|
Post by dgfred on Jan 26, 2017 1:25:47 GMT
Since the Warriors had a complete day to wipe out Reno/Benteen on the hill and could not (?) (did not)... was it because of it being a decent position/ lack of interest in doing so/ trooper firepower/ or what in your opinions?
This makes me wonder sometimes of the possibilities if Custer had kept the entire 7th together.
|
|
dave
Brigadier General
Posts: 1,679
|
Post by dave on Jan 26, 2017 2:20:08 GMT
I am under the impression that the Indians were moving and wanted the soldiers pinned down till they had safely moved their noncombatants. Regards Dave
|
|
|
Post by Beth on Jan 26, 2017 3:20:12 GMT
Perhaps or maybe the NA were experts at weighing the cost vrs reward. They had already neutralized one group of soldiers (Crook) and wiped out another (Custer) with very little cost to them and the reward was protected the village--their families and all of their combined wealth and a bit of booty--and there was a bit of 'in your face' bravado involved as well, especially with Crook. . A charge into the defenses at Reno Hill would have taken a large number of warrior lives-a very high cost since a warrior's life was the one resource they were the lowest on and couldn't replace easily for years. Their village, family and personal wealth were not at risk as long as the soldiers were kept in place. Taking pot shots to take them out one at a time or starve them out, had very little cost. If Reno attempted a breakout from the hill, it still was less of a cost for the NA than it would have been for Reno.
Once they realize that Terry is approaching the area, it changed the costs again to the point it was the better to leave then fight another battle.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Jan 26, 2017 3:24:05 GMT
I am not sure if the Indians ever answered that question or not, and they are the only ones that can answer it. Therefore all we can do is speculate upon the answer.
My speculation says that they both did not have to, and did not want to.
They did not have to in accomplishing what they needed to do - move away. All they had to do was contain, and they contained by mounting an ever present screen, that could have it need be shifted into an offensive posture very quickly.
They did not want to, as it would serve them no purpose. They were casualty adverse. They had taken less casualties on 25 June, but the effect of those casualties on their overall force and population was far greater than the fellows on the other side. In other words they lose 1 and it was the same effect to them as the other side losing several thousand perhaps even more. It took twenty years to replace one warrior lost in battle. For the other side six months to a year.
The historical outcome has a lot less to do with strength or non-strength of the position, and a lot more to do with motivation.
|
|
|
Post by deadwoodgultch on Jan 26, 2017 12:48:24 GMT
I think all above is true. I hate to give something without proper attribution, but Sitting Bull thought/said it was good to leave a few alive to warn others, that they would fight for what was theirs. The wording here is not correct. Sitting Bull was not above negotiation. He thought after the Rosebud and LBH he had a few chips.
Greg, the Reno area is not a great area for defense, but with the soldiers dug in and more properly directed firepower the risk reward was greatly increased. The officers here seemed to bring better leadership. French, Benteen, McDougal, and others did their job and directed others to do their job.
|
|
|
Post by dgfred on Jan 26, 2017 14:49:39 GMT
So if the entire regiment stays together to attack the village on the 25th? Do the Warriors at best fight a delaying action to get away in that case?
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Jan 26, 2017 15:23:51 GMT
"Do the warriors at best fight a delaying action"
You are overlooking capabilities, and substituting intention, by even putting it in that manner.
If the whole regiment stays in the valley and attacks in one body, it is the manner in which the attack is conducted that will determine warrior response. For instance, if you just go waltzing up that valley in a straight forward frontal attack, the most probable outcome is you will achieve so manner of initial success until a screen can be formed, after that you are overmatched with numerical superiority at the point of contact, and are asking to get your ass handed to you.
If you attack with the whole regiment, you must find available combat multipliers to force the situation in your favor.
Doing something is not enough. You must do the right something in the right way or you lose.
|
|
colt45
First Lieutenant
Posts: 439
|
Post by colt45 on Jan 26, 2017 19:20:23 GMT
The best possible outcome for Custer was to fight totally in the valley. That does not mean he would win, but he probably would not have been wiped out. The Indian village was in a good location, with a barrier of the river and bluffs to the east, a somewhat narrow valley to the south, benchlands to the west, and river and trees more or less to the north. The village was really in a good location for defense against a large enemy.
Custer would need a force multiplier to win, such as stampeding the pony herd into the village, starting fires to the west, flanking the village from the west, along with an assault from the south, etc. In any event, he was both outgunned and outmanned. He needed all the help he could get in order to come away with any part of a victory. He needed all his troops in the battle, and he needed excellent command and control of those troops. He also needed Terry immediately to the north, which means fighting on the 25th pretty much guaranteed trouble.
|
|
|
Post by yanmacca on Jan 26, 2017 20:25:54 GMT
I know that the Reno hill position was held but I agree with Tom, it was not the perfect position, because I think it was over looked by sharp shooter ridge and other places, which how sharp shooter hill got its name, even though it was a fair distance away, but reports say that Indian's armed with rifles caused quite a few casualties from these positions. Although the Indians never attacked en-mass, they did try some local attacks, and one of these attacks forced Benteen to counter attack and clear the area. They also made it hard for anyone to try and get water, but this never stopped some brave individuals from trying.
|
|
|
Post by dgfred on Jan 26, 2017 20:47:24 GMT
Doesn't an attack from the entire regiment put the Warriors in what y'all mentioned before about concern for casualties?
How are they going to overwhelm the entire regiment without massive casualties?
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Jan 26, 2017 21:27:42 GMT
Apples and oranges.
When you are attacked you defend yourself or die. In this particular instance they not only had to defend themselves but also eject the attacking force from their living room, so they could sit back down and watch TV. The casualties they had inflicted upon them were not a matter of choice. In such situations you do what you have to do, take your lumps, and get on with life.
An attack by the Indians on the hilltop position was a matter of their choice, and they chose not to, with the exception of a few attacks to harass..
|
|
|
Post by chardvc on Jan 29, 2017 20:59:22 GMT
"Did not want to", seems to sum up the decision. I'm pretty sure if they felt the need, or desire, they would have taken them out fairly easily albeit at a loss of life that may, or may not, have been acceptable.
Think there is also this assumption by many that the NAs fought as one co-ordinated group. NA society was much more fragmented than that and it would have taken a great amount of agreement to get everyone together and then agree who would bear the brunt of the attack. There is no overall commander directing the attack (mind you, one could argue that the government forces didn't have one either!!).
|
|
mac
Brigadier General
Posts: 1,790
|
Post by mac on Jan 30, 2017 3:52:47 GMT
Remember too that these warriors, in some cases at least, have fought at the Rosebud, in the valley, at Calhoun Hill, and at Last Stand Hill or some combination of these actions. They have had plenty of opportunities to show their courage and complete the deeds required of a warrior. The question then is why fight at the Reno/Benteen position? They pose no threat to the village and you have done plenty of fighting. I doubt that I would feel too motivated about going on with things at that point. Better to move on and get some space from the other soldiers you know will be coming. Cheers
|
|
|
Post by Beth on Jan 30, 2017 7:28:52 GMT
Sometimes, I think they were fighting for entertainment-almost like some people would watch a dog fight or a cock fight, but with the knowledge if they could have found a weakness, they would have exploited it.
|
|
|
Post by yanmacca on Jan 30, 2017 12:01:09 GMT
You can also add that certain individuals went to attack the soldiers on Reno hill on their own merit and just out if hatred, these warriors would just go without any orders from anyone and may even think that others were going to join them in such attacks with the option of over running the position if enough warriors joined their ranks.
So if the tribal leaders said that the soldier’s position on the hill should be contained and not over run, then they had no way of getting this message across to everyone and this would allow for a certain amount of warriors who thought that the battle was still on going.
Adding to what Mac and Beth said, some of these warriors may have missed out on the main fighting and wanted to get some accolades before the village pulled out, I would expect that such battle honours were a must have in the warrior class and without them you were not classed as a real warrior or brave.
|
|