|
Post by conz on Dec 3, 2007 13:50:10 GMT -6
There are actually two elements to this issue, and that is what was Reno's given mission, and then what were his responsibilities/duty if that mission should prove impossible?
Clair
|
|
|
Post by fred on Dec 6, 2007 5:51:13 GMT -6
This is interesting. Six votes had been cast before I voted for a retreat and "hole up." I would love to know the rationale for the others, specifically for "charged into the village" and "retreated and attacked north."
Anyone care to reveal themselves?
Best wishes, Fred.
|
|
|
Post by gocav76 on Dec 6, 2007 6:14:32 GMT -6
Fred, I voted 'Charge the Village". I have always thought that a charge by two companies with one in reserve to rally on, would have been standard operating procedure. I would not have advocated a charge into the village itself, but just to the outer edge. If while advancing, a charge was deemed to be too dangerous, Reno could have started falling back to Ford A. It was in that general area he had last seen his supports. I have always thought Cavalry should stay mobile in a fluid situation. If Reno had retreated before the hostiles became too many, he could have drawn them from the village, retained his fighting abilities, and had far fewer casualties. When and if help did reach Reno, his command would have been in better fighting condition.
|
|
|
Post by fred on Dec 6, 2007 8:07:26 GMT -6
I have always thought that a charge by two companies with one in reserve to rally on, would have been standard operating procedure. I would not have advocated a charge into the village itself, but just to the outer edge. If while advancing, a charge was deemed to be too dangerous, Reno could have started falling back to Ford A. It was in that general area he had last seen his supports. I have always thought Cavalry should stay mobile in a fluid situation. If Reno had retreated before the hostiles became too many, he could have drawn them from the village, retained his fighting abilities, and had far fewer casualties. When and if help did reach Reno, his command would have been in better fighting condition. gocav-- I think by the time Reno had reached the point of engagement, it should have been 3 companies on line, like he did it. Actually, your idea about falling back to Ford A rather than the woods has some merit. I know this was argued some time ago on another thread and I scoffed at it, but that was mostly in terms of a dismounted, moving square. I don't know what the consequences would have been if he pulled back, mounted and in order, but I don't think the Indians would have chased him. They wouldn't have wandered too far from their village, not at that point I don't think. But who knows? At least by doing what he did, Reno fulfilled Custer's requirements and I believe that when Custer saw Reno in the timber, the general was delighted because he may have figured Reno could hold that position indefinitely, thereby allowing Custer to achieve whatever it was he was after. Of course, much of this goes to the heart of the matter, at least as far as I am concerned, and that is, there were far too many Indians, no matter what Custer could or would have done. An issue that is almost never addressed when we talk about, "could Custer have won," is the density of that village. We seem to be fairly certain of its extent-- Michno did great work on that-- but what about the density. To me, that's the key to its size. Best wishes, Fred.
|
|
|
Post by gocav76 on Dec 6, 2007 8:24:31 GMT -6
Fred, Thanks for the reply. Major Reno had experience fighting Mosby's Rangers in The Civil War, which was always a fluid type engagement. I'm quite confident that he would have known how and when to fight in that type of environment. I've just never believed the timber was the best option. However I wasn't there-Reno was! The one drawback from Reno's retreat to the high ground was that the Indians following him first caught a glimpse of Custer's command in the distance. As I understand it Custer's movement was still unknown to warriors in the village. Thus, would a movement early on by Reno towards Ford A have prevented the Indians from seeing Custer?
|
|
|
Post by fred on Dec 6, 2007 9:36:51 GMT -6
... would a movement early on by Reno towards Ford A have prevented the Indians from seeing Custer Larry, I don't think so. There were already some Indians on that side (east) of the river and if you look at Michno's work, he claims Iron Cedar told Gall of Custer's approach. Both of them crossed the LBH and mounted the bluffs near Weir Peaks and watched Custer's column from that area. Incidentally, if Micho's interpretation is correct, then Boyer was already past this point (Custer was in Cedar Coulee nearing MTC), and the Reno fight was still going on. What this means is that Boyer never saw Reno retreat and therefore Custer never knew of Reno's plight. Can anyone prove Michno wrong?... I mean other than the old bromides and hem-hawing.... Best wishes, Fred.
|
|
|
Post by conz on Dec 6, 2007 10:39:19 GMT -6
Fred,
We might consider that Bouyer and Gall could both be on that ridge, and either never saw each other, or didn't do much about each other.
Bouyer may have left that bluff as much to avoid the mounting Indian pressure coming up the bluffs around Weir Point to get at Reno as to tell Custer what was going on.
Clair
|
|
|
Post by gocav76 on Dec 6, 2007 11:41:45 GMT -6
Fred, In Lakota Noon by Gregory Michno, page 109 he writes; " In actuality, how did the Indians chasing Reno "hear" about the soldiers in the north? Their narratives tell us that they saw them with their own eyes, or heard about them from other warriors around Reno. On the bluffs , One Bull saw the mules approaching, and the troops in the north... White Bull was on the hill when he saw soldiers moving toward the north. Short Bull was on the bluffs with Crazy Horse and saw "millions" of soldiers on a hill in the north."" The Indians around Reno saw Custer themselves. It was first-hand knowledge. They did not have to get word from any messengers from the village. In fact , some Indians in the valley were even informned of the new threat by Indians on the bluffs, a complete reversal of the traditional explanation." Thats why I was under the impression that had Reno retreated back towards Ford A , Custer may have remained unobserved and undetected by some warriors.
|
|
|
Post by fred on Dec 6, 2007 11:58:55 GMT -6
gocav--
I understand. Still, the question is, when should Reno have called it quits? And regardless of what he did, there were still Indians up there. Someone would have spotted Custer's column. One of the well-known warriors-- whose name escapes me right now-- was on the bluffs or hills digging turnips (yum-yum!).
Best wishes, Fred.
|
|
|
Post by wild on Dec 6, 2007 12:29:13 GMT -6
The promised support not having materilized and the attack as a consequence having failed Reno's responsibility was to extricate his command from an impossble situation.
|
|
|
Post by conz on Dec 6, 2007 12:54:03 GMT -6
The promised support not having materilized and the attack as a consequence having failed Reno's responsibility was to extricate his command from an impossble situation. Reno himself said that he assumed Custer was supporting him with his move along the bluffs. I don't understand why Reno would think that his responsibility to maintain contact with the Natives ended because he didn't get any further support. Now you seem to believe that Reno assumed his mission was impossible. This may be correct about Reno's thinking, but may not be correct as to military theory and the potential of his position in the timber. Since military men have fallen on both sides of this issue of the practicality of Reno fighting further from the timber, I must fall on the side of those who would give his mission a chance to succeed. Maybe Reno could not have done anything useful by staying in those woods, but so many officers believe that he COULD have, that it makes me judge he should have taken that chance. Clair
|
|
|
Post by fred on Dec 6, 2007 15:32:13 GMT -6
OK, Clair! You asked for it. Take your pick:
CPT FREDERICK W. BENTEEN—RCOI, SATURDAY, 1FEB1879; MONDAY, 3FEB1879; TUESDAY, 4FEB1879; WEDNESDAY, 5FEB1879.
1. Benteen was asked if he could have joined Reno in the timber. His response was, he could have tried. [414] • He also said he would not have tried if he did not have the packs. [414] • Benteen said if he had tried to make the timber his “losses would have been very much greater than they were….” Benteen felt the 7 companies would have been wiped out. [415] 2. Benteen thought the timber could have been held for 5 to 6 hours. He said early the next morning they would have all been killed. [415] 3. In an extremely interesting exchange, Benteen was asked if he had joined Reno in the timber, would not that threat have helped Custer. Benteen replied, “It would not have made a particle of difference.” [416] 4. As for the Indians who confronted Reno helping the ones in front of Custer, Benteen replied, “I don’t think they had any use for them down there though.” [416] 5. Benteen also thought the Indians would have ambushed Reno had the major tried to follow them downstream. [437]
1LT CHARLES DERUDIO—RCOI, WEDNESDAY, 29JAN1879; THURSDAY, 30JAN1879; FRIDAY, 31JAN1879.
1. DeRudio felt the men could not have fired more than 30 or 40 rounds per man while on the skirmish line. [317] 2. DeRudio thought the timber could have been held as long as the command had ammunition. He also felt that if the ammo had been used judiciously, it would have lasted for 3 or 4 hours. [339]
Walter Camp Interview Conducted: 2Feb1910.
1. While DeRudio was in the timber a short while, the Indians set fire to the grass. He did not know why. 2. DeRudio believes it was Benteen’s appearance, not the sighting of Custer’s men that saved Reno’s command. 3. “DeRudio says Reno should have held to the timber. Says there they would have had reasonable shelter, and Indians would never have come into the brush to fight, and Reno could easily have stood them off and held a thousand of them there who went down to fight Custer.” [86]
2LT LUTHER HARE—RCOI, MONDAY, 27JAN79; TUESDAY, 28JAN79.
1. Hare thought less than 1,000 Indians faced Reno’s command. [294] 2. It was 30 to 40 minutes from the time the command halted to when it retreated from the timber. [279] 3. Hare felt that if the Indians had charged the woods, the command would not have lasted more than a few minutes, but Indians did not fight that way. “I think we could have stood them off about 30 minutes by using the ammunition judiciously.” [282] • If they had stayed in the timber much longer—even 20 minutes—they would have been shut in and would not be able to get out. [295] 4. Hare thought Benteen could have joined Reno, but McDougall could not, because only as charge could have made it. [294] 5. Hare did not think it was absolutely necessary to charge out of the woods at that time. [296]
CPT THOMAS M. MCDOUGALL—RCOI, THURSDAY, 6FEB1879; FRIDAY, 7FEB1879.
“I think [Reno] would make as stubborn a fight as any man, but I don’t think he could encourage the men like others. Men are different, some are dashing and others have a quiet way of going through. I think he did as well as anybody else could do, that is my opinion.” [534]
CPT MYLES MOYLAN—RCOI, FRIDAY, 24JAN79; SATURDAY, 25JAN79; MONDAY, 27JAN79.
1. If they had remained in the timber, Moylan said the command would have been “annihilated.” [241] 2. There were a great many Indians in the timber—“I know there were a great many Indians in there”—and they closed in very close to the troopers. [217] 3. Moylan said if “the command stayed there 30 minutes longer, I doubt if it would have gotten out with as many men as it did.” [231] 4. Moylan was firm in stating they were not driven out of the timber—virtually driven, but not actually. “It would have been driven into the timber in a very short time, but when we left the timber the command did not leave because it was driven out.” [231]
2LT CHARLES A. VARNUM—RCOI, TUESDAY, 21JAN79; WEDNESDAY, 22JAN79; THURSDAY, 23JAN79.
1. Varnum felt the timber was not a safe place to be [but he equivocated somewhat]. He did say that a lot of bullets were beginning to come in from the rear. He did not see any Indians there, but didn’t know whether the rounds came from up on the bluffs or in the woods. [149-150] He realized these rounds were coming in just before they left the woods. [150] 2. Varnum was asked if there was any place in the bottoms where a good defense could have been organized. He said he did not know and did not even know how large the woods the command occupied were. Varnum felt there were not enough troops to hold that timber. [156 and 179] 3. Varnum felt the edge of the woods (“brow,” in Gerard’s words) was an excellent defensive position. It was the rear—the part along the river—that was of concern. [156] 4. “Any body of men placed near an Indian village like that is certainly threatening to the village. It certainly created a diversion to the extent of the number of Indians necessary to keep us in the woods.” [157] 5. “I don’t think the entire force of the village was attacking us in the woods. I don’t think the entire force of the Indians was ever attacking us because after we got on the hill we could see parties of Indians a long way off.” [157] 6. Varnum did not believe either force—Custer with 5 companies or a combined Reno/Benteen force—could have made it through the village. [167] • “I would not like to take half the warriors and take the command we had with us and fight them.” [178] • “From the estimate of other persons and of Indians and of all I can pick up, I don’t believe there were less than 4,000 warriors in that fight.” [178] • The normal population with 4,000 warriors would be around 15,000. Varnum felt this was not the case here because he saw many wickiups. He saw many of them at the lower end of the village. [186]
Walter Camp Interview Conducted: May 1909.
1. Did not think Reno and Benteen could have rescued Custer. 2. Believed Custer made a mistake dividing his command. 3. Believed had the command stayed together they could have driven the Indians out of the village and destroyed their property. 4. Did not think Reno could have held the timber.
2LT GEORGE D. WALLACE—RCOI, WEDNESDAY, 15JAN79; THURSDAY, 16JAN79; FRIDAY, 17JAN79; THURSDAY, 6FEB1879.
1. Running low on ammo on skirmish line. [23] 2. Wallace said much of the ammunition had been used and he knew one company had to withdraw some of their men to retrieve more from the saddlebags. This was done before moving into the timber. [50] 3. Wallace said Moylan and Varnum told him they had to take half their company back for more ammunition. [83] 4. Indians across the stream were within 50 yards of the troops in the timber and in the soldiers’ rear. [23] 5. Indians were getting in the timber. [51] Receiving fire from across the river. [54] 6. Wallace felt if Reno had remained in the timber every man would have been killed. [52]
Not much else in the way of opinion.
Best wishes, Fred.
|
|
|
Post by wild on Dec 6, 2007 15:48:54 GMT -6
Maybe Reno could not have done anything useful by staying in those woods, but so many officers believe that he COULD have, that it makes me judge he should have taken that chanceReno's ammo would have only lasted so long and as there was no sign of any support coming he was obliged to do everything to save his command.
|
|
|
Post by conz on Dec 6, 2007 15:49:15 GMT -6
DeRudio and Varnum are the only unbaised ones on this list. And McDougal didn't comment on whether Reno should have stayed in the woods...I would take his word, too.
But Gen'l Godfrey is the most important opinion of all, IMHO.
Clair
|
|
|
Post by fred on Dec 6, 2007 17:02:54 GMT -6
DeRudio and Varnum are the only unbaised ones on this list. And McDougal didn't comment on whether Reno should have stayed in the woods...I would take his word, too. But Gen'l Godfrey is the most important opinion of all... Clair-- I think it's late in the afternoon and you have had one sour mash too many. DeRudio, not biased? He couldn't stand Reno. LT Mathey was recalled to testify on Friday, February 7, 1879. He was asked to repeat some conversations he had with other officers about the fighting in the timber. He said one officer had remarked, “If we had not been commanded by a coward we would have been killed.” [551] When asked to state who it was, Mathey replied, LT DeRudio said it in the summer of 1878. [552] Here is a note I made when I read DeRudio's testimony at the RCOI. As far as I can recall, it is the only note of its type I made: "NOTE—It is clear from the testimony that there was a considerable amount of antagonism between DeRudio and Reno’s counsel." That translated directly to DeRudio's feelings about Reno. And despite Benteen's opinion of him, I'm not so sure I am all that ready to discount Myles Moylan, either. And McDougall and Godfrey weren't there, so their opinions are not a whole hell of a lot better than yours or mine. And what about Hare and Wallace? As far as I know, no one ever said a bad word about either of those two except Jack Pennington, and Pennington doesn't say anything nice about anyone. You count DeRudio as unbiased and Hare biased? Put the cork back in, Clair. Best wishes, Fred.
|
|