|
Post by johnson1941 on May 16, 2023 18:39:18 GMT
Of course the obvious dilema with Gall & Godfrey's route are the statements of Varnum, DeRudio, Gerard, Martini etc stating the all saw/were with Custer and the Gray Horse Co. on the bluffs in the vicinty of Reno's Hill... Makes it all so interesting!
|
|
|
Post by miker on May 17, 2023 1:22:56 GMT
As I've said before, I don't see how Godfrey could know how Custer organized his battalion because he was not with them when Custer divided his command for the 2nd time into Reno and Custer columns. Everyone that might have know, except Martini and Kanipe, did not survive. And there is no record of them saying so. So my remains that either deployment is plausible. I do not think the Indians would have been able to tell, but maybe I'm wrong, but again, I don't think there is a reliable statement or evidence from them either.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on May 17, 2023 1:59:25 GMT
41: Seeing Company E and supposedly seeing Custer on the bluffs are two different events. I do not think there is convincing evidence that 1) it was Custer, and 2) that it was in the Reno Hill area. From a map study on an exceptional map created by Mike, I think it much more likely that the siting of persons assumed to include Custer was in the Weir Point area as DeRudio maintained.
Seeing Company E in the Reno Hill area is perfectly consistent with any route Custer would choose to take thereafter including the route Godfrey discovered on 27 June and verified by Gall ten years later.
These are two issues which will provide food for disagreement until the end of time I suspect, and no one has the real answer.
Mike and I continue to disagree on the single battalion vice two battalion schools of thought. What Mike says is true to a point. Godfrey was not there at the point where Reno and Custer split, but he was, as a company commander, there when the task organization for the march was set earlier in the day. Mind you I have no idea how Custer may have modified the task organization after he was away from Reno, but as a military professional I find no reason why he should have had to. Split his battalion yes, certainly, but modify the task organization by appointing two subordinate battalion commanders, no
|
|
|
Post by miker on May 17, 2023 2:30:33 GMT
I feel obligated to state I don't have a strong opinion on this either way and that he operated with 2 wings of 2 battalions each for most of the campaign, then went to commanding all 12 companies, then briefly dividing into the regiment (-) and benteen, then splitting again to the Regiment (-), Reno, and Benteen. We know nothing after that.
Chuck And I differ on final task organization and if crossing at MTC is viable. I don't know either way. I think MTC is viable, but I didn't get to see it and am unlikely to at thus point. I respect and understand Chuck's position but remain unconvinced.
If we only had Cookes notebook...
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on May 17, 2023 2:52:54 GMT
Mike and I are in full agreement here. We are both unconvinced about every damned thing, and both being old soldiers, that I believe is a good thing. If everyone was thinking alike, there would be a hell of a lot of people not thinking.
Always keep in mind that there must be a reason for everything. Note I did not say it had to be a good reason. That being said, I do not believe Custer would knowing violate tactical procedure. He played fast and loose with many things, in fact the record shows most things, but in small unit tactics (below the regimental level) I think that TTP was so ingrained in a soldier that they would not be knowingly violated. I'm not speaking here about the insane hairbrained idea of going north. That's what he did. Rather I am speaking about the manner he would do it. Just because the basic decision is a bad one, it does not follow that how your implementation of that decision would be bad too. For instance just because you failed to read a map before you set out on a journey in your car and get hopelessly lost, does not mean that your operation of your vehicle was badly done or improper.
|
|
mac
Brigadier General
Posts: 1,790
|
Post by mac on May 18, 2023 7:06:31 GMT
I have previously proposed that Custer went right, rather than crossing Ford A, because he intended to pass the Indian left flank and re-enter the valley behind them.
When Custer sends Benteen left he tells him to “pitch into” anything he finds. This tells us that Custer thinks it likely that the Indians are distributed around the valley and hence Benteen may find some. This being the case, then Custer still thinks this when he goes right.
We know at some point Custer sees into the valley. The circumstances of this are unimportant. His order to Benteen tells us, by the content, he did see into the valley. Come on Big Village Be quick Bring packs PS Bring Packs Custer has seen that the Indians are not widely distributed but rather concentrated in one large mass (Big Village). This means that Benteen is wasted out to the left. Custer does not know that Benteen will realize that, and be already returning when the note reaches him.
Benteen follows the order exactly. He moves straight to the front of the packs and comes on with all possible speed; for the situation. More to come.
P.S. love your work 41
|
|
|
Post by miker on May 18, 2023 11:43:36 GMT
I submit you continue to read too much into the order. This order is crap. It has two major omissions in it. Can you determine them? (Sent at approximately 180745 May 2023)
Besides not following Terry's orders to NOT follow the Indian trail (which if he had obeyed probably would have ensured the Indians escape), he made three grievous errors. Can you identify them?
These five items define why Custer lost the battle.
All this other analysis is poorly based on conjecture, omens, portents. You would get as much information by reading the entrails of a goat or tossing dice.
|
|
mac
Brigadier General
Posts: 1,790
|
Post by mac on May 18, 2023 12:50:34 GMT
Okay Mike it is just a note not an order. what, why, when, how, where, and who. Hard to categorize these in the note, so it is indeed crap, but then it was quickly scratched down when Martini was discovered to be completely unreliable. It is however real and only exists because Custer wanted Benteen to do something. I think it is not stretching the interpretation to say he wanted Benteen to bring the packs. I also think it is significant that the size of the village is important enough to be mentioned in the note. I also think Custer telling Benteen to “pitch in” indicated that Custer thought there may be Indians out there to the left. You are naturally more than welcome to disagree. Cheers
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on May 18, 2023 13:32:03 GMT
I know Mike is about to respond at an early hour, but I think it vital to mention that the note is an order. You treat any directive communication from your commander as a direct order. We must also remember that the note was not written by Custer but by Cooke, the Adjutant, who speaks for the commander. Cooke constructed the note and is responsible for its contents. We do not know if Custer saw and approved of what Cooke wrote or not. In the absence of that knowledge we must assume Custer did not. That is dereliction on the part of both Cooke and Custer.
The contents of that note are appalling regardless.
|
|
|
Post by miker on May 18, 2023 14:14:32 GMT
As Chuck says, the order is not a 'note'. It is written order delivered by the adjutant who is the only person in the Regiment who can issue an order in Custer's name. When Benteen relays the order to Reno, Reno becomes responsible for obeying or disobeying the order, since he is senior. We assume Cooke heard the order and transcribed it as he heard it given. If he did it on his own initiative, without any direction from Custer, he is abrogating command of the Regiment to himself.
Whether you think Martini is reliable or not has nothing to do with the order. Such an order should have been written regardless of who was carrying it. Cooke was both prudent and correct in doing so. Cooke also issued him instructions to return if Martini thought he was in no danger and otherwise return to his company. As a point of order, a runner should always return to the one who sent the message and transmit his reply. I have been a liaison officer on more than one occassion and always did so, frequently by radio or telephone or in person if possible and as exactly as possible, if I did not write it down.
"Skedaddling!" is arguably true since the Indians seen by the time Custer dispatched Martini were indeed running away from Custer's column and the village seemed to be empty from their view point.
The "Pitch in" comment is not part of the written order to Benteen, but was part of the oral order issued by Custer to Benteen before detaching him to the left.
So, you have not yet identified the five points of which I speak.
P.S. If an officer senior to me, particularly if he is in the same unit I am, gives me some 'advice' I need to consider it very carefully. Legally, he can't order me to do an action but it could well be a mistake on my part not do as he says. Similarly, if the Command Sergeant Major or even one of my subordinates (particularly my 1SG) gives me advice, I know he is issuing me a very informed opinion based on his knowledge of the commander and is offering me the benefit of my his experience. I can take or reject the advice, but it may come back to beat me.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on May 18, 2023 15:04:35 GMT
Take that last paragraph above as if it were issued by none other than God Almighty. Some may consider it military inside baseball, but it is advice that everyone should heed regardless of their field of endeavor.
|
|
mac
Brigadier General
Posts: 1,790
|
Post by mac on May 19, 2023 1:20:20 GMT
So why did Custer send that order at that time?
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on May 19, 2023 3:19:09 GMT
No one is disputing the timing of the order, nor is anyone disputing the purpose. The order is directive to Benteen, obviously because when the order was sent the commander, Custer, needed both Benteen's battalion and the trains. The tone of the order indicates that he not only needed them but needed them as soon as possible. The only thing in question, as Mike suggests, is the completeness of the order. Information vital to the order's proper execution is missing, and that fact is glaringly obvious.
You can tell if a unit is top notch or an also ran by their good or bad habits. The construction of that order is indicative of bad habits, and bad habits on a battlefield get you killed quite dead.
Mike also points out another bad habit. Martini should have returned to Cooke once he had delivered the message. Cooke's bad habit in this instance was making Martini's return discretionary. Martini, find Benten, deliver this note. Get your ass back here, no matter what.
|
|
|
Post by yanmacca on May 19, 2023 5:56:44 GMT
One point that everyone is missing is that everyone on top that hill looking at the predicament they faced, were in a highly nervous state, Cooke was probably trying to keep himself together whilst trying to write that note on a back of a horse.
These are not supermen, they could see what faced them, they knew they where out on a limb, so in that situation rules and regulations get missed out, adrenaline is high, so basically you are shitting it, unless you where a movie star or insane.
Ian
|
|
mac
Brigadier General
Posts: 1,790
|
Post by mac on May 19, 2023 10:04:02 GMT
My problem is if Custer needed the troops and the trains then why did he immediately continue North and make it harder and harder for those resources to reach him?
Cooke asked Martini to repeat the message and he could not, so Cooke hastily scribbled the order, handed it to Martini and then rushed off to catch up with the command, which was already on the move. A lot of haste if you are calling up the trains.
|
|