logan
Full Member
Posts: 202
|
Post by logan on Apr 10, 2023 9:18:22 GMT -6
AZ Ranger
I honestly thought this discussion was over after my attempt at responses, but on reading your latest replies I should be able to ‘give it a go’ after rereading them and coming up with hopefully reasonably logical input of my understanding of events, as your comments are similar to those I faced on my other subject’s military history forum, so should be able to supply details of how they played out, either by myself or others who were involved, rather than bypassing them altogether.
Fortunately, Little Bighorn I’ve been using as a comparative study with my main subject for years, along with other comparisons of people and events, that some ‘patterns’ do exist, that means I’ll not be entering discussions completely ‘cold’ and uninformed.
Not that it’ll make any difference, but wish to confirm I’m not a youngster, though not too old either, as have been around best part of 60 years, so do know some stuff, or think I do at least.
Regards
|
|
logan
Full Member
Posts: 202
|
Post by logan on Apr 11, 2023 8:46:53 GMT -6
Weir rode towards the direction Custer was assumed to be, how do you presume that wasn’t the case, was he riding towards nowhere for no reason? One of the things we did in the military is had forward observation points. If Reno hadn't sent anyone to Weir then someone should do it. Weir did not take his company. He stayed on Weir which was an excellent forward observation location. Regards AZ Ranger
|
|
logan
Full Member
Posts: 202
|
Post by logan on Apr 11, 2023 8:49:25 GMT -6
All militaries do that, but there is getting to a good point to observe (where Custer was) followed by locating (Custer) followed by doing something, anything that isn’t just watching
|
|
logan
Full Member
Posts: 202
|
Post by logan on Apr 11, 2023 8:50:04 GMT -6
Using their men to draw off some of the warriors attacking Custer was their duty, either to lead the warriors away or into a line of fire, it was the only tactic left to them to try and prevent the annihilation of Custer’s Command that was isolated. Why just observe and not do ? They were participants not passive spectators, to watch a defeat take place without doing anything would’ve been unthinkable...unless you consider self-preservation worth the cost of a large section of your force along with your senior commander abandoned to their fate in front of your eyes Their duty is the mission. Saving Custer was never the mission. You can find that discussion with Clair, a West Point graduate, and a cavalry member. What would make you think that five companies of cavalry could not defend themselves if they went on defense?
Regards
AZ Ranger
|
|
logan
Full Member
Posts: 202
|
Post by logan on Apr 11, 2023 8:59:28 GMT -6
Their duty is the whole mission, it wasn’t about saving Custer it was about supporting him.
It’s interesting that you mention 5 companies could defend themselves, when stating that Custer should’ve kept the 12 companies together, the latter giving the impression that any less couldn’t handle the Indians, especially half or even less that Custer had, plus defence needs a chosen ground to fight when resorting to making a stand, not to be run to ground and surrounded.
Custer wished in my opinion to gain the initiative and hold on to it, as the moment he went on the defence, dismounting to fight he lost mobility, whereas the mounted and fleet of foot warriors could utilise the terrain to their advantage, attacking a static enemy, the latter likely used to remaining mounted to get in and out of action when required, not be cut off.
If Custer had went into the defence, it was in all likelihood to be temporary until supported, which wasn’t forthcoming any time soon...or ever
|
|
logan
Full Member
Posts: 202
|
Post by logan on Apr 11, 2023 9:00:50 GMT -6
Why judge Custer's companies deployment, mutual support, fields of fire and destruction when he was fully engaged, as it is only a deflection away from Reno's panic and rout with zero organised retreat. Then of course Benteen, who turned back under zero pressure from any large force of warriors. The Bring Packs order is dragged out on every occasion, as somehow being the cause of all the confusion, a written order, but any additional verbal orders aren't written down, so lost to history In my career, we do debriefings and look at what worked and what didn't. We then use that to improve decision-making. In investigations, we know from experience and protocol what should occur. In the military, we use primary, alternate, contingency, and emergency in planning. Sometimes it may only be in your head, and Custer was great at it. So if you understand this, if Custer chose to go on defense, the battlescape would look different. Instead, we see the last part of PACE, which is emergency. Custer did not pick the final locations. The Indians chose them. He had to react in the emergency and fight to the end. Benteen did exactly what Custer ordered, and the only indecision was whether Gibson was looking into the correct valley. Benteen would have done better without the note. The maximum speed of the ammunition mules was eight mph, and the rest of the pack train was slower. So do you think Custer wanted Benteen to move at any time, no faster than eight mph? Regard AZ Ranger
|
|
logan
Full Member
Posts: 202
|
Post by logan on Apr 11, 2023 9:13:22 GMT -6
Unfortunately, to go in this direction, comparing modern day military to that of 140 years ago, doesn’t work, as war, weapons and strategy have changed immensely, compared to Cavalry fighting Indians, using outdated manuals more suited to actual more equal opposing armies, not tribes, therefore learning as they go.
It was confusing on my other forum to say the least, when the same people comparing modern military (they were still serving or ex-servicemen) told the non-military members, they could not look at a battlefield from 140 years ago through 21st Century eyes. Kinda contradicting themselves, as no comparisons can be used between modern and yesteryear, military or otherwise to judge events in an entirely different era.
Benteen had no compulsion to do anything from the get go, proof being he rode away, without gaining a full picture of what he was to do, deliberately neglecting to clarify his orders and the full plan of what was expected.
I find it incredible. both he and Reno rode away not knowing exactly the roles they were to play, beyond initial contact, as most officers should/would want the crucial detail of on meeting any Indian force and engaging them....then....what do we do after that ? It’s too random and I don’t buy into Benteen and Reno’s explanations....if you can call them such.
|
|
logan
Full Member
Posts: 202
|
Post by logan on Apr 11, 2023 9:14:15 GMT -6
Historical precedents need to be sought outside the study of a static subject, to get a true comparison, not keeping referring to Maj. Elliott, as it is within the same Indian campaigns. Reno’s Command stopped not at a planned rallying point, but due to exhaustion, unable to go any further, It wasn’t a chosen location, it’s just where they ended up, not a strategic command decision. You are wrong. Reno pointed to a place on the bluffs and they went there. The horses could not have been worn out or they would not have made it up to the bluffs. Have you ever ridden across the river at the retreat crossing and up to the bluffs? That is a hard ride. I have only done it twice with different horses. I formed the opinion from my experience that horses would be blown and in need of recovery on the bluffs.If Custer had kept the 12 companies together can only be used in hindsight, so a null and void ‘what if’. Please Col Bender or Montrose to see that it would primary action and that Custer chose an alternate plain. Montrose states the decision point in Reno Creek is where Custer went wrong. His decisions after that were OK. Just because orders aren’t written down as evidence, doesn’t mean they weren’t given verbally in a fluid situation . That seems standard in combat whats the point?Supporting Custer wasn’t a new mission, it was part of the whole, in the same way Benteen supported Reno. Why support one but not the other, how do you define the difference, is there a military protocol for that, beyond loyalty and duty ? I don't think you understand missions. Reno was second in command in the regiment on that day. Benteen's battalion mission had ended and once he contacted Reno he was under his command.Not all orders are written, not all that is expected of commanders in a combat situation engaging an enemy is written in a manual. As Clair stated in years past. Officers are expected to make the best choice. Montrose modified it to make the best available choice. I’m sure my responses are disliked, but as I feel I have to respond, which I didn’t want to so early, they are my opinions. I think we are here to share opinions. If we learn from others we can also make better-informed opinions.Regards
|
|
logan
Full Member
Posts: 202
|
Post by logan on Apr 11, 2023 9:36:41 GMT -6
I’m not wrong, there is the pointing in a direction that is strategic, or just somewhere that is a high point away from the immediate danger, the horses were exhausted on reaching there after climbing the bluffs, not before as you misunderstand my comment.
My point about verbal orders is in response to you saying you won’t accept fictitious orders, however, if orders are verbal and not written down, they are not fictitious, they are just unrecorded, not that they weren’t given, so can’t be dismissed outright.
I understand missions very well. Reno may have been in command, but with Benteen having not been engaged was of clearer mind to make decisions/suggestions. Benteen used the rank-structure as lame reasoning to do nothing. I’m sure he would’ve noticed quickly, Reno was in no fit state to grasp the situation they now faced. Benteen had fresh eyes and men.
Didn’t Reno also get blood and brains of a shot man blasted into his face unnerving him, plus additionally wandered off to find a lost friend ?
There is a point, I’m sure in either a military manual, or law book, where an officer second in command, has the right to regain the initiative and take over from his superior, if the latter appears to be no longer up to the task, to salvage a dangerous scenario in the face of an enemy, especially when the latter outnumbers your command ?
Not all officers make the best choice, some make no choice at all, but others ‘step into the breach’ like Weir, to at least be seen to try and do their duty when the others, superior or not, fail to think further than their own self-preservation, when they still had a force of men in their command still able to fight.
I learned a great deal on my other forum, but not in the way expected, as members stuck to the myth (and each other) not acknowledging other facts and primary sources, which is still ongoing with the lack of acknowledgement of the discovery of a mostly complete evidence file unseen for 140 years, apparently hoping with not discussing it, it will somehow disappear into the ether, like it was never found at all.
I’m sorely disappointed in just about every enthusiast, author and historian who has followed suit, only one or two non-experts I still respect for their stance and help to gain acceptance to such new evidence, which will always exist and will definitely reappear a future publication presented by someone other than myself or a descendent, so what will they say then, after dismissing it when first appearing ?
I’m hoping I’m still around to witness that interesting moment
|
|
logan
Full Member
Posts: 202
|
Post by logan on Apr 11, 2023 9:45:50 GMT -6
The Indians were the better fighters that day, the same way the Zulus were the better fighters at Isandhlwana in 1879.
However, rather than seen as a Zulu victory, it is presented as a British defeat. I know this sounds like one and the same, but it is far from it.
Majority conclusion, seems to prefer the concept that someone/something must’ve failed in the ranks of the British defenders, rather than accepting the fact, the Zulus had better generalship, an outstanding attack formation (Horns Of The Bull) and gained the initiative from the outset.
Unfortunately, there is a huge problem with my main subject - Zulu War 1879 - there are absolutely zero counter-publications by authors who are actually Zulu themselves, to present the campaign from their perspective, to push back against the overwhelming literature written by authors today who are non-Zulu, who write knowing there will be no opposition from accomplished Zulu authors telling the story from their point of view.
Hope these replies aren’t too trying for you, but meant as genuine thoughts and opinions, however right or wrong they are considered to be by others, but such is the concept of debate/discussion, if we all agreed, we wouldn’t have anything to say.
regards
|
|
Jenny
Full Member
Posts: 200
|
Post by Jenny on Apr 12, 2023 9:37:04 GMT -6
What did Weir so desperately wanted to tell Libbie later? I don't think it was complicated or a big secret, I think he just wanted to admit out loud that he was in love with her. That's all. What else could there have been that no other member of the 7th knew? Weir was half schnockered half, er more than half, of the time, unfortunately, and when you're in a condition like that you say things with much more flair than when you're sober. Whatever Weir had to say to LIbbie she didn't coax it out of him, at least there's no evidence that she did. I was sorry he didn't live longer and was in a better condition. He would have been a fascinating guy to hear from.
J
|
|
Jenny
Full Member
Posts: 200
|
Post by Jenny on Apr 12, 2023 9:40:57 GMT -6
I see no name-calling. it would never occur to me to do so here. If anyone feels my FNC-comment was disturbing to the seriousness of the forum, I apologize, slightly, but not really. I'm done. Noggy Where is Fred when we need him, Noggy?! 😩
|
|
logan
Full Member
Posts: 202
|
Post by logan on Apr 16, 2023 17:38:52 GMT -6
Jenny Undeclared love is a highly unlikely conclusion. Going back to the point the topic might’ve started to go wrong isn’t helpful tbh. Weir is pivotal, do you think the companies advanced to LBH in silence ? No small talk, conversation, discussion about the situation at hand, losing their voices/opinions en route, about both officers and men that Weir likely overheard or was part of, and made note of, like a good officer judging the morale of the men, plus leadership ‘difficulties’ ? To bring the topic down to the teenage ‘concept of love’ and going off on a tangent back to other members’ postings kills a topic. I know...as I’ve seen it used by other means...bringing the steel shutters down, no more posts or opinions. Personally, I really enjoyed my interaction with AZ Ranger, that is what these forums are/should be about. Is this topic finished ? I guess so sadly ! AZ Ranger, your responses were most appreciated. regards
|
|
Jenny
Full Member
Posts: 200
|
Post by Jenny on Apr 18, 2023 9:42:21 GMT -6
It wasn't my intention to kill the topic. Not at all. I do think you have to consider a thing from all angles, though. Like a cop would.
J
|
|
Jenny
Full Member
Posts: 200
|
Post by Jenny on Apr 18, 2023 10:03:19 GMT -6
This officer I find myself keeping coming back to, due to his attempt through his own actions, to ride towards where Custer was fighting, motivating the others the follow, until they had to retreat due to approaching warriors. It is quite sad to learn he was badly affected by the events of Little Bighorn and died not long afterwards quite a broken man Logan - I went back to your initial post, 4 pages ago to reacquaint myself with your original comment. I also found this post about Weir's forward movement by Dark Cloud many moons ago: "I'm not aware that any decision about where they were going to plant themselves had been made until they got to Weir Point, where the decision was an immediate 'not here, back there.' I don't think it correct to assume that Reno and Benteen had decided to dig in at all, much less there when they met up. They were not setting up camp. Again: there were men without horses, probably horses around needing to be caught and returned before the Indians got them, and there were men without any weapons, mounts, or clue that needed to be reintegrated. We don't know what percentage of Reno's men were still cavalry, nor how many were as blown as their horses. My observation is that Weir was off the command structure and in violation of numerous regulations as he had been all day. What was correct in procedure after he rode north was not necessarily what was appropriate. What I greatly admire about Benteen is that he didn't cave to emotion and argue with Reno or Weir, but kept the structure intact and brought Weir in as a functioning gear again. That is my impression - I have no evidence - of what command presence is. Benteen obviously had it, Reno and others did not." Now, I didn't know DCloud but many people not only disagreed with him but hated his guts, so...take his comments with a grain of salt. BUT he was an expert on this topic, so there's that. Fred Wagner said Weir didn't need any emotional help getting to the bottle, not from the battle or anything else. Weir was a drunk and that was that. But since you nor I nor anyone else was there we don't know, and we certainly don't know what big secret he was going to impart to Libbie (other than love 😏) and if he really had something to say, and had at some point said it to someone else after the battle or had written it in letters (as Fred pointed out) we sure as hell would have heard about it by now. Of course you already know all of this. J
|
|