|
Post by crzhrs on May 11, 2010 9:23:14 GMT -6
<Thus, I want to understand what happened and why he failed>
The only failure you and many have is failing to give credit to the Indians for countering all the mistakes made by the 7ths' officers. When Reno faltered, the Indians countered. When Custer (for unknown reasons) failed to hit the village when it seemed ripe for the picking, the Indians countered. When the "Weir Advance" failed to act more aggressively, the Indians countered.
The failure lies with the 7th's totally unprepared response to Indians not "going by the book"
|
|
|
Post by Gen. Kuster on May 11, 2010 9:34:30 GMT -6
<Thus, I want to understand what happened and why he failed> The only failure you and many have is failing to give credit to the Indians for countering all the mistakes made by the 7ths' officers. When Reno faltered, the Indians countered. When Custer (for unknown reasons) failed to hit the village when it seemed ripe for the picking, the Indians countered. When the "Weir Advance" failed to act more aggressively, the Indians countered. The failure lies with the 7th's totally unprepared response to Indians not "going by the book" Hey Crazy Horse - - I like your passion! And I totally agree that the Indians fought brilliantly!
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on May 11, 2010 10:06:52 GMT -6
Nobody fought 'brilliantly.' The side that was the least inept that day won, as much by coincidence and a bad opponent as their own skills, which were individual and not group. Nobody competent would have allowed the 7th to putter down a valley with ambush cover all over and hit the village at all.
That's how the NA Apologists and prancing Custerphiles have found love, by pretending the battle was important, illustrative of skill, a temple to heroism. There's no evidence for any of that, which does not mean it didn't happen.
Rather, it reflects poorly upon all.
|
|
|
Post by crzhrs on May 11, 2010 11:06:16 GMT -6
In the end how well scripted and thoroughly planned out are most battles? There may be some type of plan but once battle starts it usually ends up with individuals and/or small groups improvising or acting on their own.
Was the 7th a totally inefficient command? Were the Indians so disorganized they could not win any fights? Does the least enept always win battles?
If so . . . what does that say about the victors of any battle/war?
|
|
|
Post by Melani on May 11, 2010 11:24:30 GMT -6
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. Interesting point, wolfgang--I hadn't thought of it that way before. He did say something like, "How can I hurry AND bring the packs?" I think Custer was really competent at leading cavalry charges, but I'm not so sure about his overall generalship. He certainly had been blessed by luck in the past.
|
|
|
Post by Gen. Kuster on May 11, 2010 11:24:43 GMT -6
Nobody fought 'brilliantly.' The side that was the least inept that day won, as much by coincidence and a bad opponent as their own skills, which were individual and not group. Nobody competent would have allowed the 7th to putter down a valley with ambush cover all over and hit the village at all. That's how the NA Apologists and prancing Custerphiles have found love, by pretending the battle was important, illustrative of skill, a temple to heroism. There's no evidence for any of that, which does not mean it didn't happen. Rather, it reflects poorly upon all. Well, you can say what you want, but all the facts that I am privy to point to many great things the Indians did during the battle. I'm not trying to win anyone over either. If you take a peek at my very first post on the site a month ago, I said the following: "the great Seventh Cavalry was defeated because those Dog Soldiers and their cohorts put up a great fight, and my plan, although I felt it was a good one that could have been successful was not executed properly.....Speed, or more precisely the lack of it, combined with the valiant determination of those Indians are why we lost." I have long held the view that the Indians fought well, so don't try to make me out to be some kind of kissasser. As far as I can tell, everything the Indians did that day was on target.
|
|
|
Post by wolfgang911 on May 11, 2010 14:13:55 GMT -6
Nobody competent would have allowed the 7th to putter down a valley with ambush cover all over and hit the village at all. I'm suffering from DCitis, I agree on this one by the way you don't become a NA Apologist just because you esteem their skills higher as the 7th, which is pretty easy seen the 7th blundering all over the indian wars from 1867 till Drexel Mission and the GAC indian fighting record I'm still waiting for from GKuster. I'm a NA apologist just because I think they looked (past) cool.
|
|
|
Post by wolfgang911 on May 11, 2010 14:18:46 GMT -6
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. Interesting point, wolfgang--I hadn't thought of it that way before. He did say something like, "How can I hurry AND bring the packs?" thanks MEL at least shows I'm improving studying at this board the posts of heapa expert, but this seemed to me such an obvious one I should reckon it would have been discussed over and over again : bring packs bring packs, how else can you slow up your stand by command in case of emergency
|
|
|
Post by Melani on May 11, 2010 15:22:13 GMT -6
Well, sometimes the obvious can go unnoticed--there has been so much discussion of Benteen NOT hurrying and why that it just hadn't occurred to me that the note didn't SOUND especially urgent, even though it was a direct order.
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on May 11, 2010 15:35:33 GMT -6
crzhrs,
1. "In the end how well scripted and thoroughly planned out are most battles? There may be some type of plan but once battle starts it usually ends up with individuals and/or small groups improvising or acting on their own."
Yes, apparently that is so, but I suppose it comes down to how good the training was at that point. Individual focus becomes very local, which I suppose is why it's important for commanders to be able to retain some objectivity. Leading charges isn't part of that job description. If it got down to one on one that day, the soldier lost.
2. "Was the 7th a totally inefficient command? Were the Indians so disorganized they could not win any fights? Does the least enept always win battles?"
The 7th was badly deployed that day out of ignorance; Indians were so disorganized they couldn't win any wars and few battles; just about always, yes.
3. "If so . . . what does that say about the victors of any battle/war?"
Participant victors are lucky to be alive, one. Mere observing victors, the Chickenhawks and aged and/or cowardly, may not notice. Second, don't equate battle winning with war winning. It was painfully drawn to our attention there is a difference in Vietnam, as Napoleon had noted the same retreating from Moscow after winning all the way there, as the British often noted in our Revolution. Even with will and skill, you need logistics and production. The Germans inflicted 2-1 casualties on the Brits and Americans in WWII retreat or attack, and it was worse for the Russians. They had will and skill but not the endless wealth of the Allies in product and men. They didn't learn from the Great War, and lost both for the same reasons.
|
|
|
Post by AZ Ranger on May 13, 2010 7:43:36 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! Then enlighten us with your evidence. Start with over 1/2 hour watering. Give us how long Edgerly stated also. The longer you have Benteen at the watering hole the faster he must have traveled on his scout to the left. Right? AZ Ranger
|
|
|
Post by AZ Ranger on May 13, 2010 7:53:55 GMT -6
Interesting point, wolfgang--I hadn't thought of it that way before. He did say something like, "How can I hurry AND bring the packs?" thanks MEL at least shows I'm improving studying at this board the posts of heapa expert, but this seemed to me such an obvious one I should reckon it would have been discussed over and over again : bring packs bring packs, how else can you slow up your stand by command in case of emergency It's been discussed Wolfie ad infinitum. The pack train itself was composed of a battalion of troops, it had the reserve ammunition, Benteen had a battalion, and the mules could not move any faster than a running trot by the fastest mules. Remember Co C had horses dropping out after climbing out of Reno Creek and the mules were in trouble in Reno Creek. Depending on how you viewed the note along with the verbal exchanges there was many factors to evaluate. Throw in Reno and it becomes even more complicated. Maybe the Regimental commander should have directed the 3 battalions rather than traveling with one battalion? AZ Ranger
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on May 13, 2010 8:30:04 GMT -6
"...evidence gleaned from my own research...." = opinion formed by partially reading a book claimed to be based on someone else's research, and that often a dubious assertion.
There is no new evidence one way or the other.
|
|
|
Post by Melani on May 13, 2010 11:40:35 GMT -6
There doesn't have to be new evidence for there to be a new way of looking at existing evidence.
|
|
|
Post by Gen. Kuster on May 13, 2010 22:08:13 GMT -6
"...evidence gleaned from my own research...." = opinion formed by partially reading a book claimed to be based on someone else's research, and that often a dubious assertion. There is no new evidence one way or the other. Evidence gleaned simply means information gathered by picking at various sources. Does not have to mean new evidence...just information that is helpful in formulating a conclusion.
|
|