|
Post by tubman13 on Oct 26, 2016 9:27:50 GMT -6
Mike,
You are absolutely right that 126 would have made little difference in the overall outcome if the battle had been conducted the same way as it was.
But, let's do a what if. Suppose GAC had followed Reno into the valley, as Reno expected, Reno's left end had not been turned, due to the increased firepower that could be brought to bear in that location. Let us say those 126 had been killed at the outset due to greater and more focused firepower. Remember with proper command(GAC) and control. Benteen and McDougall would then join the fray at a different location, if so ordered. If a fall back had been required, it would have probably been much more orderly.
As I said I will defer to others. AZ, could help me out here with his thoughts about warrior medicine(good & bad). Also, Montrose can take me to the woodshed, if need be.
If you are going to start a fight, hit your opponent between the eyes, bust his nose, split his lip, and loosen a few teeth.
Regards, Tom
|
|
|
Post by Mike Powell on Oct 26, 2016 10:17:43 GMT -6
Steve,
I'm not familiar withe "1874 Expedition". I know you've mentioned it before and I'd like to learn something about it. Is there a book or articles?
I don't know what would have happened if Crazy Horse had been shot down in front of his men but something would have. And I think that would depend on the circumstances involved. If Crazy Horse were killed while leading an opportunistic attack aimed principally at stealing horses it would be one thing to his companions. If he were killed in a large scale fight put up in defense of the lives of their families, every bit of property they owned and, in fact, in defense of their entire roaming way of life, then his death would be another thing to them. In other words: some days it's bad medicine, some days you've got bigger things on your mind.
George Custer did make a mistake, he thought their inclination would be to run. He decided to take a dip on the beach while the tsunami siren was blowing. At that point it didn't matter if he could swim like his Aunt Mary or Michael Phelps.
Regards,
Mike
|
|
|
Post by Mike Powell on Oct 26, 2016 10:50:34 GMT -6
Tubman,
Though you're taking us off into larger matters than the minutia of Rounds Per Kill, I like your plan. And I know it will not crush your ego if I say you may not be the first guy to think of it (having already admitted I've never had an original thought myself). But to me, your plan accomplishes a lot. Largely as you say, it doesn't further fragment the command, its a lot of ground over which the 7th's weapons can be well employed, the rear elements can easily stumble upon the main show, it gets away from this nonsense of riding around the circumference while the enemy works along the radials and, not least of all, if things drag on into Monday and Tuesday you've got water nearby. The only question I have is does it "fix" the Native Americans? If it does then the headlines may read "Custer's Wise Actions Set Stage For Great Victory In Montana". But others on the board are better placed to critique your proposal. At the very least I think it could avoid the immediate disaster.
regards,
Mike
|
|
|
Post by montrose on Oct 26, 2016 10:53:06 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by Mike Powell on Oct 26, 2016 11:05:22 GMT -6
Steve,
Your comments on the number of firearms among the Indians, which I think I could get pretty close to agreeing with, triggered a thought I'd not considered before:
For Custer's force, a man down meant a gun down. For the Native Americans that's not necessarily the case. A brave killed while carrying a Henry would some of the time result in another brave setting aside his trade musket or bow and picking up the same Henry. In the grand scheme scheme of things, this like much else doesn't greatly matter. But, in isolation, I think volume of fire doesn't diminish due to casualties as rapidly for Red as it does for Blue.
regards,
Mike
|
|
|
Post by Mike Powell on Oct 26, 2016 11:11:08 GMT -6
montrose, Steve,
The link is to the Black Hills Expedition, is that what Steve is referring to?
Steve, I thought you once posted about some smaller scale, non-military expedition into Montana that included mostly skilled frontiersmen?
please excuse my confusion,
Mike
|
|
|
Post by jodak on Oct 26, 2016 12:51:03 GMT -6
Tubman, Though you're taking us off into larger matters than the minutia of Rounds Per Kill, I like your plan. And I know it will not crush your ego if I say you may not be the first guy to think of it (having already admitted I've never had an original thought myself). But to me, your plan accomplishes a lot. Largely as you say, it doesn't further fragment the command, its a lot of ground over which the 7th's weapons can be well employed, the rear elements can easily stumble upon the main show, it gets away from this nonsense of riding around the circumference while the enemy works along the radials and, not least of all, if things drag on into Monday and Tuesday you've got water nearby. The only question I have is does it "fix" the Native Americans? If it does then the headlines may read "Custer's Wise Actions Set Stage For Great Victory In Montana". But others on the board are better placed to critique your proposal. At the very least I think it could avoid the immediate disaster. regards, Mike I think that, as with everything, we need to be careful in our analysis of Custer's actions to separate what he knew or thought at the time from what the reality may have been. As to the question of whether the optimal course of action would have been to take the entire command into the valley, Custer knew that Terry/Gibbon were approaching from the North and projected to arrive only a day later. He would therefore have to assume that, if he attacked in the valley and even if he couldn't fix the Indians in place, they would flee down the valley directly into the arms of the other force. However, that would likely not have happened, as the Indians were well aware of the other force and would have therefore probably scattered East and West as soon as they escaped the immediate threat, but Custer did not know that. On the other hand, he also did not know whether Terry/Gibbon were on schedule or if they had been delayed in some way, so that may have caused him to doubt the utility of driving the Indians down the valley and caused him to take the course of action that he did instead.
This is a document written shortly after the Civil War that addresses the question of casualty rates and specifically mentions those at Gettysburg (See document). I have some other interesting documents along the same lines but can't seem to find where I filed them just now. I'll keep looking and link them if I find them.
|
|
|
Post by AZ Ranger on Oct 26, 2016 12:54:26 GMT -6
Steve, I'm not familiar withe "1874 Expedition". I know you've mentioned it before and I'd like to learn something about it. Is there a book or articles? I don't know what would have happened if Crazy Horse had been shot down in front of his men but something would have. And I think that would depend on the circumstances involved. If Crazy Horse were killed while leading an opportunistic attack aimed principally at stealing horses it would be one thing to his companions. If he were killed in a large scale fight put up in defense of the lives of their families, every bit of property they owned and, in fact, in defense of their entire roaming way of life, then his death would be another thing to them. In other words: some days it's bad medicine, some days you've got bigger things on your mind. George Custer did make a mistake, he thought their inclination would be to run. He decided to take a dip on the beach while the tsunami siren was blowing. At that point it didn't matter if he could swim like his Aunt Mary or Michael Phelps. Regards, Mike There are two books the first and older is The 1874 Invasion of Montana A Prelude to the Custer Disaster by Don Weibert. The second a recent release is Sitting Bull, Crazy Horse, Gold, And Guns The 1874 Yellowstone Wagon Road and Prospecting Expedition and the Battle of Lodge Grass Creek by Col. French L. Maclean U.S. RET. Regards Steve
|
|
|
Post by Mike Powell on Oct 26, 2016 21:20:40 GMT -6
Steve,
Thanks for the info. The Wiebert book looks pretty interesting and like it may be a nice package of maps and illustrations as well. It's pricey by my standards at $91 on Amazon.
The Maclean book's about a third the price. I see the author has published a lot on a wide range, Montana to the Third Reich. I need to see if my library might have something by him so I can get a flavor.
Do you have an opinion between the two books?
Regards,
Mike
|
|
|
Post by tubman13 on Oct 27, 2016 4:58:50 GMT -6
Mike, I have read MacLean, well researched, well presented material. I have just ordered this new work, due to my past experience with 2 of his other works. The Wieberts lived adjacent to the battlefield and have done good work as I understand it. Steve has gotten to know a number of folks who knew the Wieberts, and respected them as people and researchers. I think Steve has more than one of Wieberts works. A thumbnail sketch of Don, after he passed. www.chazmatic.com/custer/don.html
|
|
|
Post by AZ Ranger on Oct 27, 2016 6:59:57 GMT -6
Working my way through Maclean. I like them both. Maclean does not try to rewrite Weibert and he references it . Maclean gives bios on the member of the expedition. Myself I prefer Weibert because I like the details of the fights. I do the books are complementary to each other. Maclean fills in more details on the background material and the individuals. Here is a direct link to Penny Weibert and the sale of the books. www.chazmatic.com/custer/buy.htmlPenny has be in the battlefield area in recent times associated with some TV program. I have several of the Weibert books. The 7th Ranch where we stay was bought from Henry and the Watts live in the house. I find all of these people associated by living in area as honest even if we don't always agree. So to the extent that I have been influenced by Gordie, Henry & Don, and Chip I admit that as a source of potential bias. They have not changed my opinion on Benteen and Reno but I know where they are coming from. My interest started with SFRC and led to reading Don's book. He talks about leaving his house on the ranch and going to one of the sites in SFRC. I am looking for a connection between Custer and Herendeen and the potential for Indians in SFRC. Also since it is an Indian travel corridor it would need to be blocked. I think the direction Benteen took and turning after a look down SFRC is consistent with sending 3 companies to pitch into anything. Anyone running across conversations between Custer and Herendeen please let me know. Thanks AZ Ranger
|
|
|
Post by Mike Powell on Oct 27, 2016 10:26:01 GMT -6
Steve and Tubman,
Thanks to both of you. I have "The 1874 Invasion of Montana" on the way via the link provided. MacLean goes on a short list.
Regards,
Mike
|
|