|
|
Post by tbw on Sept 10, 2011 13:10:43 GMT -5
I wonder why Custer didn't lead a patented Civil War charge across ford B. If he was 22 years of age do you think he would of ? Would it work? I don't see anything in Custer's favor there. Not even keeping the regiment together. It might have been happenstance as to what happened to him and his outfit, and probably was. Curley seemed to indicate that as they neared the ford, not saying which as I don't think it really matters, he observed hundreds of mounted Indians coming at them with hundreds more coming up from their rear. These warriors, as they told the story later, said that they had gone out to get their horses and were just returning. What kind of dumb luck was it that Custer happened to be trying to attack downriver at that exact moment in time? From Custer's own letter to the Spencer Arms which indicated that he felt comfortable with that weapon at facing odds against him of 2 to 1, what comfort margin did he feel he needed for the single shot trapdoor carbine? 10 to 1? Apparently so because he did divide his forces accordingly and faced at least odd of 5 to 1 and so to did Reno. Even had they had the Spencer his comfort margin with just his own battalion was about 400 to 500 Indians. Curley said that he thought Custer would have to draw off of his attack because of the number of Indians oncoming, and he did. Odd because of Custer's penchant for being where he wasn't expected, and pressing home attacks in the face of huge losses. Or, was it? Both of those CW battles I mentioned, I think, did him little credit. In fact had I been his superior I would have busted him to PLO, sent him home to his dear wifey and told him to let the big boys do the work while he played with his stick horse and guns. |
|
|
|
Post by whitebull on Sept 10, 2011 19:35:25 GMT -5
Who would of won the battle of LBH ? 1. If the Indians had only bows and arrows and Custer with what he had ?(Custer) 2. If the Indians had only bows and arrows,war clubs and Springfields and all Custers men had repeaters and colts.(Custer) 1. The Indians! 2. The Indians! |
|
|
|
Post by whitebull on Sept 10, 2011 19:41:08 GMT -5
I wonder why Custer didn't lead a patented Civil War charge across ford B. If he was 22 years of age do you think he would of ? Would it work? Age had nothing to do with the price of Tea in China. Why cross at the ford when nothing was there? The largest amount of Indians wuz occupied with Reno and the rest were racing south tyrying to get away. |
|
|
|
Post by crazycanuck on Sept 10, 2011 20:12:12 GMT -5
Whitebull aka as Ivory Taurus ,I'm calling bull on Indians running South to Reno to get away (running towards Reno .. your kidding me right ?) . If nothing was at Ford B then that would be a great place to cross. Did you kill Custer and why such a short stay in Canada .. it is a beautiful place ? And if you have never been to China how to you know that age has nothing to do with prices in that country ?
|
|
|
|
Post by crazycanuck on Sept 10, 2011 20:15:58 GMT -5
Now your talking TB(you know this is tuberculosis). Maybe a Cap or BB gun for Custer... no make it a squirt gun... no just a slingshot !
|
|
|
|
Post by tbw on Sept 11, 2011 8:29:12 GMT -5
NO, CC, this isn't what you think it is. It is though a search, and a research for the truth. All I ask of anyone is to take the blinders off and be more receptive of what was true, more-so, than what wasn't even possible.
I think the key to this is the way Custer attacked. I don't think there is a person alive (then, now or in the future) that should credit the man with cowardice. Even his displays during the Civil War demonstrated the way he pursued the enemy with a singular courage & boldness most commanders (excepting Farnsworth) at the time didn't have. Those who support Custer try to bring up his Civil War experience and try to cite that as a reason to trust his action at the LBH. And maybe they are right and just don't know it. But not quite in the way they are trying to portray that action. What isn't realized or usually well researched is exactly what happened at those actions where Custer supposedly gave new meaning to the word glow? At Gettysburg, for instance, if it hadn't been for the prudent dismounting of some of the Cavalry to support Custer's mounted attack, he and all of his men would have been cut to shreds and most likely would have been put to the rout once again without that support. One question. Who ordered those men to dismount and provide that support to Custer's mounted attack?
For years after the battle, it seems, no one could answer why Custer split his force and then had went downstream just to die on a lonely mile square stretch of land not worthy of fighting for. Even today we have die hard looneys who haven't put 1 and 2 together to make 3. Even Reno in his own official report told everyone that he expected Custer (supposedly as part of a greater plan that shouldn't be revealed) to go downstream and in some kind of flanking move hit them there. It wasn't until years later at the COI where he changed his mind and testified contrary to his own official report made 3 years prior. The purpose of such a demonstration? Simple, unified command. Had Custer followed him in, as he reported he fully expected Custer to do, damn liar, Custer and his men would have been with him when they had retreated to Reno HIll and had then met up with Benteen. Benteen was in full agreement with this plan of keeping the regiment together, of course, on both Reno and Benteen's part it was pure unadulterated hindsight postulation and had absolutely nothing to do with the truth about what did happen at that battle. Nice to know what they thought after the battle, that Custer should have kept the regiment together, really? Ya think? What kind of a no brainer was that? But Custer didn't do that did he? What did he do? What was he trying to do? Does anyone give a damn? Or do we prefer to listen to the opines of the two who did know, who didn't tell, and genuinely deflected such reflection each and every time it reared its ugly head at the court proceedings.
Fact. Custer sent Benteen away about a half hour before his own arrival at the LBH river.
Fact. Custer sent Reno away upon arrival at the LBH river (within a mile of it).
Fact. Custer proceeds downstream some 5 to 6 miles where he and his men die on a lonely hill.
I'll ask this again, absent any remarks concerning keeping the regiment together. what was Custer's plan here?
Was Custer reverting to his old Civil War tendency of trying to appear where they wouldn't expect him to be? Was that what his move downstream all about? And, and if it was, how damn foolish would it have been for him to have telegraphed his position by going over the bluffs rather than around them as Godfrey suggested he actually did. In other words, what part would stealth play into those kind of plans? To a Civil War Custer, stealth would have meant everything in that operation, and he would not have gained any semblance of surprise had he not tried. But still we have card carrying court jesters, who today proudly proclaim Custer rode over the bluffy hill and down the cedar laden dale with a hardcore feeling, to the hell with ya all, I can never fail, yet they do. They do because they still don't know Custer. They still think Custer won at Brandy Station instead of the sullied rout he was really noted for. They still think that the dead, dying and wounded Custer left behind at Aldie was perfectly okay. Yet, yet - it wasn't okay at the LBH, was it? Why? Why indeed? And if those mounted troopers, at Gettysburg, who were ordered to dismount and provide support for Custers mounted attack, had that not occurred, how many more dead, dying and wounded would Custer had left behind at Gettysburg in one of his infamous charges? And, and - at the LBH?
|
|
|
|
Post by whitebull on Sept 11, 2011 9:46:04 GMT -5
Whitebull aka as Ivory Taurus ,I'm calling bull on Indians running South to Reno to get away (running towards Reno .. your kidding me right ?) . If nothing was at Ford B then that would be a great place to cross. Did you kill Custer and why such a short stay in Canada .. it is a beautiful place ? And if you have never been to China how to you know that age has nothing to do with prices in that country ? Hip Hip Aroo, I made a Boo Boo! Sorry CC, Let me correct my post to say "running north" to get away.  Custer was so afraid that the women and children and warriors, (hostages, get it) would get away he tried to head them off and turn them back. there was nothing Custer could do at 22 that he couldn't do at thirty something. PS Who the hell is Ivory Taurus?  |
|
|
|
Post by crazycanuck on Sept 11, 2011 14:27:31 GMT -5
Ivory is white and Taurus is latin for bull. White bull is the Ivory Taurus and abbreviated to IT when we are in a hurry.You are Ivory Taurus and/or White bull.
|
|
|
|
Post by crazycanuck on Sept 12, 2011 8:04:35 GMT -5
Would it be fair to say that if Custer and men did not hold Ford B then Reno should not be accused of cowardice in not holding the valley skirmish line ?
|
|
|
|
Post by tbw on Sept 16, 2011 16:13:57 GMT -5
Would it be fair to say that if Custer and men did not hold Ford B then Reno should not be accused of cowardice in not holding the valley skirmish line ? I guess that would depend on whether or not Custer was trying to hold any ford. I think there is a mental block when it comes to what Custer was trying to accomplish and what, on appearances, he was trying to do. And I'm not sure of any fording attempts, holding or otherwise at "B", "C" or any "D". The only reliable evidence saying that Custer might have been attempting to ford 'someplace' was what Curley had to say about it. And again, from appearances, and the way he told it, it appeared to be some kind of attack but it was called off because of the number of oncoming mounted warriors. So I'm not convinced your analogy, in this instance, would be a valid argument. Again, from appearances and what Curley had to say was that there was some kind of retreat from that particular ford. Now if you're one of those who believes it was "B" then why did he continue on downstream when he already knew the numbers of Indians on the quick march towards him was too many for his puny force already? Why didn't he go back and consolidate the elements of his regiment to deal with it, that is, if it was Ford "B"? I don't think Custer intended to quote, "hold" anything, he intended for the Indians to do that, and then the question becomes, 'when did he realize that he would have to hold something someplace'? And with this a big... why? Why hold if the oncoming numbers as Curley reported was quote, "too much for him"? PS. Sorry I had a bit of a trouble with a common cold that seemed to have infected a major part of my system making it extremely difficult to keep the bugs out. It seems it tends to spread quite rapidly to other bytes to make life extremely miserable when standing on the line. Solution, one healthy dose of exterminating everything in your system restore.  |
|
|
|
Post by joewiggs on Sept 16, 2011 20:09:07 GMT -5
I can not add anything further to this reply;the summation is fantastic.
I would only add that once the "aims" and "goals" of each commander is identified, recognized, and analyzed we can began to discern that comparisons of individual "leadership" do little to resolve the "whys" of this battle.
Reno, Benteen, and Custer were motivated by different motivational thrusts and personal values which led to and resulted in diverse consequences.
|
|
|
|
Post by crazycanuck on Sept 17, 2011 7:12:58 GMT -5
Jigs,TB,Custer probably wanted to cross the Fords some where,except the Indians came to him and he chose not to chance it. He probably wanted to round up the young,elderly so he would of had to cross the river. I'm just saying there is no argument that Reno and Custer are more or less cowardly than the other,they had similar situations(Custer at the Ford ,Reno at the skirmish line),they both retreated. Nobody is a coward or they both wouldn't of been at LBH.Of course some people will always be more or less cowardly than others,but in this case it is within degrees.
|
|
|
|
Post by whitebull on Sept 18, 2011 10:40:57 GMT -5
Ivory is white and Taurus is latin for bull. White bull is the Ivory Taurus and abbreviated to IT when we are in a hurry.You are Ivory Taurus and/or White bull. Whew! I thunk you wuz calling me a bad name!  Now I understand. ;D |
|
|
|
Post by joewiggs on Dec 9, 2011 21:10:46 GMT -5
According to a minute portion of students of the battle of the Little big Horn, Custer had no plans of action. The general public appears (to me) to be possessed with a confirm conviction that the General just rushed into a live hornets nest and, therefore, sacrificed himself and his men.
A Civil War General of outstanding capabilities who received the rank of Major General at the age of 23, who was cited by General Sheridan for being a critical proponent in the defeat of the South, who planed many battles successfully, somehow, someway became an idiot on June 25, 1876!
Reno, in a letter published in the New York Herald less than 6 weeks after the battle wrote:
"No mention of any plan, no thought of junction, only the usual orders to an advance guard to attack a village."
Now, according to Martini the plan was for Custer to go down to the "other end and drive (Indians) them and he would have Benteen hurry up and attack the center."
Of course Martini did not know what he was talking about.
Private Edward Davern had this to say:
Cooke stated (to Reno) Col. Benteen will be on your left and will have the same directions."
Well, he was just a grunt, surely he did not know what he was talking about!
Girard stated that "Custer beckoned to him(Reno) with his finger and the Major rode over. He told Reno you will take your battalion and try and over take and bring them to battle and I will support you."
Hell, what did Gerard know, he was married to a squaw!
Heredeen also heard Custer tell Reno that he 9Custer) would be with him.
Regardless, we know there were no plans because the brave, stalwart, dynamic, courageous Reno said there were no plans. everyone knows that Reno reported the honest truth at the inquiry, right?
|
|
|
|
Post by tbw on Dec 10, 2011 2:14:57 GMT -5
There are more examples.
One that I can think of right now was Lt. Edgerly who said, and I paraphrase, "My idea was that we would hit them on one side and some other command would hit them on the other."
When one pieces all of these together, like some kind of jigsaw, a pattern emerges.
|
|
Now I understand. ;D