|
Post by darkmoon on Apr 19, 2010 10:05:03 GMT -6
Crz first dear, you will quite simply have to forgive my dear-sweet husband. I think it was that shot to his head that scrambled all of his brains. What Autie isn’t telling you is that he wasn’t expecting such a ’big village’. He expected that the villages would be all strung out like they were at the Washita. And he was most certainly shocked when he topped the ridges and found out that they had grouped them into one huge camp. He tried to send back word to Reno to get out of there, didn’t you dear, but no one believed the rider he had sent. And you even waved your hat to get Reno’s attention and tried to signal him that way, but that didn’t work either, did it my darling? And you most certainly would not have sent Reno to that village had you known that they had grouped all of them together would you dear?
Crz, my dear husband did send Benteen a telegraphic message to Benteen. What most people today don’t understand is the content and scope of that message. When Autie informed Benteen of the ’big village’ he was telling Benteen that the Indians had grouped their villages closer together than they had done before. That this situation was not like at the Washita, and that he needed Benteen up there as fast as they could get there, isn’t that right dear? And that they would need the ammunition sooner rather than later, because if didn’t get there quickly as well, within the hour, the battle would be lost, isn’t that right dear? What was the standard controlled rate of fire again dear? Wasn’t it 3 and not more than 4 rounds per minute?
And you knew where Benteen was all the time didn’t you dear? You knew where he was when you topped the ridge and saw the ’big village’ for the first time because that position gave you a most excellent view of the surrounding countryside, didn’t it? And Benteen knew that you had gone down river because he saw you continue downriver that from there, didn’t he? And he knew it wasn’t the ’whole outfit’ because clearly 3 companies were missing from that formation, didn’t he? Indeed Autie, tell the truth about Benteen, you will have to sometime. We know it’s a most unpleasant task for you. But dear, really shouldn’t you really fess up to it now rather than be embarrassed by it later? And that hole in the head, couldn’t the same be said of Benteen, my dearly departed?
|
|
|
Post by crzhrs on Apr 19, 2010 10:53:58 GMT -6
ek:
My sympathies for being married to . . . well, never mind.
Most of the scouts (White/Red) had indicated the village was indeed HUGE, even if strung out along the LBH river as it turned out. GAC sent Benteen way out of his way to pitch into anything he came across, but when your husband was notified of Indians running he ordered Reno to bring them to battle with Custer offering full support. HOWEVER, Benteen was never informed of any of this and by the time he was Reno/Custer were too far separated and all Benteen could do was clean up the mess and bring some semblance of order to the rest of the command.
Is Hat Waving SOP? Just what could one imply from someone waving a hat?
And yes, it wasn't like Washita . . . it was summer, the attack was during the middle of the day, and it wasn't the hapless Black Kettle he was attacking but hardcore warriors led by the the most determined leaders.
Maybe a Ouija board would have been better than a cryptic letter delivered by a private with limited knowledge of English who thought Reno was giving it to Indians left and right and Custer was about to ride through the Sioux Nation.
|
|
|
Post by wolfgang911 on May 9, 2010 15:32:14 GMT -6
What Autie isn’t telling you is that he wasn’t expecting such a ’big village’. He expected that the villages would be all strung out like they were at the Washita. And he was most certainly shocked when he topped the ridges and found out that they had grouped them into one huge camp. yeah well KKuster should have known it was summer time with a lot of partying and dancing and BBQ and not a winter hide out. That it was more or less one big nation, for the last time together, camped in their tradionnal way circles from hunkpapa till cheyenne. And not camps srung out from various kiowas, cheyennes, kiowas apaches and comanches all down the line.
|
|
|
Post by wolfgang911 on May 9, 2010 15:52:38 GMT -6
As far as I am concerned, those two weasels can rot in Gehenna. That’s how I feel about that. Maybe some of you civilians cannot understand this position, this conviction I have, but spend some time in the military and you might understand. Remember that those two weasels were senior officers not civilians on a camping trip. They had a duty and an obligation to lead those men in fulfillment of a mission first and foremost. Instead, they let their own personal issues cloud their judgment. The bottom line is that on that day in June 1876, only one senior officer was willing to die to achieve the mission while the other two were more concerned with saving their own hides. well they also saved their companies along with their own hides didn,' they?. I'm not a military expert and hate disciplined robots for war, not that I'm a peaceful person on the contrary more or less nostalgic and frustrated of the times of medieval and tribal individual warfare in these times of change before the turn to nanotechnologic scary tales of warfare. But even in your perspective of a military "mission" do you have to be suicidal and throw your life and those of your fellow troopers away to be called a hero in the army? And that for the silly purpose of stopping a big family reunion of some hunting families out on summer vacation ;D) It was not exactly omaha beach or stalingrad of freeing the country from evil you could die for. More or less a Woodstock without permit. More seriously would you have called all 3 heroes if they all had been slaughtered, or at least not have named them weasels if they stupidly would have persisted against overwhelming odds?
|
|
|
Post by Melani on May 9, 2010 20:04:43 GMT -6
I would think the idea would be to complete the mission AND stay alive. The entire Seventh dead would not have completed the mission--dead guys would have had a lot of trouble rounding up Indians and sending them back to the reservation.
I suppose it varied with each individual, but it seems to me that what these guys didn't know about Indians would fill volumes. Godfrey looked at the single men's wickiups and thought they were dog houses?!?
|
|
|
Post by Gen. Kuster on May 10, 2010 13:33:16 GMT -6
There are very good reasons for calling both of them weasels. At least two separate officers reported that Reno was drinking in the valley and at the Defense site. Plus, Reno probably lost more men in his retreat than he did during the actual fight in the valley. His whole goal that day was to stay alive. Yes, do the minimum (so he doesn’t face Custer’s wrath) but more importantly, stay alive. Tell me what helpful thing did he do during the entire battle except beat a hasty retreat that was meant to save his own life more than anything else? And Like Benteen, Reno did not get along with Custer, so he had a motive not to perform that day.
Then in the case of Colonel Benteen, he harbored ill will towards Gen. Custer from the day they met, and there are scores and scores of things he wrote about how he despised Custer, yet how often did Custer write or say ill of Benteen? The animosity was certainly one sided, and I think Custer was mystified by it.
Colonel Benteen took over 30 minutes to water his horses after regaining Custer’s trail in Reno Creek, and when he was told to be quick, he still took his time. In his defense, people say that he believed that Custer was routing the Indians, so he did not have to hurry. That is a load of BS. Benteen was at Washita right? In that battle, which was considered a route for the Army, Custer and his men narrowly escaped, and every soldier he had was needed in order to gain the upperhand. Benteen knew that. He was at Washita and he knew how quickly a battle could turn especially considering the large number of Indians and considering they had lost the element of surprise they had at Washita. He knew the village was huge too. If people think that Custer expected to charge the village with just 200 men, take NCs, and get the Indians to surrender just like that without a tough battle, then they are naïve. Benteen wants you to believe that!
Custer first had to get the upperhand by delivering an unexpected blow to the village (his charge at MTF followed by Benteen), do some serious battle with several hundred Indians, and in doing so, shock many of the Indians into a retreat. In order to do this, Benteen and his men were needed!!! There is no way that Custer and his 200 men could have delivered a strong enough blow that would cause panic. Only after the Indians had retreated could he go after the NCs to really secure the victory just like at Washita. Benteen knew this too, but what he did to Custer was payback for his friend MAJ Elliott. Thus, in my book, Benteen is a weasel too.
In the military you may harbor petty thoughts of ill will towards your Commanding Officer, but you never leave him or his command out to die because of your personal issues against him. A real officer performs his duty to the best of his ability at all times. He does not say this mission is worthy of me dying but that one isn’t. He does not choose. He follows orders to the T or men get killed unnecessarily. Civilians can’t be expected to understand this.
|
|
|
Post by Melani on May 10, 2010 13:48:25 GMT -6
I think you are crediting Benteen and Reno with too great a degree of hostility. I'm not really aware of Custer and Reno not getting along, though Reno generally wasn't all that popular--I'm not aware of them getting along anyway at all, good or bad. Reno got chewed out for his scout, but I can't think of a long history of that sort of thing. Do you have a source you can direct me to?
Benteen did indeed dislike Custer, but I can't see a soldier of his caliber leaving a third of the regiment to die on purpose. I am indeed defending him by saying that he didn't understand the true situation until he reached Reno.
And I totally agree that Reno lost most of his men during the "charge to the rear." As for drinking, he may have had a swallow or two, but so did Varnum, Gerard, and Charley Reynolds, by Varnum's own account. Taking a drink and being drunk are two different things, especially in an era when people drank a lot more than they do today. Reno lost it, all right, but I don't think it was because of alcohol. It has been observed that at other times, he was a belligerent drunk.
I'm also not aware of Washita being considered a "rout" for the cavalry. I thought it was supposed to be Custer's big "victory."
|
|
|
Post by markland on May 10, 2010 14:16:47 GMT -6
GAK wrote: You might get yourself a large beverage and sit down and read this thread. www.thelbha.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=questions&action=display&thread=157&page=1Well over a hundred pages and the Benteen Dawdling advocates could not prove anything. There were a lot of red herrings being thrown around as their case got progressively weaker but they never presented anything beyond opinion and conjecture. Best, Billy
|
|
|
Post by Gen. Kuster on May 10, 2010 14:46:01 GMT -6
I would think the idea would be to complete the mission AND stay alive. Melani - have you ever served in the military? The reason I ask is because a military person does not think like a civilian for good reason. During a mission, staying alive is NOT part of the idea like you said. The whole focus is on completing each objective of the overall plan and survival never enters the picture. Once you start thinking about how to save your life, the mission is sure to fail because the mission requires 100% commitment and nothing less. The issue is about timing. Your personal survival may enter the picture at some point but not while your command is actively fighting and still has a chance of completing your objective. Survival may be an element on a strategic level, but not really on a tactical one like LBH. The entire Seventh dead would not have completed the mission--dead guys would have had a lot of trouble rounding up Indians and sending them back to the reservation. NOT TRUE. What you stated is an assumption that the mission required the rounding up of Indians in order to be successful. The mission could have been successful had the entire 7th fought hard and long and had they been able to kill a much greater percentage of Indians and destroy many of the things they needed to support their tribe. Success can be defined in more ways than one. From a civilian perspective, staying alive is part of success, but from a military perspective, it does not require it. You do not need to win every battle to win the war. You would like to win each battle, but if that is not possible, you still want to go all out 100%, hurt the enemy bad, and continue hurting him over a period of months or years. This is not to say that the annihilation of the entire 7th would have been acceptable or cheered. However, in strategic terms, commanders are more concerned with the effort given in each battle and the progress made towards winning the overall war. In summary, staying alive in battle is an afterthought and usually something you only think about long after the primary fighting has concluded and you are fighting as an individual without orders trying to survive.
|
|
|
Post by Gen. Kuster on May 10, 2010 15:01:07 GMT -6
GAK wrote: You might get yourself a large beverage and sit down and read this thread. www.thelbha.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=questions&action=display&thread=157&page=1Well over a hundred pages and the Benteen Dawdling advocates could not prove anything. There were a lot of red herrings being thrown around as their case got progressively weaker but they never presented anything beyond opinion and conjecture. Best, Billy Billy, Are you saying we should be the jury to a bunch of LBH fanatics sitting around their living room in their pajamas debating the battle via their lap top? No thanks. I base my claim on the evidence gleaned from my own research, not the conclusions of others. I will explain my conculsion in due time. But yes, I will have that large beverage!
|
|
|
Post by Gen. Kuster on May 10, 2010 18:04:30 GMT -6
I think you are crediting Benteen and Reno with too great a degree of hostility. I'm not really aware of Custer and Reno not getting along, though Reno generally wasn't all that popular--I'm not aware of them getting along anyway at all, good or bad. Reno got chewed out for his scout, but I can't think of a long history of that sort of thing. Do you have a source you can direct me to? Benteen did indeed dislike Custer, but I can't see a soldier of his caliber leaving a third of the regiment to die on purpose. I am indeed defending him by saying that he didn't understand the true situation until he reached Reno. And I totally agree that Reno lost most of his men during the "charge to the rear." As for drinking, he may have had a swallow or two, but so did Varnum, Gerard, and Charley Reynolds, by Varnum's own account. Taking a drink and being drunk are two different things, especially in an era when people drank a lot more than they do today. Reno lost it, all right, but I don't think it was because of alcohol. It has been observed that at other times, he was a belligerent drunk. I'm also not aware of Washita being considered a "rout" for the cavalry. I thought it was supposed to be Custer's big "victory." Oh yea, and regarding Reno, I forgot to mention that little comment of his regarding deserting the injured. How anyone can defend Reno is unfathomable in my opinion. I also firmly believe that when Reno finally reached the Defense site after his disorganized retreat, he started hearing guns blazing from Custer's command to the North, and he did not do a darn thing. He was so fully whipped (and drunk), he lost his composure and will to fight. I cannot prove it now due to time limitations, but in due time, I will make a good case.
|
|
|
Post by Gen. Kuster on May 10, 2010 18:12:29 GMT -6
GAK wrote: You might get yourself a large beverage and sit down and read this thread. www.thelbha.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=questions&action=display&thread=157&page=1Well over a hundred pages and the Benteen Dawdling advocates could not prove anything. There were a lot of red herrings being thrown around as their case got progressively weaker but they never presented anything beyond opinion and conjecture. Best, Billy We all know Benteen took too long at the morass. He should have taken 10 minutes at most, but he took something like 30. The proof is in Capt Weir's actions who had the proper sense of urgency for the situation. Regardless of whether Benteen thought Custer was routing the Indians or not, is there any doubt that when you are that close to the village you should be prudent and at least verify what you believe to be true particularly when you know there is a huge village and the battle was started during the day without the element of surprise? That's not hindsight talking: any seasoned person in the military will tell you that. In battle, things can change quickly, so even if you believe one thing to be true, you better see it with your own eyes just to make sure or else you are being negligent. The problem is that too many civilians without the necessary experience and "military common sense" are not able to see that.
|
|
|
Post by Melani on May 11, 2010 0:42:18 GMT -6
I think you are crediting Benteen and Reno with too great a degree of hostility. I'm not really aware of Custer and Reno not getting along, though Reno generally wasn't all that popular--I'm not aware of them getting along anyway at all, good or bad. Reno got chewed out for his scout, but I can't think of a long history of that sort of thing. Do you have a source you can direct me to? Benteen did indeed dislike Custer, but I can't see a soldier of his caliber leaving a third of the regiment to die on purpose. I am indeed defending him by saying that he didn't understand the true situation until he reached Reno. And I totally agree that Reno lost most of his men during the "charge to the rear." As for drinking, he may have had a swallow or two, but so did Varnum, Gerard, and Charley Reynolds, by Varnum's own account. Taking a drink and being drunk are two different things, especially in an era when people drank a lot more than they do today. Reno lost it, all right, but I don't think it was because of alcohol. It has been observed that at other times, he was a belligerent drunk. I'm also not aware of Washita being considered a "rout" for the cavalry. I thought it was supposed to be Custer's big "victory." Oh yea, and regarding Reno, I forgot to mention that little comment of his regarding deserting the injured. How anyone can defend Reno is unfathomable in my opinion. I also firmly believe that when Reno finally reached the Defense site after his disorganized retreat, he started hearing guns blazing from Custer's command to the North, and he did not do a darn thing. He was so fully whipped (and drunk), he lost his composure and will to fight. I cannot prove it now due to time limitations, but in due time, I will make a good case. What I am saying is that they didn't consciously think, "Now how can I **** Custer?" Benteen was probably bent out of shape at the thought of being left out of the fight, which is what I am sure he was thinking. He didn't exactly hustle, even in response to the order brought by Martini. That certainly is not what should be expected of an officer, but I don't think he would have hesitated for a moment if he had understood reality. There is no way that I think Benteen would have allowed 212 men to die because he didn't like Custer. Reno most assuredly lost his composure, but I don't think he was drunk in the valley. He may have been drunk later on the hill, but as I said before, at other times when he was most certainly drunk, he was belligerent, not cowardly. There is some controversy over the remark about leaving the wounded. He may have said it exactly as Benteen presented it, or it may have been thrown out as a possibility in a discussion of several possibilities. Either way, it wasn't a good thought, and I'm sure it didn't get a good response from anyone who heard it. The other officers probably wouldn't have let him do that anyway, if he had tried. Both Reno and Benteen failed in their different ways, but I don't think it was because of hostility to Custer. And what are we, if not a bunch of LBH fanatics? I am using a laptop, by the way, but am not yet in my jammies.
|
|
|
Post by wolfgang911 on May 11, 2010 4:45:06 GMT -6
What separates your arguments KKuster from those some call commonly custerphiles? the more I read of your posts the more I see a doubtless fanatic of The General that you even compare to Kennedy on another post for potential capacities. Maybe DC can help out to demistify.
bring packs bring packs twice you can hardly expect anyone to move real fast or to conclude supreme urgency for supporting a command facing annihiliation when the question is more about ammo than about men. 'packs' means we're holding position, preparing attack or whatever but does not mean catastrophy and packs slow up how many minutes... if the message was come quick big village I need your command over here NOW, he would not have watered or whatever.
|
|
|
Post by Gen. Kuster on May 11, 2010 9:00:59 GMT -6
What separates your arguments KKuster from those some call commonly custerphiles? the more I read of your posts the more I see a doubtless fanatic of The General that you even compare to Kennedy on another post for potential capacities. Maybe DC can help out to demistify. What separates my arguments? I really don't know, because I do not believe in comparing myself to others. My writing stands on its own merit. If you care to read it (remember, no one forces you) and you disagree with me, then I believe you should state why from a logical or factual perspective instead of comparing me to others or trying to pigeon hole me into one category or another. I think we are all here to gain insight on this battle. Do I worship Custer (I think that’s the point of your post)? I think like most everyone else, I am drawn to the mysteries of this battle, and history in general. So far, my research indicates that Gen. Custer was an incredibly competent soldier and leader, at least up to the point of LBH. Thus, I want to understand what happened and why he failed.
|
|