I think there was a topic about this last year. But anyway, thanks george.
Posted on 02/15/2008 7:15:07 AM PST by drzz
the truth is, Custer achieved a surprise attack on Indians and was on the verge of a victory. However, Benteen and Reno let him alone, never gave him any support and he died waiting for them and trying to protect their arrival.
Custer fought with 210 men, Benteen and Reno waited on a hill with 400 other men.
AS US general-in-chief Nelson A. Miles said to summarize the betrayal of Little Bighorn, no one can win victories when 2/3 of your troops are out of the fight.
Custer was Democrat but voted Lincoln in 1864. He was far from being the kind of cut-n-run liberals we have today. When McClellan’s Democrats advocated for surrender during the Civil War, Custer wrote to his father, a life-long Democrat, that “peace could be achieved but with the bayonnets”
Fox based his researches on cartridges 110 years after the battle, whith relic hunters having picked up thousands of shells before he was born.
His conclusions are therefore bogus.
Historians said that 1’000 Indians fought Custer’s 210 men on Custer battlefield, while ZERO Indian was threatening Benteen’s and Reno’s 400 men fifteen minutes away (at a gallop)
Thank you for your posts.
Question : Crook lost a battle earlier apparently forcing him to stop. Was Crook in violation of orders from Miles to proceed north to support the three point attack ?
Were Crook’s losses ( real and imagined ) so bad that he could not proceed north ? Crook went fishing instead ?
Crook is hardly the first to be on the receiving end of that complaint with similar results.
I have been trying to understand this history better.
Plenty Coups wasn't so sure Crook had chosen a defensible camp on the upper Rosebud on the night of June 16, 1876.
The Battle of the Rosebud was a draw although Crook remained on the battle ground.
Crook's force was left in possession of the battlefield and he claimed a victory, his Indian scouts refused to continue, halting his advance and preventing him from joining up with the 7th Cavalry under George A. Custer, ensuring the latter's defeat at the Battle of the Little Bighorn on June 25, 1876.
.
http://www.footnote.com/page/1209/the-battle-of-little-big-horn
http://www.friendslittlebighorn.com/Archeology-survey-2004.htm
I think there was a topic about this last year. But anyway, thanks george.
Heroism in American History : watch the video
YouTube | custerdivision
Posted on 04/10/2007 10:40:29 AM EDT by drzz
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/1814932/posts
Video: UNITED THEY STOOD
VIDEO | drzz
Posted on 04/13/2007 10:18:50 AM EDT by drzz
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1816759/posts
Watch the video: a look at an American soldier without political correctness (part I)
Watch the video | 04/18/2007 | drzz
Posted on 04/18/2007 1:05:18 PM EDT by drzz
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1819401/posts
Video: US general in chief about the battle of the Little Big Horn
Video | 04/27/07 | drzz
Posted on 04/27/2007 12:23:05 PM EDT by drzz
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1824654/posts
Video: Betrayal at Little Big Horn, the evidence
Video | 05/10/07 | drzz
Posted on 05/10/2007 8:43:50 AM EDT by drzz
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/1831241/posts
Today in history: the battle of Little Bighorn
Custer’s Last Stand | June 25, 2007 | drzz
Posted on 06/25/2007 9:45:11 AM EDT by drzz
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1855862/posts
US History : the Battle of the Little Bighorn in six minutes
Video | 01/16/2007 | custerwest
Posted on 01/16/2008 11:43:47 AM EST by drzz
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/1954654/posts
also related:
Custer Describes the Battle of the Washita
My Life on the Plains Gen. George A. Custer | 1872 | Gen. George A. Custer
Posted on 05/19/2006 3:18:33 PM EDT by robowombat
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-vetscor/1635122/posts
George Armstrong Custer and The Battle of the Little Big Horn
(A South African View)
S.A. Military History Society Journal | November, 1973 | R. MURCHISON
Posted on 06/05/2006 2:09:10 PM EDT by robowombat
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-vetscor/1643759/posts
Your memory is a little faulty in this case, as the battle you refer to was the “Rosebud”, not redbud. Additionally, it was more of a draw then a clear defeat.
You are uninformed.
1. Up to the Little Big horn, Custer had not been a loser and he was NEVER a fool.
2. A junior officer does NOT have the right to disobey an order just because the man issuing it is arrogant. It is their duty to obey. Benteen and Reno failed at this.
3. As to your review of his tactics of that day, you obviously no nothing of Indian fighting. It was common practice to split a command when fighting Indians. A good example would be the Battle of the Rosebud, just prior to Custer’s fight.
4. Prior to this date, the Indian men would put up a delaying action while the women, children and aged scattered. This time, the men put up a very determined fight.
5. Custer, according to many leading authorities, was attempting to get beyond the village to capture the woman and children. If he had done so, the men would have surrendered. If Reno had pushed the attack on the village, Custer would have been able to capture the woman and children. Reno would have lost more men in that fight, but not as many as Custer ultimately lost AND it would have been a victory.
Arrogance had nothing to do with Custer’s actions that day. Based on past experience, his plan was a good one. It was the type of plan that George Patton probably approved - grab ‘em by the nose (Reno) and kick ‘em in the butt (Custer).
Read a few books on the subject and get back to me.
Only from what we had in Command & Staff.
1) IMHO, we disagree.
2) Concur. IMHO, insufficient evidence to justly convict based upon contradictory timelines and when messages were received and corroborated by their peers. Due to the after action reports which were very much influenced by political climates in prof Army service, I have cause to question the veracity of either perspective, so I’ll withhold judgment on condemning the junior officers and survivors.
3) Principles of Warfare as taught from Napoleon to the American Civil War provided ample evidence of the consequences of failing to mass one’s forces at the critical moment of decisive engagement on the battlefield.
4) More critical than the determined fight was the size of the opposing force which was grossly underestimated by Custer.
5) His approach was closer to Janet Reno’s than Reno’s grab their nose and Custer “kick-em-in-the-butt”. Blunder in and get the hornet’s nest all riled up, then blunder in the rear with a split force, insufficiently supplied and reinforced, deploy without any recourse and face the mass of the enemy force which was 10 times the commander’s estimate of the situation, ...viola decimation of the attacking force.
BTW, arrogance was also a known attribute of Patton as well, although his military battlefield career is, IMHO, much greater, better planned, more professional, and well practiced than Custer’s.
The Indians never read about Napoleon. They did not fight like a regular army. As I stated before, splitting up of one’s forces was a standard and successful tactic used against the American Indians. You cannot argue against success.
Up until the Little Big Horn, the decisive moment in any Indian battle was when the army was threatening the woman, children and elderly. If supported properly, it would have been the same here.
You blame Custer for under-estimating the size of the enemy force. Do you also blame him for the fact that the Indians opted to stand and fight this day, and not fight a delaying action? Do you blame him for their change in tactics? Up to that day, the size of the Indian force meant little. They would fight a delaying action and abandon the camp. The Army would burn the camp and kill the remaining horses while the Indians watched from a safe distance. If the Army was able to capture a large group of women, children and elderly, the braves would surrender.
Custer did not blunder in, as you put it. If you had read any books on the subject you would know that. He went in with a good plan - standard for Indian fighting.
Was Custer insufficiently supplied and reinforced? Yes. Was it his fault? No. As the article about Weir points out, Benteen did not bring up the needed supplies nor the reinforcements.
Reno made the odds against Custer so out of balance by retreating to a position that took him out of the fight. Custer had every right to believe that Reno would follow orders. If he had done so, he would have occupied the attention of most of the Indians, giving Custer a chance to capture the women, children and elderly.
I truly believe that you need to read some books on this subject, then you would not make foolish statements like your principles of warfare remark. The West Pointers were taught those principles and the smart ones quickly abandoned them when they encountered American Indians.
You also attack Custer for things beyond his control. You say that he deployed without any recourse. That is not true. He called for Benteen to come to him. He called for additional ammo. Neither happened.
It all boils down to this: The Indians realized that this was their last chance to preserve, for a while, their old way of life. On this sunny day in June of 1876, the Indians decided NOT to run, but to stand and fight. And you blame Custer for that decision!!!!!!
Little Big Horn was indeed a massacre because the hostiles killed all wounded they found, and took no prisoners. They tortured them to death. So let’s hear no more about the noble savages.
My great-great grandfaher was in Weir’s troop, discharged in 1872. He always characterized Custer as a hated leader who unnecessarily rode horses to death and caused desertions. Custer took over commissaries and made profits from what his troopers spent on paydays. He deserted his own command to ride to his wife for sex. He fathered children by Indian women.
Facts
Before Little Big Horn, Custer refused to take: Gatling guns, cavalry reinforcements, and repeating rifles. All three might have helped his troops survive the Battle. He did not listen to his own scouts. He did not rest his men before battle. Custer disobeyed orders by not sending word to his superiors that he had discovered the hostile camp.
Had Benteen followed orders explicitly, he would have continued scouting and missed the battle.
Weir Point survivors indicated seeing hostiles and hearing gunfire. None reported seeing troopers.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
