will see that you were indeed quoting benteen and not me.
|
|
|
Post by benteen on Apr 23, 2010 8:40:13 GMT -6
Darkcloud unlike yourself I try to be respectful to others opinions.My statement about respecting your standing was not layering it on ,I am new to this room and wrongly assumed these titles were given by the creators of this room for merit, now that I know they are worhtless I stand corrected.As to why I thought this post was addressed to me,your first statement was not taken from Melanis post as you stated, it was taken from my post in response to her. Your statement Research "reading you mean" is a little confusing.Yes I research by reading if you know of another way of gaining knowledge of an historical event that happened 130 years ago please share it with me. You also infer that by saying Reno lost it or his deportment was in question or any other term acceptable by you that I was calling Reno a coward is wrong.Only Gen GS Patton would consider a mans breaking down under the stress of combat cowardice.In fact in my previous posts I cited Renos heroism during the Civil War.Lets stop dancing around. Bottom line ,you are of the opinion that Major Reno was the same man exiting the timber fight as he was going in. I disagree
|
|
|
Post by Gen. Kuster on Apr 27, 2010 20:53:33 GMT -6
I think my gripe is that Reno did not act very officer like that day.
First, I would have challenged the General more as to what his plan was (assuming the plan had not already been communicated) as soon as I had been ordered to attack Indians wherever I saw them. Knowing that the camp was so close, I would have demanded to know how we were going to attack. It does not require hindsight to start wondering about that.
"Look General, there's humongous camp of 2,000 blood thirsty fiends just over yonder, and I respectfully request to know how you plan to attack so I can best support you instead of attacking wherever I see em."
There are other things too that were not very officer like including the retreat without bothering to have any cover fire (yes, I would have had some men cover the retreat, but can't say exactly how since we don't know the positions of men and Indians), and the way he gave up once he reached the defense site.
It all smacks of a weak officer, at least that day anyway. For whatever reason, he did not acquit himself well.
Did any of the men say he was a courageous, fire breathing, take no prisoners, SOB that day? No, he fought like a scared mouse. Why? I can only guess that his professional relationship with Custer had deteriorated so badly that he forgot he was an officer.
|
|