mac
Brigadier General
Posts: 1,790
|
Post by mac on Apr 17, 2016 23:38:52 GMT
I disagree with him too Dan. If we look at the shape of the village then a charge through it from the south as Reno would have to do, is a very long way. It is inconceivable to me that this could be done.
Cheers
|
|
|
Post by Beth on Apr 18, 2016 1:44:10 GMT
Beth, I have a book " 1876 Facts about Custer and the LBH" by Jerry L. Russell, and from time to time I post one on the Alliance board. I ran across this that may have interest to you as to your question of what would have happened if Reno continued his charge to the village. " If Reno had charged through the village (Instead of halting his charge). Custer would have joined him in a very short time, and Benteen later and we might have had an expensive victory ( Lt Edgerly, Co D) I dont agree with him, I think it would have been suicide, but I felt it only fair to give another viewpoint even if it differs from my own. Be Well Dan I wonder how Edgerly expected that Custer to follow Reno in a very short time? Parachute? As for what would have happened to the 7th if they had charged into the village as three smaller groups. I shutter to think the carnage the Montana Column would have found when they finally arrived. The size and courage of your army is meaningless when you feed it to the enemy in small chewable pieces.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Apr 18, 2016 5:11:28 GMT
Before we go tiptoeing further down Plum Blossom Lane, what is the point of citing an opinion that is totally worthless, from a book compiled by an author who was not astute enough to recognize the worthlessness of that opinion.
Where was Company D? Not anywhere near Reno in the valley
Where was Edgerly? With Company D, which was not anywhere near Reno in the valley.
Opinions offered by contemporaries are totally worthless to historical analysis, unless those opinions are informed opinions based on first person observation of events.
Did Edgerly observe Reno's battle? NO HE DID NOT. So why are we wasting time discussing campfire gossip?
EVERYBODY: Just read the complete statement as extracted and posted. I assume it complete, and a true copy.
Now tell me what man or woman that has ever inhabited planet earth has the required bona fides to make any such statement .
If you don't know what I mean - read it again.
You want to know what is wrong with the study of LBH. Taking something like that statement seriously. That is the kind of crap Captain Pretend thrives on so he can refill his yellow ink cartridge, and continue to fill the heads of people who come to boards like this to learn, with lies.
|
|
|
Post by deadwoodgultch on Apr 18, 2016 11:08:20 GMT
I have read the posts from the book Dan mentions, and much of the posts are much like trivia. The writer is entitled to his opinions, and as we all know, we an find a basis for that opinion. There is a poster who posts on the other two boards who has read "100's of books on the subject," but rarely posts anything of merit. I am not saying this individual, lacks knowledge, just that he would rather bring down other posters. He was the 1st to take Fred to task on his second book, without reading it. It is somewhat the opposite of the Capt. P's tactic of reading a lot and posting only what seems to support his position. Capt.P takes this tactic even further, by injecting his analysis(yellow blather)to even further taint the post. The book Dan alludes to at least gives much minutiae to chew on and learn from, and more importantly puts himself out there for guys like us to discuss positive or negative, and he is not editing opposing opinions. The folks who write these limited market books do not make a princely sum for their work, it is often a labor of love.
Regards, Tom
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Apr 18, 2016 14:40:51 GMT
I have no doubt. It is not the poster, whose only reason for posting I assume is to put out some other opinion on the matter. Nor is it the book which contained the quote.
It is the quote itself, a statement by a man who was not there, had no possible way to fully appreciate the situation that confronted Reno, then goes on to say, that had Reno continued the attack, Custer would have been there in short order, and Benteen would have also been right behind presently.
How does Edgerly possibly know that Custer would have been there in short order? The only evidence of Custer is the location of his dead soldiers that were from a mile to two miles away from the closest place Custer could have crossed to join Reno. How does Edgerly know that Benteen would have joined both of them?
If I was with the trail battalion, and made the statement that the Custer battalion's average speed was 27 miles per hour, and someone took that statement of mine, and included it in such a book, don't you think some bright lad may have said - Wait just a darned minute, that is not only impossible, but impossible to know based upon the location of the person making the statement.
Most if not all of us are in agreement, that any such continuance of the attack mounted on the part of Reno was an impossible task. The chances of success of such a venture were reduced to zero the moment that initial screen of Indians was formed, and it was formed before Reno got anywhere near the south end of the first circle.
So if we are in general agreement as to the impossibility of the task, any such alternate, by contemporary opinion, or those of us in a latter day, must I would think offer a viable alternative.
Montrose has repeatedly offered a viable alternative - Reno should have turned around once he discovered he had no support coming from his rear.
The only thing that can be reasonably concluded fully examining that quote by Edgerly, is that.
1) Edgerly was completely out of touch with reality. OR
2) Edgerly was a Custer fan boy. OR
3) Edgerly had some heartburn with Reno's performance, and went through the looking glass in an effort to tar that performance with contrived slime.
4) OR all of the above.
This type of discussion is healthy for this forum. It puts out all this garbage on the turkey platter right in the middle of the table, for us to hopefully dissect for content and intent
|
|
|
Post by BrevetorCoffin on Apr 18, 2016 19:24:17 GMT
I've always enjoyed debate around Reno's stopping short of the village and "charge" from the timber. My opinion at this time is that Reno had little choice, decisions were prudent even if the latter was sloppily carried out and ultimately Custer's move up the bluffs set things in motion. I am willing to consider counter arguments, especially if not based on musings of officers who were not there, i.e., Edgerly and Miles. At least William O Taylor was with Reno's battalion and, despite being an enlisted man, had first-hand experience with which to form an opinion.
Opinions on my statements are welcomed and non-fan boy or emotion based arguments are encouraged.
Best,
David
|
|
|
Post by yanmacca on Apr 18, 2016 19:32:37 GMT
I think Reno had to make a split decision right there and then, options;
Carry on and get ensnared Halt and hold their ground Turn tail and run
Now the first option is a no brainer, he couldn’t put his troopers through what faced them ahead. The second option is a compromise, it includes fighting the enemy and doesn’t carry the stigma of being a coward and running. The third option maybe common sense but how many officers of his rank would turn their battalion around and run, I mean what if he did run and Custer gets whacked in another place, so I don’t think that running was an option at that time, even though with hindsight it makes sense.
Yan.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Apr 18, 2016 20:04:15 GMT
If you believe Reno was an advanced guard, even if you don't which is immaterial, because Reno evidently thought that, and said so in his testimony, you must consider what an advanced guard is supposed to do, and how it does it.
The advance guard has three purposes.
1) It is far enough in advance of the main body, two terrain features, or two tactical bounds, whichever is appropriate, so that the main body's movement will not be impeded by enemy fire, and to guard against surprise emanating from the front of the line of march. Therefore the advance guard provides frontal security.
2) Make contact.
3) Develop that contact in such a manner as to facilitate the early and correct employment of the main body.
Developing the situation.
Upon contact the advance guard fully deploys to ascertain the extent of the contact to the front. Typically this is done by moving from a column formation into a line, for the purpose of both reconnaissance by fire, and to seek the flanks (seek not necessarily move toward or around). The modern term used here is define and refine the immediate battle space.
What the advance guard DOES NOT DO under any circumstance is to rush headlong into an enemy concentration. That is not their job.
Situations can be developed either mounted which is preferable for a mounted force, the compromise technique of mounted and dismounted portions of the advanced guard force working in concert, or totally dismounted based upon the amount of fire emanating from the enemy position. I have listed them in order of preference for the mounted advanced guard commander.
The fact that Reno stopped the mounted portion of his mission, and went immediately into the third and least desirable (from Reno's perspective), the totally dismounted option, tells us, or should tell us, something about both the strength and aggressiveness of his opponent. No mounted commander, NONE, ZERO, NADA, willingly gives up his prime advantage - MOBILITY - unless he has no other choice.
The commander's opinion in these matters is the only one that counts.
Withdrawing and running are two different things.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anyone that wants to can call me a coward, but if I determined that I was not being supported, I would not hesitate to turn my force around and withdraw. I would take my chances with a court martial, but the no good slimy son of a bitch that was supposed to support me, would be the first witness the defense would call, so that he may explain himself, as to why he was not there, as he was supposed to be.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anyone interested in how an advanced guard does its business, there is an excellent, in fact text book example, of such an action conducted by Team D, 37th Tank Battalion, where the team commander exercises all three options, during the conduct of his AG mission, very successfully. An account is contained in the final text chapter of " Patton - At The Battle of The Bulge" The title of the chapter is "Assenois"
|
|
|
Post by BrevetorCoffin on Apr 19, 2016 0:13:24 GMT
I am curious as to anyone's opinion of William O Taylor's scathing remarks about Reno and Benteen.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Apr 19, 2016 2:41:16 GMT
David: I have never read anything that Taylor wrote, said, or is reported to have sad. Just don't know.
BUT and a big BUT
It is often that the opinions of enlisted personnel differ widely about the same event than an officer, and in particular a commanding officer. That does not mean one is wrong the other correct. That may be, but it is also immaterial to the comment I am about to make.
Each (officer and enlisted)in his own way view a given action, engagement, episode, or battle, from a completely different perspective. If I was an enlisted man in the 1st Minnesota at Gettysburg, my opinion of my commander, and ultimately the officer that ordered 1st MN into action on the 2nd day against the lead division of Longstreet's Corps would be rather low, as I endured my regiment's loss of about 80 percent of its force. The officer that ordered that regiment in most probably had a very high opinion of the 1st MN's commander. Despite the catastrophic loss they accomplished what they set out to do, delay Longstreet's deployment.
So while one guy was most probably cursing the day his commander was born, the other guy was ready to kiss his ass on Broadway at high noon as millions watched.
There was plenty to be critical about regarding Reno and Benteen. Does not matter one whit what Taylor thought or said though. The deciding factor is did they or did they not make the best available decisions, based upon the situation. Taylor did not or does not have to like it. He may be critical of anyone he pleases. His duty though is to obey
|
|
dave
Brigadier General
Posts: 1,679
|
Post by dave on Apr 19, 2016 3:10:30 GMT
QC The actions of the 1st Minnesota Volunteers is often forgotten and I am pleased you brought them back to mind. The record of the 26th North Carolina Infantry was just as bloody and they also fought on two during the battle. Regards Dave
|
|
|
Post by BrevetorCoffin on Apr 19, 2016 3:55:05 GMT
Thank you QC and Dave. I think the 1st Minnesota was in the wrong place at the right time. Hancock needed good men to buy him 5 minutes and turned them into sacrificial lambs. Tough move and it worked. Though badly wounded their commander, Colonel Colville survived, As to Wm Taylor compare this www.astonisher.com/archives/museum/wm_o_taylor_big_horn.htmlWith this: en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frederick_BenteenLook near the bottom quoting Wm Taylor from Sklenar's book. I understand the ROTC Reject is a fan of Sklenar. Why the change. Best, David
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Apr 19, 2016 4:46:14 GMT
I am not a little suspicious when a private solder describes the totality of events as if he was sitting back in a theater seat watching events unfold in Cinemascope and Vistavision.
I am even more suspicious when one tale is essentially bland/neutral, while another lays blame, written supposedly y the same author.
|
|
|
Post by deadwoodgultch on Apr 19, 2016 11:16:54 GMT
Thank you QC and Dave. I think the 1st Minnesota was in the wrong place at the right time. Hancock needed good men to buy him 5 minutes and turned them into sacrificial lambs. Tough move and it worked. Though badly wounded their commander, Colonel Colville survived, As to Wm Taylor compare this www.astonisher.com/archives/museum/wm_o_taylor_big_horn.htmlWith this: en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frederick_BenteenLook near the bottom quoting Wm Taylor from Sklenar's book. I understand the ROTC Reject is a fan of Sklenar. Why the change. Best, David David, The following is taken from your 2nd link. Do you think we can discern from the way it is written, what the writer's opinion of Benteen is. The wording is an indicator so is what is added or left out.
While scouting the area, Captain Benteen received an urgent note from his superior(could have said commander) officer George Armstrong Custer ordering him to bring up the ammunition(added) packs and join him(some say he was to join Reno, depending their agenda) in Custer's surprise attack on a large Native American encampment. Benteen's failure to promptly comply(leaves out having to wait on slow moving packs and finding Reno's command and their condition) is one of the most controversial aspects of the famed battle, which resulted in(indicates the disaster would have never happened without Benteen's failures) the death of Custer and the complete annihilation of the five companies of cavalrymen which comprised Custer's detachment.
I know I must get better with my analysis in yellow ink, but I hope you get the idea. The man who wrote this passage is certainly entitled to his opinion, but I see enough of this type of journalism on the nightly news. It is not what you present, it is how you present it.
Regards, Tom
|
|
|
Post by BrevetorCoffin on Apr 19, 2016 12:45:43 GMT
Of course the title of Sklenar's book is To Hell with Honor and is a must read I understand for Custer-philes. I am mostly curious how the tone of the first link is more straightforward and bile-filled in the second.
Pariently waiting to see if anyone can provide sound military reasons for Reno ti continue his charge or stay in the timber without excessive use of terms like "drunk" or "coward".
Best,
David
|
|