[drzz]

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 Hollywood cannot be used as historical reference.

[LS]

The "true history" might include Richard Fox's archeological insight that suggests that Custer, right up until the last minute, thought the Indians were "escaping." His troops on Keough Hill were badly infiltrated by the time he figured out he was the one who needed to be escaping. Had Benteen and Reno ran to his aid, another 180 men would have died.

Many Custerologists---who do not "hate Custer"---rightly conclude in my opinion that had Custer even taken the additional cavalry regiment he was offered AND had Benteen AND had the pack train, he still would have been wiped out.

It's one thing to "attack a strong force" that hasn't seen your tactics before; it's quite another to send 260 vs. about 4,000 on broken ground. Fox undisputably shows that no one in either Keough's or Custer's command EVER even formed a skirmish line.