|
|
Post by joewiggs on May 22, 2011 17:15:34 GMT -5
Thank you both for your support as I count your opinions very highly. I know I, at times, get excessive with my negativity concerning Reno and i wish it were not so. After all, I was not there and am not in a position to excessively chastise participant of the battle;Indian or White.
Let me explain the why I find Reno's actions so reprehensible: He lied! Over and over again he painted a tarnish picture at the Inquiry that has done so much to represent Custer as the "Idiot" of that century. Custer had no plans, there was no firing to signify Custer's engagement, the ridiculous scramble to the rear was designated as a "charge", Wallace perjured himself when he stated that he was at Reno's side the entire time, he received no orders, etc, etc., etc.
Anyone who cares to read Reno's original report a short time after the battle will be shocked when compared to his testimony at court. The difference is absolutely phenomenal!
I will only address one of my above position at this time do to a lack of time.
In his original report, while leading his troops toward the southern portion of the village he saw, "the very ground grow Indians" (para-phase) and that his experience in Indian warfare made him realize that a "trap" was being set. For that reason he ordered his men into a line of scrimmage.
What Reno was, apparently not aware of, Lt. Varnum and several scouts were on Reno's left flank, slightly ahead. Varnum later wrote that the Indians in his front were fleeing, running away (north) from the command when they suddenly stopped, turned around and came toward Varnum and company.
Varnum immediately looked to his rear, sensing that something had occurred that resulted in a significant change in tactics. He observed Reno and company reining up to skirmish! A military unit that has the foe on the run does not give up the initiative unless circumstances demand it.
Obviously Reno stopped because he was simple un-nerved, confused, or physically ill? The Indians were not coming toward his command in force until after he halted as attested to by Lt. Varnum.
Just one vicious lie that precedes many more form the infamous Reno. The after math of the battle, many died, helped to exonerated Reno's action when many wondered, "what else could he do?" What was not realized by the people was that
THE HORDES OF INDIANS THAT EVENTUALLY AMASSED TO FACE RENO DID NOT OCCUR UNTIL HOURS AFTER THE BATTLE STARTED!
Had he only held his position in the timber for twenty minutes more Benteen would have found him and things would certainly have been different! I will address others at a later time.
|
|
|
|
Post by whitebull on May 22, 2011 18:15:20 GMT -5
Well J.W., if what you say is true then you done give me food for thought. Why would a calvary charge stop when the Injuns are running away? Never heard this stuff before but I'll check it out and get back to you!
|
|
|
|
Post by tbw on May 22, 2011 20:55:24 GMT -5
Joe, I wont say what you're saying here is wrong as it can't be in some cases proven, and in other cases where evidence exists, there's just as much for what you say as there is against.
Consider this:
There was about 5 men each from A & M company's left at the PRD, and 16 left from G company. The likely reason, although not the sole reason was that they didn't have horses. Those 16 from G company are known to have had no horses, its only A & M company's that aren't known for sure.
There was an additional (at least) 6 men from each company with the pack train as was so assigned by Custer. There may have been more from each company originally assigned to the pack train and its more than likely that there were.
So origionally This is what each company had when the left Ft. A. Lincoln:
A = 49
G = 56
M = 59
Typically 60 enlisted men was the average size for a full strength company. These numbers reflect the approximate total of men those companies could have fielded the day Reno was ordered to attack. After they were ordered to stay at the PRD and the pack train, this is what they actually had when Reno was ordered to attack the village.
A = 35
G = 31
M = 45
Realistically Reno had only enough men to field what could be classified as 2 full company's. Had he been able to retain all those men under his command he would have had an effective strength of 164 men instead of the 110 or so he had at the time. The difference? As it stood with what he went into battle with only 84 would be able to man the skirmish line. Had he been able to have taken the 164 men, 123 men would have manned that skirmish line.
Everyone always wants Reno to last longer, I'm not sure why, I don't think he had any orders that would have required him to do so, but if he had - had the men he left Ft. Lincoln with, I have no doubt he would have been more able to have fulfilled the request.
The other thing I think everyone seems to forget about, is what happened when they dismounted to fight on foot. All one really needs to do is go to Weir Peak and stand atop it and look towards where Reno's men fought. [But, before you go there,on the side road that goes past the museum and store is, measure off approximately 1/4th of a mile along that road on your odometer, which is 2 & 1/2 tenths. Make sure you have something on the ground that approximately marks your start and ending measurements.] Now go atop weir Peak and look down at that line you measured. That's how long Reno's skirmish line was or was capable of reaching. Now imagine a village at that end that had 300 to 400 warriors in it and a bunch more coming from the other nearby camps that would inflate those numbers to some 5 - 600 warriors. Does anyone in their right mind think that - that skirmish line stood a ghost of a chance, not just with the limited amount I gave, but, in time the whole camp? I don't think there was over 5 - 600 warriors at his position. They really didn't need any more. Now while your standing there atop Weir Peak, ask yourself, just how long would it have taken those warriors to have surrounded and in short order destroyed that skirmish line? The soldiers sacrificed how much land to defend how much land by dismounting into skirmish formation?
Now imagine that you are one of those aliens from another world and you're viewing this from your spacecraft, ya think they wouldn't know who's going to win and whose going to die? If it wasn't so painfully pitiful, I would die laughing at such a sight and probably say something like one of the civilians did, "what fool...." Like I said, the skirmish line virtually died or should have died with the Civil War, it was inappropriate to use it against the plains Indians. And they never did learn that, did they?
Many today think that Reno should have fought it out in the timber. Which is more of a modern notion than it was back then, and I might add, one for the old cowboy and Indian tv shows. It wasn't going to happen. Why? Take another look at that skirmish line from Weir Peak and tell anyone "where" in that timber that was to take place and for how long?
The other issue was the "charge" you mentioned. The cavalry charge was quickly becoming as outdated as the skirmish line. And there is no finer place to debate this than the Indian wars and their style of fighting. This charge could only be accomplished with pistols drawn and ablaze as the advanced. If you'd care to read the RCOI you'll find in there a direct question and a cogent response as to the effectiveness of such a pistol charge. Once a cavalryman had expended his 6 rounds he might as well throw the damn thing at the Indian as Reno did, because the Indians aren't just going to stand there and let you load the thing so that you can kill more of them. You'd like that I know, but they wouldn't. And I don't care whether it was 112 men or 164, if they all emptied their pistols, what then? Another darn old skirmish line in the middle of the Indians home camp? I don't think so, that's not where I'd like to get caught with an empty pistol. You might try it, but I'd bet you wouldn't make it out without some missing hairs or at least some standing on end.
The other thing was range. The effective range of the Cavalry pistols was about 70 to 80 yards. Now you might know the range better than I of a Bow and Arrow, but from what I've heard they could effectively fire those longer than the length of a football field. The Henry's and Winchester's had an effective range of around 200 yards. That would mean that they would have had to have charged over the length of a football field, through Indian fire, before they could effectively hit the broad side of a barn. AND, do it on a moving horse to boot.
|
|
|
|
Post by joewiggs on May 24, 2011 17:00:34 GMT -5
Joe, I wont say what you're saying here is wrong as it can't be in some cases proven, and in other cases where evidence exists, there's just as much for what you say as there is against. Consider this: There was about 5 men each from A & M company's left at the PRD, and 16 left from G company. The likely reason, although not the sole reason was that they didn't have horses. Those 16 from G company are known to have had no horses, its only A & M company's that aren't known for sure. There was an additional (at least) 6 men from each company with the pack train as was so assigned by Custer. There may have been more from each company originally assigned to the pack train and its more than likely that there were. So origionally This is what each company had when the left Ft. A. Lincoln: A = 49 G = 56 M = 59 Typically 60 enlisted men was the average size for a full strength company. These numbers reflect the approximate total of men those companies could have fielded the day Reno was ordered to attack. After they were ordered to stay at the PRD and the pack train, this is what they actually had when Reno was ordered to attack the village. A = 35 G = 31 M = 45 You are quite right my dear friend, it is genuinely impossible to prove many of the elements of this battle. But, it sure is fun to speculated ;D! My basic premise is that Reno was an acute liar and that he was never ordered to attack the village. If I am able to substantiate these two critical premises than, perhaps, my perspective becomes a reasonable in it's assumption. Now we are all aware that Reno insisted that he was met by an overwhelming hoard of warriors and that the ground was literally growing Indians and he didn't know where the hell Custer was! lets begin with his official report shortly after the battle: "I deployed and with the Ree scouts on my left charged down the valley driving the Indians with great ease for about 2 1/2 miles. I however soon saw that I was being into some trap as they would certainly fight harder and especially as we we nearing their village, which was still standing, besides I could not [/b]see Custer or any other support and at the same time the very earth seemed to grow Indians."Reno Court of Inquiry (Graham)P277-278 At the subsequent Reno Inquiry he testified thus: The ravine I saw was 8 or 900 yards hundred yards in front of me...I said to myself I could not successfully make an offensive charge their numbers had thrown me on the defensive." Vanishing Victory (Liddick) p.62 Graham Reno Court 501 I now ask an impotant question in understand Reno at this point. With all the dust stirred up by fifty or so warriors who shortly preceded Reno and the additional dust kicked up by an alleged hundreds of warriors rushing toward Reno, how did he manage to see a ravine 8 to 900 yards away? Reno couldn't have seen anywhere near a half mile down the valley to recognize a "ravine" or any other topographical terrain He later corrected his earlier his earlier testimony under cross examination and said: 'It was afterward developed that if I had gone down two or three hundred yards further, I should have thrown my command in a ditch.'"Reno further acknowledged to the Recorder that he 'knew nothing about the topography of the country,'and that he didn't make an examination of the 'ravine' until after the battle when he 'crossed it in tow or three places...I think.' Graham Reno Court P127 This is the same man who stated in an authorized report that "Indians began to grow out of the very ground." In addition, Varum was riding 75 yards ahead of Reno and stated it was all open prairie and that but afterward he too was told about the ravines. Regarding the count of Reno's manpower I offer the following: "Of the 140 officer and men , 35 were killed and 11 wounded, for a casualty rate of 33% Of the 21 scouts, five were killed and two wounded, for the same casualty rate." Gray p295 "Reno rode ahead of his 145 man command, organized into three companies." To Hell with Honor (167) We got a humongous tornado heading our way so I'll continue later. Pray for us! . [/quote] |
|
|
|
Post by tbw on May 25, 2011 9:17:14 GMT -5
I hope you & your family are okay Joe, please let us know asap.
Not much time here, but I see I've got my work cut out for me. And a few post to answer. I will do when I can. For now, I'm off to see the wizard... ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by joewiggs on May 28, 2011 16:21:58 GMT -5
Thanks, we spent a few tense hours in the cellar but we're o.k.
Just a bit of additional Indian testimony regarding the "size" of the village. However, before I begin let me explain my apparent fixation with the size of the village.
For many years Custer has been labeled as somewhat foolish for attacking the village the size of Manhattan and, so he would have been if it were true; it was not. The village was less than half the size reported by the survivors. Ergo, Custer was not as foolish as he has been portrayed.
Some would counter that "even so" the village was to large to confront. I would say to these folk that had Custer not attacked he would have probably faced a court martial,without a doubt.
How about the utterly reliable, "well he should not have divided his forces." I agree, he should not have done so. But "WE" thanks to hindsight have the advantage of knowing that the Indians were going to stand, Custer and every member of his command, General Sheridan, and General Sherman were completely convinced that the Indians would "scatter."
Conversely, had the village scattered and escaped, Custer would have been held accountable and,once again, would have, possibly faced censure of some type. Caught between a rock and a hard place, huh?
The following was reported by Kate Bighead:
"All the lodges in the six camp circles were taken down as soon as the dead warriors were taken there. New camp spots were chosen, all of them back from the river and down the valley below the first location; The Indian regular custom was to move the camp right away when any death occurred among the people in the camp."
Understandably, Gibbon from the north and Reno from the south understood the village debris and perishables left behind would have marked the boundary on one village without realizing that the camp had been moved.
What is not understandable, to me, is that the camp felt comfortable enough to make this move with out fearing the over 300 soldiers sitting on a hill for two days.
|
|
|
|
Post by tbw on May 28, 2011 18:09:38 GMT -5
Thanks, we spent a few tense hours in the cellar but we're o.k.
Glad to hear it. Well, not about the tense hours, but that you're all okay.
Just a bit of additional Indian testimony regarding the size of the village. However, before I begin let me explain my apparent fixation with the size of the village.
For many years Custer has been labeled as somewhat foolish for attacking the village the size of Manhattan and, so he would have been if it were true; it was not. The village was less than half the size reported by the survivors. Ergo, Custer was not as foolish as he has been portrayed.
Some would counter that even so the village was to large to confront. I would say to these folk that had Custer not attacked he would have probably faced a court martial,without a doubt.
This village size is comparable to Michno's, and I'm not sure of his numbers or of his research on this. I have criticized Michno before and have presented a fairly good response to an article he wrote for the Wild West Magazine a few years back. He seems a bit to jaded to see the truth of the matter for me, but I think it's good to see whether or not that work could stand a good test pitted against soldier testimony and statements or for that matter the Indians statements that were not reviewed or considered by him.
How about the utterly reliable, well he should not have divided his forces. I agree, he should not have done so. But WE thanks to hindsight have the advantage of knowing that the Indians were going to stand, Custer and every member of his command, General Sheridan, and General Sherman were completely convinced that the Indians would scatter
Conversely, had the village scattered and escaped, Custer would have been held accountable and,once again, would have, possibly faced censure of some type. Caught between a rock and a hard place, huh?
I'm not sure about him dividing his forces. I think that would depend upon what he thought he was attacking and not so much on our hindsight observations. And quite frankly, whatever that was, as has been said before, it didn't seem to phase him as he kept moving on downstream further away from his support base.
The following was reported by Kate Bighead:
All the lodges in the six camp circles were taken down as soon as the dead warriors were taken there. New camp spots were chosen, all of them back from the river and down the valley below the first location; The Indian regular custom was to move the camp right away when any death occurred among the people in the camp.
Understandably, Gibbon from the north and Reno from the south understood the village debris and perishables left behind would have marked the boundary on one village without realizing that the camp had been moved.
What is not understandable, to me, is that the camp felt comfortable enough to make this move with out fearing the over 300 soldiers sitting on a hill for two days.
If this was used by Michno, or not, as an excuse to label the village size smaller than what was originally forecast by the troopers, then I think the troopers would have reported this. I'm not sure if they all moved or not because there was a discussion on trying to send out a courier and that courier didn't want to go. In reality Reno and his men on the hill were under a state of siege and quite possibly surrounded day and night. Also if any part of that village had moved, I'm not convinced Reno or his med could have or even would have detected that move or the difference once daylight set in, not from Reno Hill anyway. And if the Indians did move, why then didn't Reno or his men ever report it as an empty village? I'm not saying some didn't do as KB said, some probably did, just how many, I think is yet to be determined and is probably why there is some confusion over this issue.
|
|
|
|
Post by tbw on May 29, 2011 14:17:01 GMT -5
My theory is that the troopers were not able to report an issue that they were not aware of. As both units approached each other from different directions the only physical evidence available to them was the debris of non-essentials left behind which covered an area approximately 3 miles by one mile.
The trooper's ability to discern the movement was hampered for several reasons. Indian skirmishers which surrounded their position wrecked havoc. It is also critical to remember that the ability to see distances were hampered by vast quantities of dry dust which was consistently kicked into the air upon any and all
movements on these hot and arid two days
Finally, Reno's men could not see the full extend of the village while on the valley floor. When they reached Reno Hill they could get a glimpse of the northern end that ,however, was covered by heavy dust hanging in the bottom land which hampered vision , particularly across such a distance. Remember, the Indian village did not move "en Mass" until the last day. A movement that was observed by Reno's enclave due to the largeness of the village moving simultaneously as opposed to the earlier sporadic movements which were credited to numerous tipi's which sustained deaths in the family and those who had already moved some distance just prior to the attack.
Numerous Indians (other than Kate) placed the northern boundary of the village across from Medicine trail Coulee. A fact in itself which substantially reduces the historically reported length of the village.
So you're saying, lets see, that half the size of the village should have yielded half the number of warriors and instead of 1200 or 1800 there were only about 600 to 900 there, interesting. How embarrassing for Custer to get caught with his pants down and get rubbed out by such a small number.
What evidence is there that they didn't move all of that village or for that matter any substantial portion of it? I seem to recall the troopers telling something about the picnic party celebrations going on down in the village after dark. They attacked in the civil twilight of the early morning hours. Interesting that they had the time to party, usually all nighters and then attack before the dark had entirely receded. I still think numbers who moved would be better evidence than saying that a substantial part of it moved. I'd buy maybe 40 to 50 downstream about 3 or 4 miles to alert the village to another attack from that direction, KB's little band being one of them. Not sure I'd buy any more than that though.
|
|
|
|
Post by joewiggs on May 29, 2011 17:23:28 GMT -5
No Sir, I'm not saying there were 1800 warriors in the village. I'm saying that Custer anticipated approximately 1,800 warriors. There may have been more or less. The estimations, as you know, run the gambit from the feasible to the ridiculous.
No evidence exist as to the exact portions of the village that were/was moved. Indian testimony reflects movements just prior to the battle and the night of the battle.
Arbitrary movement of tipi's may not appear too incredible when one realizes the ease and quickness these temporary dwellings can be dis-assembled and re-assembled in moments by the women of the tribe. You see, it was their responsibility to perform this task.
One of the most respected students and authors (Robert Utley) of this battle have adjusted his estimations of the village size and contents several times which is reflective of the variance of original perspectives to present day:
Utley: 1960 - 15,000 people and 3,000 warriors;
1973 - Warriors any where between 1,500 and 6,000.
1988 - 1,000 lodges and 2,000 warriors
1993 - 1,800 warriors.
In all his publications he stated that the village "stretched about three miles along the valley." Douglass Scott stated that the camp stretched "3 1/2 miles long."
Works by Gray, Fox, and Marshall with Fox claiming a village about one mile long an approximation in line with the others.
Since some students equate the size of the village with Custer's intelligence or stupidity in attacking it is important that the realization of the size of the village is not settled and still an open issue.
It is a substantiated psychological truism that goes some what like this; the fish that got away is always longer and heavier than the fish that was on the line.
|
|
|
|
Post by tbw on May 29, 2011 19:08:54 GMT -5
No Sir, I'm not saying there were 1800 warriors in the village. I'm saying that Custer anticipated approximately 1,800 warriors. There may have been more or less. The estimations, as you know, run the gambit from the feasible to the ridiculous. No evidence exist as to the exact portions of the village that were/was moved. Indian testimony reflects movements just prior to the battle and the night of the battle. Arbitrary movement of tipi's may not appear too incredible when one realizes the ease and quickness these temporary dwellings can be dis-assembled and re-assembled in moments by the women of the tribe. You see, it was their responsibility to perform this task. One of the most respected students and authors (Robert Utley) of this battle have adjusted his estimations of the village size and contents several times which is reflective of the variance of original perspectives to present day: Utley: 1960 - 15,000 people and 3,000 warriors; 1973 - Warriors any where between 1,500 and 6,000. 1988 - 1,000 lodges and 2,000 warriors 1993 - 1,800 warriors. In all his publications he stated that the village "stretched about three miles along the valley." Douglass Scott stated that the camp stretched "3 1/2 miles long." Works by Gray, Fox, and Marshall with Fox claiming a village about one mile long an approximation in line with the others. Since some students equate the size of the village with Custer's intelligence or stupidity in attacking it is important that the realization of the size of the village is not settled and still an open issue. It is a substantiated psychological truism that goes some what like this; the fish that got away is always longer and heavier than the fish that was on the line. I guess it would depend on which fish was which and whether that fish or another then swallowed the bait, hook, line and sinker.  As a side note to myself, I haven't fished in years, and don't intend to start now. www.youtube.com/watch?v=TG8SN-Eci3U&feature=related"Christmas 1915" 1915 on Christmas Day On western front the guns all died away And laying in the mud on bags of sand We heard the German sing from no man's land He tenor voice so pure and true The words were strange but every note we knew Soaring ore the the living dead and dammed The German sang of peace from no man's land They left their trenches and we left ours Beneath tin hats the smiles bloomed like wild flowers With photos cigarettes and bottles of wine We bult a soldier's truce on the front line Their singer was a lad of 21 We begged another song before the dawn And sitting in the mud and blood and fear He sang again the song all longed to hear Silent night, no cannons roar A king is born of peace for evermore All's calm, all's bright All brothers hand in hand In 19 and 15 in no man's land And in the morning sll guns boomed in the rain And we killed them and they killed us again At night they charged we fought them hand in hand And i killed the boy that sang in no man's land Silent night no cannons roar A king is born of peace for evermore All's calm, all's bright All brothers hand in hand And that young soldier sings And the song of peace still rings Though the captains and all the kings Built no man's land Sleep in heavenly peace |
|
|
|
Post by whitebull on Jun 1, 2011 19:42:05 GMT -5
Beautiful, thank you!  |
|
|
|
Post by tbw on Jun 1, 2011 21:00:34 GMT -5
Beautiful, thank you! You're quite welcome. I thought it appropriate for memorial day, even though it was a Christmas song. The thing about it, this was actually a true event that really happened in WW 1. The photo's are from a French movie called Joyeux Noël (silent night, Stille Nacht in German). This movie is about that same Christmas event depicting a Xmas truce in 1914 (not 1915 for accuracy's sake, not that it matters). www.youtube.com/watch?v=oUb8ySdERKs |
|
|
|
Post by joewiggs on Jun 2, 2011 17:44:00 GMT -5
This singer has a voice of an angel!. Absolutely beautiful. Thank you for this gift!
|
|
|
|
Post by tbw on Jun 3, 2011 8:47:03 GMT -5
This singer has a voice of an angel!. Absolutely beautiful. Thank you for this gift! Yup. That same singer, same song is here... www.youtube.com/watch?v=pLkr_WYvHec&feature=relatedThere is a much better translation here than the other one. For example the first one put Jesus where Christ should have been, because she is singing Christ in German at that point. A few other minor translations are also corrected by this one. Although to see the word prompt you have to X out of that stupid ad covering the viewer. |
|
|
|
Post by whitebull on Jun 3, 2011 10:11:48 GMT -5
Both songs are so well done and a joy to listen to. Thanks again!
|
|
