Happy Custer Day!

[gipper]

Not true. Custer was well liked by most of his fellow officers. I recommend reading T. J. Stiles' book Custer's Trials and Nathan Philbrick's book The Last Stand.



That had nothing to do with it. Reno was just a coward, in addition to being a mediocre officer. Reno's brainless, fatal decision to leave the timber and move to Reno Hill was inexcusable, cost him at least 25% of his troops, and freed the Indians to focus on Custer.

Once Benteen handed Reno Custer's hand-written order on Reno Hill to quickly bring more ammo, he had a solemn duty to execute that order immediately, not stall for nearly an hour while Custer was fighting for his life.

Benteen was the real jerk in the unit, and he harbored a long-standing baseless grudge against Custer. Benteen did not just betray Custer by taking his sweet time bringing the ammo forward, he also betrayed the 200-plus men who were with Custer as well. Benteen should have arrived at Reno Hill at least 20 minutes earlier, but he moved with shameful casualness after getting Custer's order.


"Other units"? The only units at the battle were part of the 7th Cavalry Regiment. The troops under Benteen and under Reno were part of the 7th Cavalry; they all belonged to Custer's regiment. When the 7th neared the area, Custer split his regiment into three sections; he gave Reno command of one battalion (three companies) and Benteen command of another battalion.

Much of your post conflicts with historical accounts. This one in particular.
Benteen: Between a Rock and a Hard Place

If Benteen was so incompetent, why was there no court-martial?

By other units, I was referring to Benteen and Reno.

 

[Mushroom]

Once Benteen handed Reno Custer's hand-written order on Reno Hill to quickly bring more ammo, he had a solemn duty to execute that order immediately, not stall for nearly an hour while Custer was fighting for his life.

Only one problem, the pack mules with the ammo that was needed had not arrived yet.

Yes, the orders specifically were to come to assist, and to "bring the packs", in other words the pack mules with all of the extra ammo. It was not to come immediately, it was to come immediately with ammo. And in case you are not aware, pack mules travel significantly slower than cavalry troops do. The pack train with the ammo was still over three miles away from Benteen, who was himself another three to four miles from the scene of battle. And by the time the pack trains finally arrived, it was already over.

By the time the ammo train was near, the first scout reports had returned and reported the battle was essentially over and the Indians were heading their way "thick as grasshoppers in a harvest field".

So the only person to blame here was LtCol Custer himself, for orders that mandated that they only join him with the ammunition. Not that even that would have mattered, it only would have gotten more people killed.

 

[mikegriffith1]

Much of your post conflicts with historical accounts. This one in particular.
Benteen: Between a Rock and a Hard Place

If Benteen was so incompetent, why was there no court-martial?

By other units, I was referring to Benteen and Reno.

Let me save you some time: The overwhelming majority of historians who have studied the Battle of the Little Big Horn have concluded that Reno and Benteen, whether intentionally or not, sabotaged Custer by failing to follow clear orders. Pick any modern book on the battle and you'll find that it reaches this conclusion.

Why was there no court martial??? You're kidding, right??? Because Custer was a well-known conservative Democrat and the Army was dominated by Republicans at the time. Ulysses S. Grant, though he was honorable in many cases, shamefully blamed Custer for the massacre before he even knew what had happened.

There was eventually a court of inquiry into Reno's conduct at the Little Big Horn, in 1879, but it was mostly a whitewash, even though the court recorder made it clear that he believed Reno's conduct had been feckless and blundering, if not cowardly.

However, Reno had already been disgraced and dismissed from the Army for immoral conduct in 1877. Yet, Republican President Rutherford Hayes reduced his dismissal to just two years. That should give you some idea of the politics that were in play at the time.

 

[Mushroom]

failing to follow clear orders.

The orders were clear. Come join the battle with all the ammo.

The ammo were on mules, and behind the forces. They had to wait for the mules to arrive, as his orders specifically mandated they come with all the ammo.

 

[flewism]

I live 20 miles from where Custer was born. There is still an 8ft high bronze statue of him drawing his sword on a 5 ft marble pedestal in the town's central park. I'm surprised it hasn't been vandalized or pulled down. My reading on him describes him as an arrogant prick. They have an Ampitheater in that same park with live music on the weekend. I attend those events regularly.

 

[Lastamender]

Was it? Seems to me your quest to eliminate us failed on a grand scale.

View attachment 967181

 

[mikegriffith1]

Only one problem, the pack mules with the ammo that was needed had not arrived yet.

Yes, the orders specifically were to come to assist, and to "bring the packs", in other words the pack mules with all of the extra ammo. It was not to come immediately, it was to come immediately with ammo. And in case you are not aware, pack mules travel significantly slower than cavalry troops do. The pack train with the ammo was still over three miles away from Benteen, who was himself another three to four miles from the scene of battle. And by the time the pack trains finally arrived, it was already over.

By the time the ammo train was near, the first scout reports had returned and reported the battle was essentially over and the Indians were heading their way "thick as grasshoppers in a harvest field".

So the only person to blame here was LtCol Custer himself, for orders that mandated that they only join him with the ammunition. Not that even that would have mattered, it only would have gotten more people killed.

Obviously, you didn't read my article, or you wouldn't have repeated these myths. Here's the link again:

General Custer and the Little Big Horn: Setting the Record Straight

You've apparently copied and pasted your claims from the tiny minority of sources that still blame Custer. I take it you haven't read any of the last dozen or so scholarly books on the Little Big Horn, including Nathan Philbrick's The Last Stand: Custer, Sitting Bull, and the Battle of the Little Bighorn (New York: Viking, 2010), Robert Utley's Custer: Cavalier in Buckskin (University of Oklahoma Press, 2001), James Donovan, A Terrible Glory: Custer and the Little Bighorn (New York: Little, Brown, and Company, 2008), and Larry Sklenar's To Hell with Honor (University of Oklahoma Press, 2000), among many others.

Your tiny-minority sources either didn't mention or you didn't mention that Custer didn't just say to bring the packs (the ammo) but to do it quickly ("bring packs, come quick"). Benteen did nothing of the kind. He took his sweet time. What's more, Benteen received two orders to come quickly--the first order was delivered verbally through Sgt. Kanipe, who testified that he told Benteen "they want you up there as quick as you can get there" because they had "struck a huge Indian camp." The second was the written order that said "bring packs, come quick."

As for when the pack train arrived, in agreement with Major Reno's official report, but contrary to Reno's court of inquiry testimony, B. F. Churchill, a civilian packer with the pack train, said the pack train arrived to Reno Hill "a few minutes" after Captain Benteen arrived there (Reno Court of Inquiry, volume 2, p. 415). So, no, the pack train did not arrive until the battle on Custer Hill was over. I haven't seen anyone float that myth in years.

I notice you said nothing about Reno's inexcusable, cowardly, blundering decision to leave the timber. This pitiful decision got 1/4 of his battalion killed and caused the Indians to focus on Custer.

 

[Mushroom]

Obviously, you didn't read my article, or you wouldn't have repeated these myths.

Oh, I have read them. Here you go, from your own reference:

"Benteen. Come on. Big village. Be quick. Bring packs [ammo]."

That is pretty damned clear. Be quick, and bring the ammo. Not "Come quick, leave the ammo", but "Bring ammo".

Those orders to somebody in the military are quite clear. If the ammo was not important, he would not have specified very clearly to bring it along.

And to be honest, Lieutenant Colonel Custer was rather well known to be a rather piss-poor commander. He handled every issue on the battlefield as if it was a nail, and he only had hammers. Everything was to just charge into it in a frontal assault. It was his doing so during the Civil War that got him his star, but there he was only part of a much larger military force and he was not the one in command.

There was a reason after the war was over he was reduced all the way down from Major General to Lieutenant Colonel. And why he remained at that rank for 11 years without a promotion. Demotion after a major conflict like the Civil War was actually normal for those who remained in a military after the peace time cuts. But what is not usual is remaining at the significantly lower rank for over a decade.

Where a more capable Officer would have had done scouting of the enemy first, made a fallback position and have an actual battle plan other than "Charge!", LtCol Custer did absolutely none of that. Or even coordinating with his subordinate commands and ensure they were also prepared and ready to attack, not simply send a message giving them orders without waiting for confirmation they were actually ready to follow those orders.

They are not myths, they are simple facts. The fact that you do not like them does not make them any less real. Such as the clear cut orders to advance once the ammunition arrived.

 

[mikegriffith1]

Oh, I have read them.

Then why are you here repeating myths and distortions that were debunked long ago, myths that those sources refute. I don't think you've read any of the books I've cited.

Tell me: Why do you suppose Reno and Benteen told the brazen lie that they did not know what had happened to Custer until two days later? Huh? One of the civilian packers, B. F. Churchill, testified that after he reached Reno Hill, he heard gunfire for an hour and a half coming from a short distance to the north and knew it was Custer.

Here you go, from your own reference:

That is pretty damned clear. Be quick, and bring the ammo. Not "Come quick, leave the ammo", but "Bring ammo".

Those orders to somebody in the military are quite clear. If the ammo was not important, he would not have specified very clearly to bring it along.

HUH??? Who said the ammo was not important? Who said that Benteen was told to leave the ammo? What are you talking about? One of my main points has been that Custer told Benteen to bring more ammo to him as quickly as possible but that Benteen dawdled and took his sweet time coming forward.

And to be honest, Lieutenant Colonel Custer was rather well known to be a rather piss-poor commander. He handled every issue on the battlefield as if it was a nail, and he only had hammers. Everything was to just charge into it in a frontal assault.

Hogwash. You don't know what you're talking about. Far from being known as "a rather piss-poor commander," Custer was known as being a capable commander who cared about his men. I, once again, recommend that you read T. J. Stiles' highly acclaimed 2016 book Custer's Trials.

It was his doing so during the Civil War that got him his star, but there he was only part of a much larger military force and he was not the one in command.

There was a reason after the war was over he was reduced all the way down from Major General to Lieutenant Colonel. And why he remained at that rank for 11 years without a promotion. Demotion after a major conflict like the Civil War was actually normal for those who remained in a military after the peace time cuts. But what is not usual is remaining at the significantly lower rank for over a decade.

More misleading spin. You keep ignoring the politics that were in play at the time. Again, Custer was a conservative Democrat who had ardently defended McClellan and who had spoken out against Radical Reconstruction as being too harsh. The Army's leadership was dominated by Republicans. Look what the Republicans did to such an outstanding officer as John Fitz-Porter just because he was a Democrat and a McClellan ally. To ignore the politics that were behind the actions against Custer is simply unserious and dishonest.

Where a more capable Officer would have had done scouting of the enemy first, made a fallback position and have an actual battle plan other than "Charge!", LtCol Custer did absolutely none of that. Or even coordinating with his subordinate commands and ensure they were also prepared and ready to attack, not simply send a message giving them orders without waiting for confirmation they were actually ready to follow those orders.

Pure bunk. Yet again you prove you have no clue what you're talking about. I doubt you've read any of the books I've cited.

FYI, Custer did scout the enemy first and he did have a battle plan, a very good one, in fact. To claim that he did no recon and that his plan was merely "Charge" is ridiculous.

And Custer did coordinate with his commands, both before and after he divided his regiment into three battalions, both via messengers and written orders.

Custer's plan was sound. He could have held off the Indians on Custer Hill if Reno and Benteen had followed orders and come to him as quickly as they could. For that matter, the Indians never could have concentrated on Custer in the first place if Reno had not blunderingly left the timber and lost 1/4 of his command while getting to Reno Hill.

I notice you keep ignoring the fact that if Reno had stayed in the timber, which was near the village, the Indians would not have dared to concentrate their forces against Custer in the first place. They knew Benteen was coming up from the south. If Reno had stayed put in the timber, which was a superb defensive position and threatened the village at the same time, the Indians would have been forced to keep a large part of their force engaged against Reno.

You also keep ignoring the fact that Reno and Benteen's combined force of two battalions was able to hold off the same Indian force that wiped out Custer's battalion, even though Reno had lost 1/4 of his battalion while moving from the timber to Reno Hill. So, obviously, if Reno and Benteen had hurried to Custer's aid, the battle would have ended very differently.

They are not myths, they are simple facts. The fact that you do not like them does not make them any less real. Such as the clear cut orders to advance once the ammunition arrived.

They are not facts but myths and distortions that were debunked many years ago. Tell me: From what sources are you getting your claims? Name them (or it).

Only one single, solitary book written in the last 15 years makes the arguments you are making.

Every single book written by a recognized scholar on the subject in the last 25 years has concluded that Reno and Benteen miserably failed Custer, and that Custer's plan was sound and could have succeeded if Reno and Benteen had done their duty.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

You also keep ignoring the fact that Reno and Benteen's combined force of two battalions was able to hold off the same Indian force that wiped out Custer's battalion, even though Reno had lost 1/4 of his battalion while moving from the timber to Reno Hill. So, obviously, if Reno and Benteen had hurried to Custer's aid, the battle would have ended very differently.

This is where you lost me. You make the case that because Reno and Benteen were able to defend an entrenched defensive position they would be able to defeat the enemy on the open prairie. That is not a logical conclusion.

I would point you to a similar situation in South Africa. 120 men at Rorkes Drift were able to defend Rorkes Drift. The day before 1800 men had been routed on open countryside at Islandwhana. The situation is everything.

Renos battered force would have most likely been destroyed along with Custer. Custer was caught on open ground against a superior force that he knew about. He would have been better advised to have chosen better ground and not splitting his force.

 

[mikegriffith1]

The list of good, accurate books on Custer and the Little Big Horn is very long. Here are two more:

G.A. Custer to the Little Big Horn (2011), by Steve Alexander. If you've seriously studied this issue, you know who Steve Alexander is.

Death at the Little Bighorn: A New Look at Custer, His Tactics, and the Tragic Decisions Made at the Last Stand (2021), by Phillip Thomas Tucker. Tucker is a military historian, and his book is perhaps the best analysis ever written of Custer's tactics and of how the battle unfolded. Tucker shows that Custer's plan was sound and that he could have won, or at least survived, if he had been properly supported by Reno and Benteen.

 

[mikegriffith1]

You also keep ignoring the fact that Reno and Benteen's combined force of two battalions was able to hold off the same Indian force that wiped out Custer's battalion, even though Reno had lost 1/4 of his battalion while moving from the timber to Reno Hill. So, obviously, if Reno and Benteen had hurried to Custer's aid, the battle would have ended very differently.

This is where you lost me. You make the case that because Reno and Benteen were able to defend an entrenched defensive position they would be able to defeat the enemy on the open prairie. That is not a logical conclusion.

I would point you to a similar situation in South Africa. 120 men at Rorkes Drift were able to defend Rorkes Drift. The day before 1800 men had been routed on open countryside at Islandwhana. The situation is everything.

Renos battered force would have most likely been destroyed along with Custer. Custer was caught on open ground against a superior force that he knew about. He would have been better advised to have chosen better ground and not splitting his force.

So you're another one who's read next to nothing on the subject but are so biased against Custer that you attack him anyway.

First of all, how in the world was Custer Hill the "open prairie"??? Custer Hill (aka Last Stand Hill) was some 3,000 feet high and was a solid defensive position. Custer had held the Indians at bay relatively easily, for nearly an hour, until Reno left the timber and freed the Indians to concentrate their entire force on Custer.

Even then, the Indians, after making one frontal assault that got repulsed, had to resort to using the gullies and ravines leading up to the top of the hill as firing positions to avoid taking heavy casualties. When they finally tried more open assaults after they had killed a number of Custer's men, Indian accounts say they lost many warriors in the close-range fighting that resulted.

Go watch NPS videos that show Custer Hill and see how steep the hill is, and keep in mind that the hill was steeper/higher in 1867 but has been leveled off over the years since then.

We also need to keep in mind that Custer kept a part of his force extended to cover Benteen's expected--and clearly ordered--arrival. But Benteen flagrantly disobeyed the order and never came, and Reno did the same when he was made aware of it.

Also, Reno Hill was hardly an "entrenched defensive position." Reno's soldiers had to dig trenches on the hill and had to stay in part of the depression on the hill to avoid Indian gunfire because surrounding hills enabled the Indians to shoot down at Reno Hill. Reno himself admitted that if any man showed too much of himself, he was liable to get hit. The Indians could not do this to Custer Hill.

When Reno sent some men to get water from a stream at the base of the hill "many men were hit in doing so" (Reno's Official Report, July 5, 1876). Dozens of Reno's men were shot on Reno Hill. The biggest difference was that Reno had nearly 400 men and plenty of ammo, whereas Custer had just over 200 men and was running low on ammo.

Here's a good article by one of the better Custer scholars around, Dr. Greg Michno:

10 Battle of Little Bighorn Myths

10 Battle of Little Bighorn Myths

Why do so many myths persist about the events of Jun 25, 1876, when the Sioux and Cheyenne defeated Lt. Col. George Custer in Montana Territory?

www.historynet.com

 

[Tommy Tainant]

So you're another one who's read next to nothing on the subject but are so biased against Custer that you attack him anyway.

First of all, how in the world was Custer Hill the "open prairie"??? Custer Hill (aka Last Stand Hill) was some 3,000 feet high and was a solid defensive position. Custer had held the Indians at bay relatively easily, for nearly an hour, until Reno left the timber and freed the Indians to concentrate their entire force on Custer.

Even then, the Indians, after making one frontal assault that got repulsed, had to resort to using the gullies and ravines leading up to the top of the hill as firing positions to avoid taking heavy casualties. When they finally tried more open assaults after they had killed a number of Custer's men, Indian accounts say they lost many warriors in the close-range fighting that resulted.

Go watch NPS videos that show Custer Hill and see how steep the hill is, and keep in mind that the hill was steeper/higher in 1867 but has been leveled off over the years since then.

We also need to keep in mind that Custer kept a part of his force extended to cover Benteen's expected--and clearly ordered--arrival. But Benteen flagrantly disobeyed the order and never came, and Reno did the same when he was made aware of it.

Also, Reno Hill was hardly an "entrenched defensive position." Reno's soldiers had to dig trenches on the hill and had to stay in part of the depression on the hill to avoid Indian gunfire because surrounding hills enabled the Indians to shoot down at Reno Hill. Reno himself admitted that if any man showed too much of himself, he was liable to get hit. The Indians could not do this to Custer Hill.

When Reno sent some men to get water from a stream at the base of the hill "many men were hit in doing so" (Reno's Official Report, July 5, 1876). Dozens of Reno's men were shot on Reno Hill. The biggest difference was that Reno had nearly 400 men and plenty of ammo, whereas Custer had just over 200 men and was running low on ammo.

Here's a good article by one of the better Custer scholars around, Dr. Greg Michno:

10 Battle of Little Bighorn Myths

10 Battle of Little Bighorn Myths

Why do so many myths persist about the events of Jun 25, 1876, when the Sioux and Cheyenne defeated Lt. Col. George Custer in Montana Territory?

www.historynet.com

You quote yourself in your response and ignore the central point I made. This isnt a historical discuuion to you. You are a fanboy.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

You quote yourself in your response and ignore the central point I made. This isnt a historical discuuion to you. You are a fanboy.

The easily defendable "Custer Hill". Impregnable.

 

[mikegriffith1]

View attachment 975696

The easily defendable "Custer Hill". Impregnable.
You quote yourself in your response and ignore the central point I made. This isnt a historical discuuion to you. You are a fanboy.

Actually, this isn't a historical discussion to you, because you're a woke armchair critic who knows next to nothing about the battle.

You ignored every point I made about Custer Hill and Reno Hill and simply rephrased your errant argument that Custer Hill was a poor defensive position and that Reno Hill was a much stronger defensive position. And why did you ignore the fact that the Indians could not shoot downward at Custer Hill but could do so at Reno Hill?

Nobody who knows anything about military terms would call Reno Hill an "entrenched defensive position." An entrenched defensive position is not a position that enemy snipers can fire into from a higher elevation. An entrenched defensive position is not a position with nothing more than weak, flimsy barricades as parapets.

Your disinterest in candor and fact is evident in your selection of a misleading photo of Custer Hill. Why don't you show any of the photos of the hill taken from the bottom of it and from a distance that enables the viewer to see how steep it was? Surely you saw such photos when you browsed for photos of the hill, but you chose a photo that gives a misleading perspective and ignored all the ones that show how high and steep it was from ground level.

I never said Custer Hill was "impregnable." I said it was a good defensive position, which it was, which is why Custer chose it in the first place and why his units that were extended to facilitate Benteen's expected arrival retreated to it after the Indians became too numerous to hold off.

I see you once again ignored my point that Custer was able to hold off the Indians until Reno, who was drunk, blunderingly left the timber and fled away from the village and away from Custer to get to Reno Hill. The Indians never would have been able to concentrate their entire force on Custer in the first place if Reno had not panicked and foolishly left the timber.

I repeat the point that if Reno was able to hold off the entire Indian force on Reno Hill, in spite of its weaknesses, Custer surely would have been able to do the same on Custer Hill if Reno had come to his aid after Benteen reached Reno Hill. Or, if Benteen had gone straight to Custer as soon as he received the order to "come on, be quick," he would have had enough soldiers to keep the Indians from using the gullies and ravines leading up to the top of Custer Hill and would not have had to worry about conserving ammo while engaged in a fire fight.

But you don't care about any of this because you're a woke propagandist who is determined to smear Custer.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

Actually, this isn't a historical discussion to you, because you're a woke armchair critic who knows next to nothing about the battle.

You ignored every point I made about Custer Hill and Reno Hill and simply rephrased your errant argument that Custer Hill was a poor defensive position and that Reno Hill was a much stronger defensive position. And why did you ignore the fact that the Indians could not shoot downward at Custer Hill but could do so at Reno Hill?

Nobody who knows anything about military terms would call Reno Hill an "entrenched defensive position." An entrenched defensive position is not a position that enemy snipers can fire into from a higher elevation. An entrenched defensive position is not a position with nothing more than weak, flimsy barricades as parapets.

Your disinterest in candor and fact is evident in your selection of a misleading photo of Custer Hill. Why don't you show any of the photos of the hill taken from the bottom of it and from a distance that enables the viewer to see how steep it was? Surely you saw such photos when you browsed for photos of the hill, but you chose a photo that gives a misleading perspective and ignored all the ones that show how high and steep it was from ground level.

I never said Custer Hill was "impregnable." I said it was a good defensive position, which it was, which is why Custer chose it in the first place and why his units that were extended to facilitate Benteen's expected arrival retreated to it after the Indians became too numerous to hold off.

I see you once again ignored my point that Custer was able to hold off the Indians until Reno, who was drunk, blunderingly left the timber and fled away from the village and away from Custer to get to Reno Hill. The Indians never would have been able to concentrate their entire force on Custer in the first place if Reno had not panicked and foolishly left the timber.

I repeat the point that if Reno was able to hold off the entire Indian force on Reno Hill, in spite of its weaknesses, Custer surely would have been able to do the same on Custer Hill if Reno had come to his aid after Benteen reached Reno Hill. Or, if Benteen had gone straight to Custer as soon as he received the order to "come on, be quick," he would have had enough soldiers to keep the Indians from using the gullies and ravines leading up to the top of Custer Hill and would not have had to worry about conserving ammo while engaged in a fire fight.

But you don't care about any of this because you're a woke propagandist who is determined to smear Custer.

You told me yourself that Reno was dug in trenches. If Custer Hill was such a great position why couldnt he defend it. It doesnt look it to me. I suspect you are not an honest person Mike. If it meant much to me I would look at your links. But others have already pulled your pants down on this thread.

 

[mikegriffith1]

You told me yourself that Reno was dug in trenches.

Simply digging shallow trenches on a hill does not make the hill an "entrenched defensive position." And you again ignored the fact that the Indians were able to fire downward at Reno's soldiers from a nearby elevation, whereas they could not do that to Custer Hill.

If Custer Hill was such a great position why couldnt he defend it?

Uh, I already answered this. Again, Custer barely had 200 men and was running low on ammo. That's why. Reno, on the other hand, had nearly 400 men and plenty of ammo. And, until Reno freed up the Indians to concentrate on Custer, Custer was keeping the Indians at bay because he was only facing about half the Indian force--that changed when Reno left the timber.

Again, if Benteen had gone straight to Custer as ordered, or if Reno had gone to Custer after Benteen reached Reno Hill, Custer would have had enough men to thwart the Indian assaults.

And, again, if Reno had not idiotically left the timber, the Indians never would have been able to concentrate on Custer in the first place.

It doesnt look it to me. I suspect you are not an honest person Mike.

You who posted a severely misleading picture of Custer Hill are calling me dishonest? You who keeps ignoring key contrary facts are calling me dishonest? Humm. Okay.

If it meant much to me I would look at your links.

LOL! Right! This is so typical of woke liberals. You won't even dare to read anything that challenges your fringe ideology. So, you won't even read the article by Dr. Michno? Do you know who he is? He's one of the deans of Custer scholarship and probably knows the Indian sources better than anyone. So, nah, no need to read him explode 10 common myths about the battle, right?

But others have already pulled your pants down on this thread.

LOL! Oh really?! Pray tell, who has "pulled my pants down on this thread"?! Mushroom??? He knows about as little about the battle as you do.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

Simply digging shallow trenches on a hill does not make the hill an "entrenched defensive position." And you again ignored the fact that the Indians were able to fire downward at Reno's soldiers from a nearby elevation, whereas they could not do that to Custer Hill.



Uh, I already answered this. Again, Custer barely had 200 men and was running low on ammo. That's why. Reno, on the other hand, had nearly 400 men and plenty of ammo. And, until Reno freed up the Indians to concentrate on Custer, Custer was keeping the Indians at bay because he was only facing about half the Indian force--that changed when Reno left the timber.

Again, if Benteen had gone straight to Custer as ordered, or if Reno had gone to Custer after Benteen reached Reno Hill, Custer would have had enough men to thwart the Indian assaults.

And, again, if Reno had not idiotically left the timber, the Indians never would have been able to concentrate on Custer in the first place.


You who posted a severely misleading picture of Custer Hill are calling me dishonest? You who keeps ignoring key contrary facts are calling me dishonest? Humm. Okay.


LOL! Right! This is so typical of woke liberals. You won't even dare to read anything that challenges your fringe ideology. So, you won't even read the article by Dr. Michno? Do you know who he is? He's one of the deans of Custer scholarship and probably knows the Indian sources better than anyone. So, nah, no need to read him explode 10 common myths about the battle, right?



LOL! Oh really?! Pray tell, who has "pulled my pants down on this thread"?! Mushroom??? He knows about as little about the battle as you do.

If you were a serious scholar you would present a range of views. However you just present stuff to back up your prejudice. It undercuts your credibility and renders you superflous as a commentator.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

If you were a serious scholar you would present a range of views. However you just present stuff to back up your prejudice. It undercuts your credibility and renders you superflous as a commentator.

And I showed a picture of the site. The fact it didnt suit your narrative is uninportant. Maybe the Sioux came by an authorised route.

ANd maybe Custer would have lasted longer in trenches ? He could have used a tactic.

 

[deannalw]

One of the better threads I've read here in a long time. I enjoyed most all of it.

But for Tainant's snipes, of course.