|
Post by Melani on Jan 22, 2010 15:18:42 GMT -6
I thought Sitting Bull was supposed to have accompanied the women and children to the benchland to the west.
I also think it probable that a 61-year-old guy today is a lot "younger" than a 61-year-old 19th century Lakota. Sitting Bull was what? 45? and considered past his prime as a fighting man.
And for that matter, I echo your sentiment about coming into my house unwelcomed--I think any of us would resist that. In my case, it doesn't mean I'd be successful--but I'd sure give it a try.
|
|
|
Post by Gen. Kuster on Apr 28, 2010 9:10:32 GMT -6
Logically speaking, the only move that makes sense considering Reno's charge is for Custer to go around and hit the Indians in the rear. If he did not strike soon after Reno's charge, the effect of Reno attempt to "pin" most of the Indians to the Southern portion of the village would have been lost. Custer had to know that Reno's small force could not hold out very long, so he had a small window of opportunity. Thus, things were develpoing fast, maybe faster than he had anticipated.
I think General Custer knew it could be a big fight (he knew the Indians were not running from Reno), and he desired Benteen to hurry up to the front in order to support the rest of the command. Things were developing very fast and he needed the extra men and ammo fast. He knew that if Benteen did not hurry up, his men would get to the camp too late to support either Reno or Custer who would already be routed due to the large numbers of Indians. Three big charges were needed that day, and there were only two.
|
|
|
Post by AZ Ranger on Apr 30, 2010 20:51:22 GMT -6
There was only one on the Indian village side of the river by my count.
|
|
|
Post by Gen. Kuster on May 1, 2010 13:08:26 GMT -6
There was only one on the Indian village side of the river by my count. Yes, there was only one charge that made it across the river, but does anyone really doubt that Custer charged at MTC? The charge was cut short, so they never made it to the other side. There may not be a lot of direct evidence to support a charge at MTC, but there certainly is a lot of circumstantial evidence. Many of the Indians said that Custer (or another officer) went down to the river but was repulsed. IMHO, it was because the officer and guidon were both shot.
|
|
|
Post by Melani on May 3, 2010 13:26:22 GMT -6
I have also heard that the troops never made it farther than about halfway down MTC before retreating, and that the action may have been a feint or a recognizance.
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on May 3, 2010 16:26:50 GMT -6
Recognizance? A Bond, perhaps?
Reconnaissance? Having sent 25% of the regiment to attack, it's a little late for reco.
|
|
|
Post by Yan Taylor on Jun 9, 2011 7:28:57 GMT -6
Is it true that custer left Keogh, Crittenden & Calhoun on the hills behind him before trying to cross the river, and that 2 companies were in skirmish order and a third left mounted, that must of left a big area to cover in such a hostile area, the men must have been spead out pretty thin, and no wonder they broke when the Indians came on them, they must have felt very isolated, this also gives thought to the story about Custer being killed on the River Crossing, when the rest of Custers command united on the top of the bluffs there tatics were of a leaderless group of men, waiting for the rest of the Regiment to show up and fighting on foot, they should have all kept together and retired to a more safer place maybe in the direction of were the pack train and the rest of the command should have been located. I know I am new to this forum and you people know a lot more then me, but do I have any valid points in my questions. Great site. Regards Ian.
|
|
|
Post by bc on Jun 9, 2011 13:49:28 GMT -6
Is it true that custer left Keogh, Crittenden & Calhoun on the hills behind him before trying to cross the river, and that 2 companies were in skirmish order and a third left mounted, that must of left a big area to cover in such a hostile area, the men must have been spead out pretty thin, and no wonder they broke when the Indians came on them, they must have felt very isolated, this also gives thought to the story about Custer being killed on the River Crossing, when the rest of Custers command united on the top of the bluffs there tatics were of a leaderless group of men, waiting for the rest of the Regiment to show up and fighting on foot, they should have all kept together and retired to a more safer place maybe in the direction of were the pack train and the rest of the command should have been located. I know I am new to this forum and you people know a lot more then me, but do I have any valid points in my questions. Great site. Regards Ian. I don't think anybody knows what is true. That is one of the theories however. bc
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Jun 9, 2011 15:24:25 GMT -6
Ian: Listen to Britt "I don't think anybody knows what is true" Those that claim they have all the answers are only lying to themselves.
|
|
|
Post by fred on Jun 9, 2011 18:02:46 GMT -6
Is it true that custer left Keogh, Crittenden & Calhoun on the hills behind him before trying to cross the river, and that 2 companies were in skirmish order and a third left mounted, that must of left a big area to cover in such a hostile area, the men must have been spead out pretty thin, and no wonder they broke when the Indians came on them, they must have felt very isolated, this also gives thought to the story about Custer being killed on the River Crossing, when the rest of Custers command united on the top of the bluffs there tatics were of a leaderless group of men, waiting for the rest of the Regiment to show up and fighting on foot, they should have all kept together and retired to a more safer place maybe in the direction of were the pack train and the rest of the command should have been located. Ian, No one will ever know for certain what happened during the Custer phase of the battle; we can only make educated guesses based on what was discovered and on the various Indian accounts, themselves a jig-saw puzzle in Sanskrit. One of the things you should remember, however, is that this was a military operation-- not a Sunday picnic-- and military operations usually work best when simplified the most. Bullets overhead or thumping into your buddy's chest change things very quickly. I have been playing with this thing for a number of years and my only goal is to understand the battle and to find out what really happened. Since the latter goal is impossible to achieve, one must use whatever tools available to reach some sort of analytical conclusion. From my perspective-- always keeping in mind that these men were supposed to be professional soldiers and many of the officers and NCOs were reasonably competent-- their position atop Calhoun Hill and Battle Ridge was reasonable for the situation when they arrived there. Over a period of many minutes, things began to deteriorate, and then only because the number of Indians grew to unmanageable proportions. They were not spread too thin; Custer was not wounded until he reached the hill after his Ford D foray; and they were not leaderless. Custer messed up because he underestimated the Indians-- both in numbers and in intent-- and he allowed his "battalions" to fall out of any sort of mutual support. It began because Reno couldn't hold his position... and he couldn't hold his position because he was simply overwhelmed by very superior numbers. Simple. To make matters worse, Reno wound up inserting himself between Custer and Benteen and that forced Benteen to re-assess what he had to do... and that probably saved the rest of the Seventh Cavalry. Best wishes, Fred.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Jun 9, 2011 18:12:35 GMT -6
Ian: Let me modify and extend my remark above to say that Fred is another one to listen very carefully to. He just summed up in five paragraphs what all the modelers in hells half acre take volumes of bloviation to say, and they still don't know what they are talking about most of the time. Keep your powder dry and you will make these judgments in due time.
Fred: I thought you must have fallen in a black hole or something. Glad to see you back.
|
|
|
Post by Yan Taylor on Jun 10, 2011 4:33:43 GMT -6
All points taken on board guys, I first learnt about Custer in 1968 when I was 9 and I seen they died with there boots on (totally incorrect film I know) from then I read a book in the School Library and was hooked, I am the only in my town as far as I know who in interested in thie subject and now I have found this site, and finally I can talk with people on the same wave length as me over this subject. Regards Ian.
|
|
|
Post by fred on Jun 10, 2011 9:51:15 GMT -6
Fred: I thought you must have fallen in a black hole or something. Glad to see you back. Thank you, Chuck. Coming from a real pro, that is fine praise, indeed. I am about done with the other board, however. Too old to battle the back-sniping, the innuendo, the condescension, the contrived theories, and the hypocritical so-called tactical knowledge over there. And none of that pertains to Clair, either. Clair is what he is and dealing with him is similar to watching water bead-up on a duck's back. The other one is a simple fool. Here, the biggest problem one may have is Dark Cloud. Dark Cloud, however, takes some understanding and if you care enough to engage a brilliant mind, then you can take the time to understand him. He and I have not always agreed, but hatchets have been buried and I happen to like and admire him a lot. "Wild" is another one. Those two go after one another, but "Wild" is sharp, savvy, smart and knows his stuff. Again, we do not always agree, but I enjoy "Wild" immensely. Now that I have grown up a bit, I find this board much more intriguing and I am constantly looking forward to reading those guys... and now you, as well. If we can just convince "Montrose" to do a bit more, this board can put aside the stupidity and concentrate on wit, intelligence, learning, and understanding. Best wishes... and my thanks again, Fred.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Jun 10, 2011 10:44:58 GMT -6
Fred: A fine bit of deductive reasoning about my alternate idenity. Ask Wild about the 17 year old kid, mortar bombs and Pidgeon Poop sometime. Funny story. See you down the trail. Must make this quick I am serving at the Memorial Service for a Marine Corps vet today. VMSB 241 at Midway (and survived, a miracle in its own right), as well as most of the other major Pacific battles.
Dark Cloud against the Pedestrian Proletariat. Good Fight.
Follow Me (To those that don't know what that means, Fred does and that's all that matters)
|
|
|
Post by fred on Jun 10, 2011 11:00:56 GMT -6
Fred: A fine bit of deductive reasoning about my alternate identity. Like I said... easy to spot a pro. Like picking out dress blues in a sea of (dare I say it?)... fatigues. I'm tired of funerals. Pop a salute for me, will you? Very best wishes, Fred.
|
|