|
Post by Beth on Jun 11, 2015 18:37:15 GMT -6
A win is a complete or partial achievement of the tactical objective, and or a furtherance of the operational objective. Now don't ask me what the former was because I do not know. The bottom line is that this is really simple stuff made complicated by one man's incompetent performance. Mother Teresa and 12 convents of the Little Sisters of the Poor, could have done a better job than twelve companies of the United States Cavalry badly led Sitting Bull vrs Mother Teresa? That would have been a epic meeting of wills. It would probably have ended with everyone arm in arm singing "I'd like to teach the world to sing" on Reno Hill. Beth
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Jun 11, 2015 21:07:23 GMT -6
The point is that Mother Teresa had a clear cut objective, and an organization trained and equipped to get the job done and attain the objective, and she somehow fought a much harder battle than Custer ever did and consistently won.
When I speak of her, what I am saying is - If she can, why can't you. It is all in the mind and in the heart. Success is for the serious.
|
|
|
Post by Beth on Jun 11, 2015 22:18:04 GMT -6
The point is that Mother Teresa had a clear cut objective, and an organization trained and equipped to get the job done and attain the objective, and she somehow fought a much harder battle than Custer ever did and consistently won. When I speak of her, what I am saying is - If she can, why can't you. It is all in the mind and in the heart. Success is for the serious. Comparing Mother Teresa to George Armstrong Custer is quite a juxtaposition. Custer screams of ego, Mother Teresa of humility. but both are very strong personalities. One of the reasons that Mother Teresa was able to reach her goals is because she put her mission way ahead of her ego and devoted everything to reaching her goals. I don't know if I could see Custer doing that or even coming close to doing that. I'm curious what exactly was the mission of the 1876 campaign? Was it to destroy the hostiles? Return them to the reservations? And what was Custer's mission on June 24th. When you read Terry's orders it seems it was more to get himself into position to face the hostiles, not to take them all on single handedly.
|
|
|
Post by tubman13 on Jun 12, 2015 4:21:22 GMT -6
Ian,
You started this by asking GAC's obligation to Keogh. We could end this by asking GAC's obligation to Reno.
Regards, Tom
|
|
|
Post by Yan Taylor on Jun 12, 2015 5:50:21 GMT -6
Well Tom I don't know if Custer had any figures in his head on how long a battalion containing three understrength companies could last in combat, but there was a gap in time between 3,411 and ford B, and after GAC arrived in the vicinity of the ford there was no sign of a break through by Reno so what was going through Custer's mind at that time and what his thoughts are concerning Reno will always remain a mystery.
Ian.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Jun 12, 2015 6:11:52 GMT -6
Beth:
1) Agreed. Mission accomplishment requires only focus, dedication to cause or craft, competence and leadership.
2) Agreed.
3) If you or anyone is still asking that question after 139 years the objective did not meet even the first criteria - Clear.
4) Ditto
Tom: A commander has an obligation to all he commands. every last one.
Ian: There are only three possible outcomes, two with variation.
Decisive win - WIN - DRAW - LOSS - Decisive Loss
Unless you can move the needle from one to the other, there is no change in outcome.
Custer gave up all hope of a win moving onto the bluffs. At 3411 not moving back toward Reno at that point made draw out of the question. Loss of the battle was inevitable from that point onward. Calhoun Hill and the northward move converted loss to decisive loss. The only thing possible that Custer could have done from that point onward is raise the needle from decisive loss back to loss. You don't do that by tinkering around the edges.
|
|
|
Post by tubman13 on Jun 12, 2015 6:36:57 GMT -6
Ian,
I have picked up in several accounts that Custer was informed by Mitch Boyer and Curley that they had witnessed Reno's defeat at approximately the time Curley was released. This would have been in MTC. Once reported in one of the NA narratives and again Peter Panzeri's book. Timing would make this possible. Everyone will have to decide for themselves whether this in fact happened.
Regards, Tom
|
|
|
Post by Yan Taylor on Jun 12, 2015 7:13:12 GMT -6
Thanks Tom, if this is true and he survived then no one should hold it against the US army if they stood him up against a post and shot him.
The ramifications of the decision to carry on north after he knew that Reno was whipped is disgraceful, then not only did he leave Reno to die, he could have death of Benteen and McDougal's battalions on his hands too.
Ian.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Jun 12, 2015 7:16:20 GMT -6
Tom: There are two possibilities that Custer became aware of what happened to Reno. The first from his brother coming up to join him, the second from what you report above. Either one or both are possible, but I do not believe either are probable.
You see no change in the pattern of Custer's operations after either time he could have been informed.
|
|
|
Post by Yan Taylor on Jun 12, 2015 7:36:35 GMT -6
Chuck have you ever found it odd that Tom Custer was not with his Company? Custer already had a Adjutant in Cook so he didn't need his Brother, as far as I can see Capt. T Custer was in command of Company C and this was a combat situation not a boys day out, he should have been leading his men, I wonder what they thought when he not only detached himself but left them under the command of Capt. Keogh.
Bottom line is that he deserted his company in action, Lt. Hodgson was detached to serve as Reno's Adjutant, but he was second in command of B Company, TWC was C Company's commanding officer.
Ian.
|
|
|
Post by tubman13 on Jun 12, 2015 7:47:13 GMT -6
Ian, Think of aging rock stars, they all have their hangers on, clicks, or whatever you want to call them. The aging rock stars allow this as it feeds their ego. Football players have them as well.
Regards, Tom
|
|
|
Post by Yan Taylor on Jun 12, 2015 8:01:17 GMT -6
Tom, I have a great blues song for you, I first heard it on the radio last week and managed to get a copy, its by John Mayall and it was recorded in 1968, the Guitarist is Mick Taylor before he joined the Rolling Stones and its called "Driving Sideways", I may attempt to learn it when I have time, funny enough I thought of you straight away so if you want a copy I can send it to you via your e-mail.
Now back to the BLBH.
Ian.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Jun 12, 2015 8:11:44 GMT -6
Actually Ian I find it unconscionable. A commander I would think would demand to be with those he commanded. Soldier though do follow orders and if he was ordered by his commander to be where he was that so be it. Obey, but under strong protest. He probably didn't though, and it all points, at least to me, of the amusing lark, snipe hunt aspects of this whole affair.
Tom is most probably correct. The rock star needs his groupies to feel manly.
|
|
|
Post by Yan Taylor on Jun 12, 2015 8:23:44 GMT -6
Yes Chuck, I am surprised they never broke out the red coats and white jodhpurs as if they were on a fox hunt.
Custer didn't really need TWC, besides would he take any notice if he voiced his concerns if he thought that things were going wrong? probably not.
Ian.
|
|
|
Post by tubman13 on Jun 12, 2015 8:41:15 GMT -6
|
|