|
|
Post by joewiggs on Nov 16, 2012 20:54:20 GMT -5
"Lt. Hare was initially assigned to the Indian scouts during the 1876 Little Big horn campaign, but he rejoined his company "K" as second in command on June 25 and participated Maj. Marcus Reno's ill fated charge of the Indian village and subsequent retreat. He remarked about the mad dash to the bluffs across the Little Big Horn River:
'The company was not covered and no effort was made to hold the Indians back. If the Indians had followed us in force to the hill top, they would have got us all.'
What I find so interesting and mystifying is that a member of the cavalry who was actually there, who participated in the fight and survived the dash to the hill was clear and factual in his description of what actually occurred. Yet, today there are those who insist this "movement" was a charge and Reno could not have done anything other than what he actually did.
How is that possible?
|
|
|
|
Post by whitebull on Jul 14, 2013 18:58:00 GMT -5
I believe that Reno was trying to head back to the first crossing that got him to the timber. He could not return the same way because of so many Indians on his right flank. he crossed the river where he did because he couldn't get across any other way. Can't say as I blame him though!  |
|
|
|
Post by joewiggs on Jul 19, 2013 19:11:42 GMT -5
I believe that Reno was trying to head back to the first crossing that got him to the timber. He could not return the same way because of so many Indians on his right flank. he crossed the river where he did because he couldn't get across any other way. Can't say as I blame him though! You're right partner! despite Reno's assertion that he was trying to find a more suitable location to succor his troops, his real motive was to remove himself from a "hot" spot to a perceived "cooler" spot! |
|
|
|
Post by stumblingbear on Jul 20, 2013 18:52:12 GMT -5
Of course I'm no expert but it seems to me that some of what is believed today about the battle has been twisted by others who had a vested interest in making Custer totally responsible for what happened.
For example, what little I have read points to a conviction that many people really believed that no amount of Indians could ever beat an organized "white" force. The soldiers were formed up to surround and catch any Indians who may have tried to escape.
The thought that they would not try to escape but stand and fight did not seem to enter into the plans until it was to late!
After the battle, someone had to be responsible for what happened. In the Fettterman fight, the commander of the fort was held responsible even though Brown and Fetterman were responsible and exceeded orders.
In Custer's case, survivors claimed that he ran toward the village, left no orders for the remainder of his own command, resulting in their death.
What surprises me is that quite a few people seem to have made up their minds (not here)that Custer was somehow strange enough to enter the fray unsupported and as eager as a teenage boy showing out for his girlfriend.
I'm not saying that Custer did not make mistakes, he obviously did. However, the reinforcement he expected never arrived.
|
|
|
|
Post by joewiggs on Jul 21, 2013 16:48:56 GMT -5
What rattles my cage the most is not the defamation of Custer so much as the confusion, misinformation, and lost history that has come about due to the actions of several witnesses at the inquiry. I realize that many students of the battle are aware of this although a similar amount of students may not be..
Neither a Custerphobe nor a Custerphile are positions that are conducive to true knowledge.
Is it possible to come closer to the truth by identifying and avoiding the pit falls of deliberate untruths by witnesses? Yes!
|
|
