quote:

---

Originally posted by AZ Ranger

An alternative is to rein up on command, halt, dis-mount (on command) and prepare to fire on foot;fire(On command)!

That is BS cavalry does not halt from a charge gait and form a skirmish line. By its nature the troops are separated and it requires a rally point. Can you give an example of troops charging and on command stopping by a command halt?

quote:

---

I'm really impressed with your calvary terminology,quite impressive. Firstly, Reno's movement was not a charge;it was an escape. Serious students of the battle are agreement with this notion. In fact, a great many feel that his leaving the timber was fotuitious, his manner of doing so was dismal. A charge is designed to break the impetus of the enemy and is followed by additional, military maneuvers to overcome the enemy. Jumping helter skelter into a river and not rendering assistance to those fallen troopers left behind is not a "charge."

---

Another alternative is to not flee in an un-organized mob and,rather,utilize the military sound timber instead of deserting it to rush toward the unknown.

Shows you don't understand what happens to horse and rider in a cavalry charge at a true gallop speed.That is why they have a rally point and usually reserved troops to fall back to.

quote:

---

I never claim to be the authority on "horse and rider" and am thankful that we have you to fill that role. However, common sense is free to all. Reno did absolutely nothing to construct a rally point. Secondly, are you suggesting that military personnel in dire straits do nothing to save themselves because they don't have "reserved Troops" thus, making it OK to run, run, run with their backs to the pursuing enemy?

---

Sgt. Ryan the most senior NCO disagrees with you and told French that if they didn't abandon the timber they would all be dead. Timber is not an universal preferred military cover and concealment especially for cavalry.

quote:

---

Sgt. Ryan was in fact a senior NCO (God Bless him) who quickly realized that Reno's inability to command, to establish fortified parameters, to lead his men had placed the entire company in such a precarious position that escape was now the only possible means of survival. Ryan, knowing that the commander was in a drunken stupor knew that they would all die if escape was not imminent. This harsh reality does nothing to absolved Reno of responsibility for this fiasco!

---

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by AZ Ranger

Sgt. Ryan was in fact a senior NCO (God Bless him) who quickly realized that Reno's inability to command, to establish fortified parameters, to lead his men had placed the entire company in such a precarious position that escape was now the only possible means of survival. Ryan, knowing that the commander was in a drunken stupor knew that they would all die if escape was not imminent. This harsh reality does nothing to absolved Reno of responsibility for this fiasco!

Here's a deal for you Joe I believe your above statement to be false (testimony for you) and an outright lie. So show me you source for statements above made by Ryan and I will stand corrected. First company commanders establish perimeters for their company in this case it would be French. Not sure what the "fortified parameters" are that you are talking about.

quote:

---

Fortunately, what you think about me has never caused me to lose an iota of sleep. I find it amusing that you call me a liar than you demand I supply a source for my post. Having done so, you will graciously condescend to have been corrected. Hoe gallant! Your unmitigated gall is surpassed only but your high opinion of yourself.

---

Joe you have said the timber was a great military location and that Reno should not have abandoned it. Have you changed your position on that?

quote:

---

No!

---

Ryan states it was the Indians surrounding them in large numbers that caused him to tell Captain French they needed to leave the timber. Reno had not decided that at that time. French told Ryan that it was not Indians rather it was Custer's men. He was wrong a private was shot from Indian fire according to Ryan.

quote:

---

I've said it before and I will say it again. The timber was surrounded and infiltrated solely due to Reno's deplorable effort to check the enemy. As a result, Ryan's proposition exit the timber was reasonable. How it was carried out was deplorable. Your abject refusal to acknowledge this military fiasco will not make it go away. I have no problem with your disagreeing with me. what I don't understand is your infantile need to denigrate anyone who opposes you. Be a man, son!

---

Reno reached the same conclusion that Ryan had reached. The timber was not a good defensive location and they needed to move.

I'll make a bargain with you now, find one scholar, student, historian or sane person who agrees with you analysis of Reno's "charge".

quote:

---

Sgt. Stanislas Roy called it a "retreat."
W.O. Taylor referred to the "charge" "The brief fight in the valley, the hasty and demoralized retreat to the bluffs followed at once by the immediate withdrawal of most if not all of our opponents, and our prolonged stay there for several hours unmolested are matters of general knowledge."
Capt. Moylan called it "Sauve-Qui-Peut Movement Everybody for himself. However you, Steve, describe the movement as orderly and proper.

---

Please provide us with Ryan's comments regarding Reno. They don't appear in 10 years with Custer which is Ryan's account (your testimony) of what happened.

quote:

---

Here's something that you can do for me. Please point out any quote marks used by me when I described Ryan as a Senior NCO who realized that the military situation he was under had deteriorated to such a degree (Reno again) that escape was necessary. My first paragraph was a paraphrase of Ryan's dilemma based upon his letters to Camp.
PS. "..And the same bluff where Maj. Reno's battalion retreated a second time. (Sgt. Ryan)
By this time the Indians had us surrounded. I said to Capt. French, Let us cut right through them." Major Reno spoke up - "Any men who wish to escape, follow me!"
were dear Sir, do you glean "charge" from vernacular such as this.
It does not matter. Once you have made up your mind you do not wish to be confused by facts.

---

AZ Ranger

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by joe wiggs

quote:

---

Originally posted by AZ Ranger

Sgt. Ryan was in fact a senior NCO (God Bless him) who quickly realized that Reno's inability to command, to establish fortified parameters, to lead his men had placed the entire company in such a precarious position that escape was now the only possible means of survival. Ryan, knowing that the commander was in a drunken stupor knew that they would all die if escape was not imminent. This harsh reality does nothing to absolved Reno of responsibility for this fiasco!

Here's a deal for you Joe I believe your above statement to be false (testimony for you) and an outright lie. So show me you source for statements above made by Ryan and I will stand corrected. First company commanders establish perimeters for their company in this case it would be French. Not sure what the "fortified parameters" are that you are talking about.

quote:

---

Fortunately, what you think about me has never caused me to lose an iota of sleep. I find it amusing that you call me a liar than you demand I supply a source for my post. Having done so, you will graciously condescend to have been corrected. Hoe gallant! Your unmitigated gall is surpassed only but your high opinion of yourself.

---

Joe you have said the timber was a great military location and that Reno should not have abandoned it. Have you changed your position on that?

quote:

---

No!

---

Ryan states it was the Indians surrounding them in large numbers that caused him to tell Captain French they needed to leave the timber. Reno had not decided that at that time. French told Ryan that it was not Indians rather it was Custer's men. He was wrong a private was shot from Indian fire according to Ryan.

[quote]I've said it before and I will say it again. The timber was surrounded and infiltrated solely due to Reno's deplorable effort to check the enemy. As a result, Ryan's proposition exit the timber was reasonable. How it was carried out was deplorable. Your abject refusal to acknowledge this military fiasco will not make it go away. I have no problem with your disagreeing with me. what I don't understand is your infantile need to denigrate anyone who opposes you. Be a man, son![/quote]

So lets see if you have any facts or are talking out you ass as usual. What was the circumference of the timber area and what would be the spacing between soldiers. Joe unlike you I stayed in the Marine Corps and did a tour in Viet Nam. As far as being a man its hard to anyone serious who poses as a female poster (Redirt) as having any idea of what a man is?

Reno reached the same conclusion that Ryan had reached. The timber was not a good defensive location and they needed to move.

I'll make a bargain with you now, find one scholar, student, historian or sane person who agrees with you analysis of Reno's "charge".

[quote]Sgt. Stanislas Roy called it a "retreat."
W.O. Taylor referred to the "charge" "The brief fight in the valley, the hasty and demoralized retreat to the bluffs followed at once by the immediate withdrawal of most if not all of our opponents, and our prolonged stay there for several hours unmolested are matters of general knowledge."
Capt. Moylan called it "Sauve-Qui-Peut Movement Everybody for himself. However you, Steve, describe the movement as orderly and proper.

---

Your either are the most stupid person on the boards or the biggest liar. I have never described the movement as orderly. I have presented what the troopers stated and none of the have it orderly when reaching the river. There are trooper descriptions of some of the companies forming up at the beginning. My position has always been that over time the horses separated.The troops were not experienced at having an independent seat and we limited to six shots revolver while moving.

So my guess you are the stupidest liar here.

Please provide us with Ryan's comments regarding Reno. They don't appear in 10 years with Custer which is Ryan's account (your testimony) of what happened.

[quote]Here's something that you can do for me. Please point out any quote marks used by me when I described Ryan as a Senior NCO who realized that the military situation he was under had deteriorated to such a degree (Reno again) that escape was necessary. My first paragraph was a paraphrase of Ryan's dilemma based upon his letters to Camp.
PS. "..And the same bluff where Maj. Reno's battalion retreated a second time. (Sgt. Ryan)
By this time the Indians had us surrounded. I said to Capt. French, Let us cut right through them." Major Reno spoke up - "Any men who wish to escape, follow me!"

were dear Sir, do you glean "charge" from vernacular such as this.
It does not matter. Once you have made up your mind you do not wish to be confused by facts.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by joe wiggs

WoW! Are you upset?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dark Cloud

There is no evidence that this was the "the greatest conglomeration of hostiles ever known." It was the biggest any of the survivors had seen, is all.

quote:

---

Mitch boyer who died during this battle was, unlike you, a veteran Indian fighter and greatly respected as an intelligent scout. ergo, he was strenuously sought to assist the troopers in this arduous endeavor as you may be aware of. he himself stated to General Custer that the village was the "biggest' gathering of Indians ever witnessed in his career as a scout. He was not a survivor was he?

---

Just like calling the Indians the world's greatest cavalry is bogus on its face, because nobody had seen even a meaningful plurailty of the world's military horsemen. Hyperbole, and a kindness to the fact they rode without saddles. In any case, the world's greatest cavalry seemed to lose all the time.

quote:

---

The men who challenged and met these warriors in combat are the same individuals who labeled them as the "greatest' calvary known. from the time they were able to walk, the Indian was preened, trained, and a part of his horse. Sheridan understood this and said so. Perhaps he should have conferred with you first?

---

Custer was no scapegoat for the campaign. Even at the time, the blame for the campaign's failure was not put on Custer. Crook's battle couldn't be blamed on him. Custer is the scapegoat for the Battle of the Little Bighorn only, with reason and hard to argue against it.

quote:

---

Crook was never officially censored nor admonished for his part in this "campaign". During the Reno Inquiry Reno was absolved of any wrong doing. Terry was never singled out for incompetence nor was Gibbon. Yet you say that Custer was never a 'scapegoat" when Reno and Benteen referred to his having no plans whatsoever. What would you call it;a testimonial?

---

How does accepting the army's hardwired belief the Indians would run allow one to "begin to understand..."

1. Crook's appreciation of his foe.
2. The Sioux running from Terry and Gibbon
3. that Custer was slaughtered....

....that the facts alone didn't provide?

quote:

---

It was a false assumption that resulted in the above. One's belief does not determine reality. Whether it was "hay-wired" or not it was the accepted perspective of the west at that time in history and proved to be so as Indians naturally preferred a guerrilla type attack whenever possible;hit and run...as fast as you can!

---

Custer could have retreated right up to the point he crossed MTC. His decision to do else was his error.

Hindsight is 20/20. you know now that he could have retreated. What you are unable to comprehend is that he did not wish to retreat until circumstances prevented his being able to do so. who knows, if reno had not chosen to cool his heel on the hill he might have been able to do so.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dark Cloud

Again: assertions have to be proved, the negatives cannot be. It may have been the greatest village size in that year or of the Sioux, but we really do not know, and it further conflicts with the "new" evidence that the village could only field about the same as the 7th. This, for the PC reason that the Indians need to be less numerous to excuse their incompetence and allowing civvies to be killed at the village, and granting Custerphiles permission to say Custer's plan would have worked if not for Reno and Benteen.

quote:

---

Does that mean that your "assertion" has to be proven as well? Never before had circumstances presented themselves to the Sioux and Cheyenne that even remotely resulted in such a mass of aborigines.
Pressed by the largest military thrust to date, their appeared to be safety in numbers.

---

And, it also requires an exact definition of "hostiles." Some of the Sioux claim they were a peaceful village and they would have surrendered if not attacked, etc. Was it bigger than the village at Kildeer Mt.? At the various treaty signings and gatherings? Since the pandemics killed off more than 90% of the population of the Americas in the years after Columbus, there's certainly room to picture huge villages of temporary duration.

quote:

---

Hostiles, all Indians who refused to come in when demanded by the U.S. Government no later than 1/31/1876. Yes, the village was bigger than Kildeer Mt. (whatever that was). Ask Reno and Benteen, they testified to 9,000 warriors alone.

---

It's just thoughtless hyperbole, like 'greatest light cavalry' and 'bravest soldier.' Which is to say: nonsense.

quote:

---

Do you receive an annuity for using the word "hyperbole?" I have never come across an individual who has such a fascination for the term. Your uncontested argument about the other two terms are with the historians who quoted the "hyperbole" from historical entities who used them. Please stop boring the present with your unsubstantiated insistence that they are not true!

---

I don't follow your point beyond that. Custer had many options beyond what he did, and he ignored them. For choosing a method that failed badly, he shoulders the blame, but for his battle only.

quote:

---

Under the circumstances he found himself under, Custer's "options" were not as multiple as you have suggested. For example he was ordered there and not responding on a lark, secondly, approximately 2/3 of his command rested on a hill for two hours while he was exterminated, Thirdly, perhaps you can come up with a more proficient way to capture the village without techniques available in our time?

---

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dark Cloud

There is no evidence that this was the "the greatest conglomeration of hostiles ever known." It was the biggest any of the survivors had seen, is all. Just like calling the Indians the world's greatest cavalry is bogus on its face, because nobody had seen even a meaningful plurailty of the world's military horsemen. Hyperbole, and a kindness to the fact they rode without saddles. In any case, the world's greatest cavalry seemed to lose all the time.

Custer was no scapegoat for the campaign. Even at the time, the blame for the campaign's failure was not put on Custer. Crook's battle couldn't be blamed on him. Custer is the scapegoat for the Battle of the Little Bighorn only, with reason and hard to argue against it.

How does accepting the army's hardwired belief the Indians would run allow one to "begin to understand..."

1. Crook's appreciation of his foe.
2. The Sioux running from Terry and Gibbon
3. that Custer was slaughtered....

....that the facts alone didn't provide?

Custer could have retreated right up to the point he crossed MTC. His decision to do else was his error.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by AZ Ranger

[quote]What you posted 35 fatals in the charge was not fact. Fact is 14. Tell how it was like a "fox hunt" in your own words?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by AZ Ranger

Asked and answered time does not change the answer. Soldiers that thier horse took off, on the skirmish line, in the timber, crossing the river or climbing the hill are not causities of the charge.

You still don't get it do you Joe

---