|
|
Post by whitebull on Jun 23, 2012 10:17:44 GMT -5
None taken. I understand your position and Reno made himself a easy target when he left the timber the way he did!
|
|
|
|
Post by joewiggs on Aug 4, 2012 20:14:09 GMT -5
The fundamental error Reno committed, I believe, is loosing control of his men by turning his back. Unlike the warriors who are individualistic fighters of tremendous courage (particularly when families are involved) they don't particularly need leadership to win a battle;soldiers do!
Born hunters raised to survive against all obstacles, Indian warriors intuitively seek out and penetrate the weaknesses of the enemy and retreat from his strengths.
The American military personnel are the opposite. The soldier is trained, has it beaten into him, to follow instructions by the commander who possess a deep knowledge of the intricacies of battle.
The soldier depends upon the leader to guide him toward victory and success. There are exceptions to every rule as Autie Murphy and Alvin York displayed during World War II and World War I but, they were the exceptions.
When Reno succumbed to his own, personal fears his men absorbed that fear like a sponge in a dish of water. It truly became a every man for himself situation. Reno was solely responsible for this!
|
|
|
|
Post by strange on Aug 13, 2012 11:06:48 GMT -5
The fundamental error Reno committed, I believe, is loosing control of his men by turning his back. Unlike the warriors who are individualistic fighters of tremendous courage (particularly when families are involved) they don't particularly need leadership to win a battle;soldiers do! Born hunters raised to survive against all obstacles, Indian warriors intuitively seek out and penetrate the weaknesses of the enemy and retreat from his strengths. The American military personnel are the opposite. The soldier is trained, has it beaten into him, to follow instructions by the commander who possess a deep knowledge of the intricacies of battle. The soldier depends upon the leader to guide him toward victory and success. There are exceptions to every rule as Autie Murphy and Alvin York displayed during World War II and World War I but, they were the exceptions. When Reno succumbed to his own, personal fears his men absorbed that fear like a sponge in a dish of water. It truly became a every man for himself situation. Reno was solely responsible for this! Reno would have done well by being less individualistic. He was basically altering the plans and felt he was well within his rights to do so given his officer clout. The battle would have been much better if he had just done as he was told. Of coarse, then I'm conflicted by this kind of thinking because I also adore Fetterman yet I'm almost inclined to take Carrington's side given that I believe in the rule of doing exactly what your commander tells you. But since Carrington lied or misrepresented a great number of things, I'm inclined to feel happy with still being on Fetterman's side... especially since a friend has also mentioned that Carrington apparently had Fetterman running more things than he was. Thus its a tricky subject. Then the next guy is Chivington at Glorietta Passe. He was supposed to support Slough but instead found the confederate supply train and very successfully destroyed it, forcing the rebels back to Texas. The difference between Reno and Chivington is that Chivington altered a plan so that he could maybe do one step better than what he was ordered to do whereas Reno altered a plan so that he would do one step less. If you alter a plan, you better get results or else you're failing the mission. Strange |
|
|
|
Post by whitebull on Sept 7, 2012 20:06:06 GMT -5
Strange, I see where you are coming from! Everything you have posted rings true. The only thing I do not understand is why where the soldiers so confident, from the very beginning, that they could whip any amount of Indians they had to face no matter the circumstances?
Wasn't it arrogance that always got them in trouble?
|
|
|
|
Post by strange on Sept 10, 2012 16:48:00 GMT -5
Strange, I see where you are coming from! Everything you have posted rings true. The only thing I do not understand is why where the soldiers so confident, from the very beginning, that they could whip any amount of Indians they had to face no matter the circumstances? Wasn't it arrogance that always got them in trouble? There's several factors a to enforce them on that belief. 1. Range of firearms. If you keep the enemy at a certain distance, the soldier rifles are more powerful. Its like a giant holding a midget at arms length with a hand on its forehead. If you fight at a distance, the soldier arms will be longer than the Indian. But Custer kinda didn't want to fight from a distance, which brings us to... 2. The element of surprise. I'm gonna sound like Richard Mulligan, but it does mean so very much. Numbers don't mean anything if everyone is asleep or unprepared. Reno had the best opportunity to surprise the indians but he did not folow his orders and so it was not fully exploited. There above you have two different ways of taking on innumerable enemies. War is much more complicated than just assuming the bigger opponent will always prevail. Strange |
|
|
|
Post by joewiggs on Oct 5, 2012 20:00:57 GMT -5
Absolutely eloquent! Could not have been expressed better. The complexity of war, which encompasses a myriad of factors to innumerable to be addressed, is so profound that the establishment of what actually occurred is minuscule at best and, hopeless at its worst without the report of an eye witness. Even then, the personal biases of the reporter can do much harm toward the resurrection of "truth."
However, meeting and exchanging thoughts with the extraordinary and dedicated members of this forum is a blessed reward in it's self.
|
|
|
|
Post by joewiggs on Oct 12, 2012 19:36:03 GMT -5
Strange, I see where you are coming from! Everything you have posted rings true. The only thing I do not understand is why where the soldiers so confident, from the very beginning, that they could whip any amount of Indians they had to face no matter the circumstances? Wasn't it arrogance that always got them in trouble? There's several factors a to enforce them on that belief. 1. Range of firearms. If you keep the enemy at a certain distance, the soldier rifles are more powerful. Its like a giant holding a midget at arms length with a hand on its forehead. If you fight at a distance, the soldier arms will be longer than the Indian. But Custer kinda didn't want to fight from a distance, which brings us to... 2. The element of surprise. I'm gonna sound like Richard Mulligan, but it does mean so very much. Numbers don't mean anything if everyone is asleep or unprepared. Reno had the best opportunity to surprise the indians but he did not folow his orders and so it was not fully exploited. There above you have two different ways of taking on innumerable enemies. War is much more complicated than just assuming the bigger opponent will always prevail. Strange Dr. Strange, I don't know how I missed this but, it belongs in the "Book of War" as pure Gospel! |
|
|
|
Post by joewiggs on Nov 2, 2012 9:16:34 GMT -5
That Indians were inherently savage in battle simple because of their race. That they committed horrors that no white man would ever lower himself to do:
"At dawn on November 29, 1864, Chivington led 600 troops of the 3rd. Colorado Cavalry in an attack on Black kettle's unsuspecting village at Sand Creek. His order:
"Kill and scalp all, big and little. Nits make lice."
In a deliberate and indiscriminate slaughter, the militia killed, mutilated, and scalped at least 150 Cheyenne - two thirds of them women and children - then burned the village and its contents to the ground and captured several hundred ponies.
(I'll briefly refer to the soldiers who, while laughingly and waging bets, competed in a shooting match designed to knock off frightened papooses as they ran about "helter skelter" screaming and crying for their dead parents.)
Unfortunately for Custer and his men, many of the Cheyenne's who were slaughtered had relatives at the camp at the Little Big Horn!
|
|
|
|
Post by tbw on Nov 22, 2012 22:32:00 GMT -5
The fundamental error Reno committed, I believe, is loosing control of his men by turning his back. Unlike the warriors who are individualistic fighters of tremendous courage (particularly when families are involved) they don't particularly need leadership to win a battle;soldiers do! Born hunters raised to survive against all obstacles, Indian warriors intuitively seek out and penetrate the weaknesses of the enemy and retreat from his strengths. The American military personnel are the opposite. The soldier is trained, has it beaten into him, to follow instructions by the commander who possess a deep knowledge of the intricacies of battle. The soldier depends upon the leader to guide him toward victory and success. There are exceptions to every rule as Autie Murphy and Alvin York displayed during World War II and World War I but, they were the exceptions. When Reno succumbed to his own, personal fears his men absorbed that fear like a sponge in a dish of water. It truly became a every man for himself situation. Reno was solely responsible for this! Reno would have done well by being less individualistic. He was basically altering the plans and felt he was well within his rights to do so given his officer clout. The battle would have been much better if he had just done as he was told. Of coarse, then I'm conflicted by this kind of thinking because I also adore Fetterman yet I'm almost inclined to take Carrington's side given that I believe in the rule of doing exactly what your commander tells you. But since Carrington lied or misrepresented a great number of things, I'm inclined to feel happy with still being on Fetterman's side... especially since a friend has also mentioned that Carrington apparently had Fetterman running more things than he was. Thus its a tricky subject. Then the next guy is Chivington at Glorietta Passe. He was supposed to support Slough but instead found the confederate supply train and very successfully destroyed it, forcing the rebels back to Texas. The difference between Reno and Chivington is that Chivington altered a plan so that he could maybe do one step better than what he was ordered to do whereas Reno altered a plan so that he would do one step less. If you alter a plan, you better get results or else you're failing the mission. Strange I've been to Glorietta Pass. And its not what you would expect. I'm not sure how anyone could fight on that ground or for that matter for it. That aside... Do you think Reno failed because he didn't charge down upon the 40 to 50 Indians running from him? Or do you think he failed for something else? |
|
|
|
Post by joewiggs on Dec 29, 2012 19:44:02 GMT -5
Pardon me for this much belated inquiry but, you guys have peaked my interest in "Glorietta Pass." Prior to this very night, I have never heard of this battle ground. I would love to hear more about it when you get the chance!
|
|
|
|
Post by tbw on Dec 30, 2012 7:03:40 GMT -5
Pardon me for this much belated inquiry but, you guys have peaked my interest in "Glorietta Pass." Prior to this very night, I have never heard of this battle ground. I would love to hear more about it when you get the chance! Went there a number of years ago, want to say about 7 - 8 years ago, and in addition, actually had been through there when me and my wife were first married, not telling the years there; and wasn't interested in, well I was, but, well, you know, so I didn't pay much attention to it at the time. Its not very far from Santa Fe, in fact you could fool me it was closer than a stones throw SE of it. We stayed at a friends home the last time we were through there, which was in Pecos. So for us to get to Santa Fe we had to go right back through Glorieta Pass every day and again when we Returned to Pecos. Here is some good info on it on the net. www.nps.gov/peco/historyculture/copy-of-battleofglorietta.htmwww.glorietapass.org/www.civilwaralbum.com/misc/glorieta1.htm@ glorietapass.org when you view the photos. On page 2 bottom left you'll see a road cutting through the battlefield. This was the road we took every day to get to the Interstate and on to Santa Fe. @ civilwaralbum.com When you click on the Glorieta battlefield link at the top, you'll see that road again. |
|
|
|
Post by joewiggs on May 27, 2013 15:28:45 GMT -5
Another myth; Custer was responsible for the lost.
"In the most famous instance of racist braggadocio, Captain William Fetterman, who arrived at Fort McKearney in 1866 with no frontier experience, expressed the opinion that a 'single company of regulars could whip a thousand Indians, and that a full regiment....could whip the entire array of hostile tribes.'
Francis Carrington, who heard the captain's comment, said that it was 'warmly seconded by Captain Brown and Lt. Grummond,' her first husband.'
General Sherman expressed his bafflement: 'I do not understand how the massacre of Colonel Fetterman's party could have been so complete.'
The government decided to blame the Post Commander who had done his best to prevent the entire mess.
The blindness and inability to see reality and the willingness to blame others for battle disasters were an integral part of the Military's battle plans:send men into battle who are simple not prepared for aborigine, guerrilla type tactics then select a scapegoat to place the blame of failure upon..
Would it not have made more sense to train the soldiers on how the enemy (Indians) utilized specific tactics? Of Course!! It did not occur because the contempt for the Indians,by the command staff, rendered the idea to be ridiculous and not worthy of consideration.
Nothing would change the minds of the commanders, ever the lost of life suffered by the Fetterman fiasco!
|
|
|
|
Post by tbw on May 27, 2013 21:23:37 GMT -5
A few people try to blame Custer because he was the commander on that expedition. The problem with this, and even others to blame is that everything we know, or think we know about this battle was fubar. Not even the RCOI made things any better. It doesn't provide many answers and it raises more questions than provide clear answers to base anything on.
Part of this problem is that no one knows what happened once Custer arrived on the field where he died. It's all pure speculation backed up by Indian statements that read more like a personal description of their part in a buffalo hunt. This somewhere south of nowhere, and about 10 miles north of somewhere called grass catches fire. And this wasn't their fault. It was the interpreters fault.
Add to this the complete lack of the Government, that political arm with political gains to be made, understanding that times changed, and as that happened so too did the tactics and weapons to fight wars had to change as well. Still, the Secretary of War determined if the troopers were armed with Winchesters or Henry's that they'd waste ammunition. This single factor alone limited the actions and tactics Custer would have to use in his pursuit of the Indians. And he had to think they'd run from such a big Cavalry unit to make that work. It was more wishful thinking than anything reality could have made it. He might as well have asked for one of the Sioux's soothsaying chiefs to come and make such wishful admonitions come true. Maybe they'd have just done a rain dance or a ghost dance to indicate to him that when it rains it pours, and well ghost might have sent a chill up his spine that wishing something wouldn't make it come true.
Still how was he suppose to execute any kind of Cavalry charge with the weapons they had on hand? Custer more than anyone knew they'd have to go to ground to fight with those single shot squirrel guns. And he had to have known that if there were more Indians than his men that they'd be flanked in short order... and then what? What happened? He was sent there to do his job, and he evidently was trying to do that with antiquated firearms on foot watching the Indian cavalry on horseback do what he never would have allowed the Confederate Cavalry in the Civil War to do , so go figure.
|
|
|
|
Post by joewiggs on May 28, 2013 9:46:21 GMT -5
This,by far, is the best summation of Custer's battle that I have ever had the pleasure to read. Nothing one might add could improve on this read. Absolutely a great job!  |
|
|
|
Post by tbw on May 28, 2013 10:27:43 GMT -5
Well it seems like what he was doing was trying to scare the crapola out of them before he ever arrived on the ground where they caught him with his pants down.
They didn't scare easy that day. I mean look at it. You've got people saying he went over those huge bluffs to do this, that or something else that lacks the sense a 3 year old wouldn't be caught doing. When in fact, had he done that, what would such a demonstration have been made for?
I mean really, you have 225 troopers up there parading around for what sane reason? To see what Reno was doing? What take the whole smash up there to see that? Hell, he might as well have pulled a Wallace up there and dismounted them all and had all of them throw their kilts up. That surely would have made them run like hell, not wanting any part of that.
Yet what should he have observed from up there?
That they weren't running from Reno?
That quite a hell of a lot of them were running alright - right back out to the flats where their horses were?
That the big, huge, humongous village was peaceful as a lark as Martin described?
That the Indians were showing him their bird?
That with 6 shots in their revolvers was all it was going to take to 'go down, make a crossing, finish up here, as in pronto and go home to our station?
Was it what he didn't see that killed him?
Or was it what he did see and refused to believe that killed him?
Why did he allow, no invite his own unit to be duped into a situation that he wouldn't have ever let the confederates do to him in the Civil War? This that he did let the Indians do, and apparently invited it, welcomed it and embraced it unto death?
|
|
