One problem with a leader who is a arrogant loser is that those who are his junior are placed in an awkward situation where when they remain obedient and loyal, they also become losers and associated with his arrogance. Meanwhile, should they disobey and not follow the arrogant loser, they become liable to indictments of mutiny and traitorous behavior.
IMHO, Custer was an arrogant fool who paid the price of his incompetence with the decimation of his military force. He committed his forces too early without sufficient battlefield intelligence, he failed to have sufficient logistics on hand when he committed his forces, and he split his forces in the heat of battle, while then sending conflicting orders which may not have been received in precedence of when they were intended, all in the heated actions of arrogant desperation.
Too many people associate desperate behavior with weakness, while ignoring how arrogance scars the thinking processes of those most arrogant. The desperation of the most arrogant is frequently characterized by resolute behavior forcefully thrusting itself upon the volition of one’s juniors, rather than respecting the volition of one’s juniors and providing responsible guidance always respecting legitimate authority.
sorry, but you are very ill-informed about the Little Bighorn.
You seem to suffer from a very usual hate against Custer based on myths and tradition - the arrogant fool at LBH.
Custer attacked a strong force with a front-flank attack which wasn’t only logical, but which worked until his support betrayed him. There was nothing foolish in attacking the Indians. US General-in-chief Nelson A Miles supported Custer’s decisions, as well as many historians (see custerwest.org)
You should review the true story of the battle of the Little Bighorn before writing such inflammatory statements. Hollywood cannot be used as historical reference.
Custer violated the military axiom of dividing his force when faced with a superior force. The entire regiment would have likely defeated the Indians, but divided into three columns it was defeated.
The main blame belongs to Custer....but Weir, Benteen and Reno get part as well.
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.