|
Post by yanmacca on May 22, 2018 12:41:58 GMT
Chuck, please check the founders discussion room on the messages to see my explanation on Reno riding out front.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on May 22, 2018 14:25:47 GMT
I did.
Do you believe everything you read?
Was the author there with a tape measure to determine all of the distances noted?
Was anyone there with a tape measure to determine and record all the distances noted?
What is the primary source for his thesis?
So, I repeat my questions to you.
Why was the battalion headquarters out front?
Do you want the brain trust of a battalion to be the first ones exposed to fire?
Do you want to get them killed?
Now let's have an exercise in common sense.
If you were commanding that battalion, and the situation was identical. Where would you be if your job was to exercise command, and be in positive control of those three companies? Look at your drawing carefully. You must control the actions of the two lead companies and be in position to quickly order them to deploy into line. At the same time you must be in position to move the reserve (trailing) company either into line or toward either flank as the case may be. You must also be at a place that has a clear view of the totality of your front extending from the detachment clearing the woods to the scouts off to the left.
Does being in front literally mean being out front?
What would have happened to the cohesion of that battalion if the Indians were lying in wait in that ditch only to spring forward at the opportune moment? Authors don't have to think about these things. Battalion commanders do.
The author never commanded a maneuver unit above platoon. He was in the Transportation Corps for most of his short career. His knowledge of tactics and tactical concepts has been called into question before.
Please also remember it is this same author that would have you believe that Custer used Cedar Coulee, without proof. Custer sent two companies to Ford B, without proof. Custer left three companies in the Calhoun Hill area, waiting for Benteen, without proof. Custer went to Ford D with only two companies, without proof, and despite contrary evidence. Custer had Company E move off of LSH on foot for a distance of seven or eight hundred yards through hundreds of the best warriors the Cheyenne Nation could muster to the bottom of Deep Ravine, without proof. And finally, the fact that you have in the years I have known you demonstrated that you have a much clearer overall picture of what happened at Little Big Horn on the afternoon of 25 June 1876, than he could acquire and demonstrate in a thousand years. It's like the comment Tom made on the Tell Me Why thread. He does not ask the right questions. You do. His mind is closed. Yours is open. Does it make sense to you that a battalion commander is in front of his battalion in a tactical situation?
Does it make sense to you that the battalion headquarters is riding parallel with the ambush trippers of Company M? Would they not be in the same ambush cone of fire if that detail under Ryan actually did trip an ambush in the timber?
The author says that the names of the people in bold black letters are positioned by testimony. What do the exact words of the testimony have to say? Does Reno say in his testimony that he was forty yards in front of and centered on the two leading companies? I don't know. You tell me.
I could buy that position for the headquarters, if the battalion had scouts out, and in front of the main body. Leading with the command group in any other situation though is highly suspect.
If Reno was in the position noted in both drawings he was a goddamned fool.
|
|
benteen
First Lieutenant
"Once An Eagle
Posts: 406
|
Post by benteen on May 22, 2018 17:59:45 GMT
Why was the battalion headquarters out front? Do you want the brain trust of a battalion to be the first ones exposed to fire? Do you want to get them killed? Does it make sense to you that a battalion commander is in front of his battalion in a tactical situation? If Reno was in the position noted in both drawings he was a goddamned fool. QC, I agree with you. Not only could he be killed but he would not be aware of a changing situation where he may need to adjust his troops and a dozen other reasons. However when it comes to Reno, he may not have been a fool but rather a product of the Civil War. During that war they did lead from the front. Foolish I agree, but from all I have read thats what they did. Perhaps because of some thought of honor etc. At the battle of Franklin I believe 7 Generals were killed (Including my favorite Pat Clebourne) probably because rather then be in a proper position they were waving their damn sword in front of their men, So maybe thats why Reno may have been in front it was just what you did in those days....Just a thought Be Well Dan
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on May 22, 2018 18:44:49 GMT
And I agree with you to the extent that one hell of a lot of generals, colonels, and other senior officers did get killed from being out front waving their damned swords.
There comes the time when generals, and commanders of all ranks must be out front waving their damned swords or whatever they chose to wave. Chesty Puller himself was wounded on Guadalcanal doing much the same thing. He was at the decisive point of contact when it happened. He was also in his own front lines on Bloody Ridge. When those things do happen, you can bet that the officer in question has determined that his presence is required at those places, mainly to inspire, and no one else will do. We see this with Armistead crossing the stone wall at Gettysburg, or a wounded Cushing in front of his battery inspiring them to defeat Armistead. or Hubert Dilger himself manhandling the only gun he has left, backward, down the Plank Road at Chancellorsville, trying to stave off Jackson's attack. Jackson and Hill both got whacked within moments of each other because the decided they had to see to their front, and no other eyes would do.
The difference I see Dan, is that none of these men planned to be doing that from the outset. Each of them reacted to a developed crisis.
So, what we have is to still ask the question, is that really what they did in those days, or is that what we have been told they did, via movies and the various forms of media. If Reno was riding in front of his troops as those drawings depict, he did not learn one bloody damned thing from his experience at Kelly's Ford, thirteen years before.
|
|
|
Post by yanmacca on May 22, 2018 19:56:14 GMT
Well I can only post what I read because I was not there, apparently Reno was seen 40 yards ahead and right and center of the command, he was constantly checking them as they advanced. This was during the period when they brought up the reserve and placed them into the line. In fact Reno actually spotted the ditch running across their front and issued orders for the command to halt and form skirmish. These are not my words as I even agree that Reno could have been shot being so far ahead, but according to reports by men serving, he was. I do not treat this battle as a John Ford Western, even an English man can tell the difference you know.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on May 22, 2018 20:50:55 GMT
Not saying you do Ian.
The use by me of John Ford western is an allusion to the stylized presentation, and romantic atmosphere found in the westerns of John Ford. Colonel Thursday and Captain Brittles are always in the front. The men lustily sing She Wore a Yellow Ribbon as they marched out the gate. The theater of operations were always in the photogenic Monument Valley, instead of the burnt over deserts of southern Arizona. All the soldiers were hard bitten troopers with years of service behind them. All the sergeants were Irish, and the ladies well behaved.
He did the same thing with the Welch in How Green Was My Valley, and the Irish in the Quiet Man. Hell he even did the same thing with Marines in The Battle of Midway, and sailors in They Were Expendable. Do you really think there was a snowball's chance in hell that PT Sailors would bring Donna Reed to Bataan from Corregidor for a dinner party with candlelight and music in March of 1942? It's smaltz and people buy movie tickets to see smaltz, not reality.
Ford was on Midway during the battle. The shot you most often see from that film is the Marine Corps Color Guard. The shot was staged by Ford, as an allusion to Key's Defense of Fort McHenry. O say can you see, if the Star Spangled Banner still flies over Fortress America, after the enemy, and in spite of the enemy doing their worst to tear it down. Played in every theater in America, and sold one hell of a lot of war bonds. What you did not see is some poor bastard blown in half by a Japanese bomb.
The point is that is a false representation of combat, one that looks good for the home folks and stirs the heart strings. The cinema is a mighty medium, but it is far from real.
As to Reno. If he had not been in a position to see the ditch, bring up the reserve, halt the battalion, and form a skirmish line he would not have been doing his job. You still have not told me who measured the 40 yards.
Could it be? ----- That Reno was properly placed centered on line with the two leading companies, or perhaps slightly behind the front of those two leading companies and as they advanced may have ridden forward slightly, and periodically to check their alignment or get a better view of where the scouts and flank detachment were. This is what I would expect.
When you read something, the author, who was also not there, wants you to believe his opinion. Where is and by whom do we have as sources who were there, unvarnished by a latter day authors opinion.
A LATE EDITION: For the record I despise all Little Big Horn books. Taken together they are all not worth a pound of poop. To me they are like an eternal loop of Bermuda Triangle, Search for the True Cross, The Holy Grail, The bloodline of Christ. Al Capone's secret treasure, Hordes of Nazi gold, Did Anastasia survive, Did the Devil really come down to Georgia, and last but not least, Did Amelia Earhart spy on the Japanese and is she living secretly in Sheboygan, Wisconsin under the assumed name of Martha Stewart, and is the French Fry cook at McDonald's. It is visual and mental Purgatory, where you are still paying for sins you had forgotten you ever committed.
|
|
azranger
Brigadier General
Ranger
Posts: 1,824
|
Post by azranger on May 23, 2018 11:31:07 GMT
Who says we are not. Not I. Unless, there is an unknown White survivor, who has the memory of an elephant, and the literary skills of a Hemingway, we do not know anything about what transpired from the time Custer turned on the bluffs until he and those with him met their demise. What we do know is what Indian witnesses do tell us, and through the painful process of ripping apart White translations of the message they send us, we can extract some idea of what took place but not the detail we must seek to understand what those unknowns are. Among the unknowns are the order of march and route (routes) taken. So unless we have that unknown White survivor, or horse crap and shod hoof prints remain mummified we will never know these things, and while others may differ, in my view it is 1) A complete waste of time. and 2) Adds nothing of consequence to the story. None of what you add after - I am correct - answers the original question though. Why is it an article of faith that E and F operated together. To me it is a innocent version of the Big Lie, something repeated often enough that it, in the minds of the selected audience, becomes truth. If fact it is, until proven, just another pound of horse puckey, thrown about by "scholars". Horse puckey is just horse puckey, not scholarship. None of this is about you, I, or us. It is simply about not accepting the "innocent big lie" told by those over the last century and a half who are in no more position to know the truth of these affairs than we are. Company E and F operating together is nothing but the starting place in all of these assumptions of fact. Truth is that Company E and Company F, in the only positions we can document them in are a good seven to eight hundred meters apart. Company F then is closer to Company I, than E. Why don't we have those two and not E and F together. Don't know. Steve rebuts Mac by saying one of those routes down the three coulees is easier than the other two, therefore more likely. Steve determined the ease of travel by being there far more than once, and in riding each of them at least once if not multiple time. So what Steve did is make an evaluation. Custer was there once and did not have the time to make that evaluation before he gave his orders to possibly take one of them. In addition you have Steve's experience contradicting what Mac told us about Deep Coulee and how Wolf Tooth placed Custer there. Deep Coulee runs both east and west from the southern end of Battle Ridge, and I believe that Wolf Tooth had Custer in the eastern segment of that coulee. Steve tells us that had Custer chosen to cross Sharpshooter Ridge then onto L-N-C that he would be more exposed. More exposed from what? That place is masked from view from the village by both bluffs and a couple of hundred feet of elevation, and as for ease, Custer was only there once and had to make up his mind what to do. and it is not as if he had a map or previous reconnaissance to help him with his decision. The moral of the story is two fold. 1) What seems like the best way in 2018, might not have presented itself as best in 1876. and 2) Sometimes the hard road is the road best taken. I am reasonably sure that riding on the top of ridge is more exposed to observation then below the military crest and I think they would know that in 1876. As far as riding down SSR there is no difference where end at Cedar Coulée. SSR is one side of Cedar Coulée. Looking at Google Earth Pro you will also see that SSR at the junction with MTC makes a turn toward the bottom Cedar Coulée. SSR is the right side of Cedar Coulée. The difference is measured in yards when riding down the left side which is called Cedar Coulée and riding down the right side on top is called SSR. Even Middle Coulée hits MTC Coulée relatively close to Cedar Coulée.
So what I am saying is that the route from Reno Creek to MTC has zero effect up to entering MTC. Where they went to climb out the other side is up for discussion. Martin states he went within 600 yards of MTF before being sent back.
Off to Advance Firearms training for our new officers. Today is shotgun and Thursday and Friday is AR-15.
Regards
Steve
|
|
azranger
Brigadier General
Ranger
Posts: 1,824
|
Post by azranger on May 23, 2018 11:39:24 GMT
|
|
|
Post by yanmacca on May 23, 2018 13:43:10 GMT
Chuck, the only mention of any 40 yards is that this distance was estimated by the survivors, but another web site gives this;
Major Reno led his command, riding twenty yards ahead of the troopers with his adjutant and flag bearer. Our old friend Lt. DeRudio along with others, submitted good description on how Reno acted that afternoon, here is a snippet of some testimonies at the RCOI; At the ford A crossing, Reno was the first man in the stream. As They moved to a gallop, Reno in front, continually checking the order.Dr Porter also chipped in; Porter was riding with Reno and Hodgson in front of the command. Reno was in the centre; Porter remembered being to the major’s left. Capt Moylan too; After crossing the LBH, the battalion formed in a column – of – fours, Reno now at the head of the command.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on May 23, 2018 15:09:51 GMT
Flag bearer - what flag did he bear?
In the United States Army of 1876, each mounted company or battery was authorized a guidon, and cavalry regiments were authorized a standard, Battalion commanders were authorized nothing. So when seeing that comment my nose starts twitching to the point where everything else said is suspect. The point is if you miss on the obvious (a flag, where none is authorized) what have you done with the rest of the information.
I would expect Reno to be first or one of the first in the stream.
I would expect Reno to be in front, but being in front, and being out front are two different things.
There is not one line that you provided that can not be interpreted two or more ways.
If Reno was riding out front and continually checking the order (meaning if things were all in order) then he must have been out front continually looking backward. Does that make any sense to you? Were Reno to be in the place I would expect him to be, centered between the two lead companies, but still in front aligned with their lead element, he would only have to glance from side to side periodically, and could largely focus on what was to the battalion's front.
We have spent far too long on this. Remember this though, when someone gives you exact times, exact places, or exact measurements for some event occurring a century and a half ago - throw the book away. It is a waste of your time.
Steve: I am reasonably sure that Custer's route northward will never be determined by anyone who was not there. We have but one benchmark, the trail Godfrey discovered on L-N-C. Having that tells us that Custer, or some of Custer, passed that way. How they got there becomes completely irrelevant.
Martin says he was within 600 yards of MTC before being sent back. One witness equals no witness for the historian. Some statement that cannot be independently verified is eliminated, until verification is made. That does not mean he was not truthful? No, it means that it cannot be verified to the point where the statement can be confidently placed in any historical narrative
|
|
|
Post by yanmacca on May 23, 2018 16:30:04 GMT
Yes Chuck you are correct, we have spent too long on this matter because all those accounts didn't come from a pen of an author but from the pages of the RCOI and took some digging around I can tell you.
I must add that there was nothing personnel in all this, simply that you rightfully challenged one of my posts and I had to check up on this to try and find if I made an error, but I couldn't find anything that blames me in any wrong doing. I think that if I challenged one of your posts that you would do exactly the same and try to bring evidence to the table.
Now lets see what is new so we can move on.
|
|
|
Post by deadwoodgultch on May 23, 2018 17:03:30 GMT
Chuck, quit challenging Ian, you should know better. Ian get Col. French MacLean's book about Custer's Best Company M. They were the best at a number of things, among them “The 58 Company M men who participated in the fight racked up a total of at least 62 courts-martial.” before they got out of the army.
Regards, Tom
|
|
|
Post by yanmacca on May 23, 2018 19:28:32 GMT
Tom, that books 70 bucks, what do you think I am made of money
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on May 23, 2018 20:03:40 GMT
Ian: I am not challenging you or anyone else. I am challenging the statement. I want to tear the statement apart as much as it can be torn to see if it does or can hold up.
If someone, anyone, puts out a supposed statement of fact that in any way sounds suspicious, or does not make sense, don't you think the statement should be challenged.
You reported in this last instance what you found. You did not make those statements. You only reported them.
The point is people lie, they embellish, the go hyperbolic, they seek fame by association. For many of these participants it is their 15 minutes of fame, their grab at the brass ring of immortality. I was there with so and so, when such and such happened. If we don't tear these things apart to discover truth, or even partial truth, we are in fact wasting our time, because we ourselves become hip deep in that visual and mental Purgatory I spoke of last night, where our lives become a never ending cycle of History Channel reruns
|
|
mac
Brigadier General
Posts: 1,790
|
Post by mac on May 24, 2018 5:07:35 GMT
Events like the action in the valley and Custer's route to LNC Ridge are interesting and who knows where they lead but at present they are not critical perhaps. To get back to the point of the thread , the more I look at what we have so far the less likely it seems that there was any definite sighting of Custer. We know he saw the valley because of the content of his note. The hat thing is perhaps an interesting thing but not critical. Am I right in remembering someone in the valley claimed to see the Company E horses? Cheers
|
|