| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| donfisk |
Posted - March 16 2005 : 12:12:23 PM
I don't recall any discussion about possible scenarios/likely outcomes had GAC vs. Gen. Terry had commanded the column. What do you experts think? |
| 25 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| joseph wiggs |
Posted - April 16 2005 : 9:39:42 PM
quote:
Originally posted by wILD I
Correcto-mundo! He was quoted as saying: "Few officers have ever had so fine an opportunity to make a successful and telling strike, and few have ever so completely failed to improve their opportunity."
Sure Joe whatever you say.So instead of attacking he should have struck.
No sir (forgive my belated response)I do not suggest that Reno should have done anything other than what he did, get the hell out of there. There were too many Indians for him and Custer. That quote came from Custer who, subsequently, followed his own advice. The rest is history. |
| wILD I |
Posted - March 28 2005 : 3:10:08 PM
32 years in the military, taught me that orders can not and should not always be followed, if circumstances dictate other, more prudent actions. That's why officers make the big bucks
Great tactic that.Particularly when the commanders of all the other units do the same. |
| El Crab |
Posted - March 27 2005 : 03:05:56 AM
quote:
Originally posted by donfisk
Good evening all. I have never quite understood the anger at Reno for following the huge trail vs. continuing his scout. Wasn't the Army looking for a large Indian camp? What was he supposed to do, merely note it and wait until he finished his scout to inform Terry? Send a messenger immediately to Gen. Terry? Did Terry think there could be another, given the size of trail Reno reported? I'd bet Reno would have been ripped a new one, if not court martialed, had he not followed the trail. I know he didn't follow the letter of his orders, but he found the freaking Indians! 32 years in the military, taught me that orders can not and should not always be followed, if circumstances dictate other, more prudent actions. That's why officers make the big bucks.
They were mad because Reno risked revealing the soldiers' presence for very little reward. He went where he was told not to. They already had trails to follow.
It seemed they questioned Reno's logic. Why bother disobeying orders and moving that much closer to the village they sought and do nothing about it? He did bring back valuable information, but he exhausted the men and horses and possibly alerted the Indians of their presence. Custer was probably more upset because he was aggressive, and likely would have attacked if the opportunity presented itself.
And I think its telling that Custer skipped the scout of Tullock's Creek to follow the trail. Only he did so to move into a position to attack, not to just gather a little more info. So it probably peeved Custer that Reno disobeyed orders for so little gain. |
| donfisk |
Posted - March 27 2005 : 12:15:29 AM
Good evening all. I have never quite understood the anger at Reno for following the huge trail vs. continuing his scout. Wasn't the Army looking for a large Indian camp? What was he supposed to do, merely note it and wait until he finished his scout to inform Terry? Send a messenger immediately to Gen. Terry? Did Terry think there could be another, given the size of trail Reno reported? I'd bet Reno would have been ripped a new one, if not court martialed, had he not followed the trail. I know he didn't follow the letter of his orders, but he found the freaking Indians! 32 years in the military, taught me that orders can not and should not always be followed, if circumstances dictate other, more prudent actions. That's why officers make the big bucks. |
| Dark Cloud |
Posted - March 22 2005 : 5:14:09 PM
Other than being 'quite sick' for a few days, according to Bradley, his loyal subordinate, Gibbon seems to have not held anything up. There are no details, so it could have been anything from a cold to aching bones. That he retired - with Terry - to the boat doesn't sound that awful, and in Terry's absence I don't doubt Gibbon's subordinants could handle everything. Virtually all the officers had commanded larger numbers of men in the CW, including Brisbin. Gibbon had been shot up pretty good, and without good hips I don't get how he could ride around the West like he did, anyway. He made the ride up the LBH with everyone, so quick recovery from whatever it was. Doesn't sound that bad to me. And I don't see him handing over command while his own staff could function and carry out his orders.
And, if you assume the command was to be different, Gibbon's actions on the way to the unification could have been different if he knew he was to command it.
In any case, once united, Custer would be under Gibbon's command, so it's not like he could take off on his own, assuming all else the same. I don't think much, if anything, would be different, but no way to know. |
| wILD I |
Posted - March 22 2005 : 4:45:35 PM
Not that sick, and so what even so?
Yes that sick.Terry had to do his job for him. |
| Dark Cloud |
Posted - March 22 2005 : 2:30:03 PM
Not that sick, and so what even so? |
| wILD I |
Posted - March 22 2005 : 1:25:12 PM
Gibbon was sick |
| Dark Cloud |
Posted - March 22 2005 : 1:05:28 PM
If Custer had commanded the Dakota column, he would have had to answer to Colonel Gibbon when they met, one supposes. |
| wILD I |
Posted - March 22 2005 : 09:54:21 AM
Correcto-mundo! He was quoted as saying: "Few officers have ever had so fine an opportunity to make a successful and telling strike, and few have ever so completely failed to improve their opportunity."
Sure Joe whatever you say.So instead of attacking he should have struck. |
| joseph wiggs |
Posted - March 21 2005 : 8:01:03 PM
"When he heard of Reno finding the Indian trail he wrote that he should have attacked."
Correcto-mundo! He was quoted as saying: "Few officers have ever had so fine an opportunity to make a successful and telling strike, and few have ever so completely failed to improve their opportunity."
Now, today, in this contemporaneous decade of "Monday morning quarterbacking" (but not in 1876 when defeating the Sioux was considered an acute possibility)we know that Reno would have been wiped out had he ventured further. More importantly though, is the slight but, telling exposure into the "mind" of Custer that this incident affords us. His conviction that Reno, with less men then he, could have succeeded speaks volumes! |
| wILD I |
Posted - March 21 2005 : 11:51:17 AM
Assuming that he was prevented from entering the village and was driven back to LSH, would he have been able to hold out until the relief column appeared?
Well if he took the 2nd cavalry there would have been no relief column. |
| wILD I |
Posted - March 21 2005 : 10:08:36 AM
"What if he had commanded the Dakota column."
While he was not actually in command neither was he under the command.He was a loose cannon.He actually took 4 troops away from the column off on an unauthorised scout.
When he heard of Reno finding the Indian trail he wrote that he should have attacked.At his meeting with Terry and Gibbon he was in full agreement with what was suggested.And it should be noted that even at this early stage Custer was saying that they could be facing upwards of 1500 warriors.So there is nothing to suggest that he would have done anything differently except perhaps have jettison the infantry and taken the 2nd cavalry with him. |
| donfisk |
Posted - March 21 2005 : 08:53:47 AM
Hello all and thanks for the responses. It seems that after the 1st 17 March post though, your discussions got off track, shifting to what GAC did wrong vs. "What if he had commanded the Dakota column." In the words of that immortal TV show full of bubbleheaded, jobles twits (Friends), "FOCUS"! |
| hunkpapa7 |
Posted - March 20 2005 : 5:35:48 PM
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline
Posted - Today : 09:17:03 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This maneuver adds credence to my theory that "escape" of the village was Custer's paramount thought.
Now let me get this straight.Acording to you Custer deployed his forces in order to prevent the Indians escaping.Well then let's give credit where it is due.He was resoundingly successful.
joseph wiggs
Brigadier General
Status: offline
Posted - Today : 10:43:29 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yep, he was that all right. There must have been a startling moment, before the end, when he sorely regretted his success.
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline
Posted - Today : 12:52:57 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What can I say Joe.
Cant stop the tears  |
| wILD I |
Posted - March 20 2005 : 12:52:57 PM
What can I say Joe. |
| joseph wiggs |
Posted - March 20 2005 : 10:43:29 AM
Yep, he was that all right. There must have been a startling moment, before the end, when he sorely regretted his success. |
| wILD I |
Posted - March 20 2005 : 09:17:03 AM
This maneuver adds credence to my theory that "escape" of the village was Custer's paramount thought.
Now let me get this straight.Acording to you Custer deployed his forces in order to prevent the Indians escaping.Well then let's give credit where it is due.He was resoundingly successful.
|
| joseph wiggs |
Posted - March 19 2005 : 9:10:40 PM
You are right Hunk, he was all of these things and more. He was the fall guy, the scape goat, the sole person responsible for this battle. This delegation of responsibility was easy as he was never able to defend his actions.
Today, so many "experts" are convinced that he and, he alone, should bare this Albatross of infamy for eternity. Government policy that ordered him to the Big Horn is ignored as a subtle after thought. For him a "charge" was synonymous with victory. A philosophy that brought him great fame,honor, and death. |
| hunkpapa7 |
Posted - March 19 2005 : 8:28:17 PM
To me,Custer was a warrior,a leader of charges,not a general.
He would possibly have done exactly the same,being a cavalry man,he knew that surprise and speed counted a lot,and that this was his forte.He was unproven,outfought,outmanuovered,out of his depth.
He had plan A,and nothing else ! |
| joseph wiggs |
Posted - March 19 2005 : 7:49:09 PM
Exactly Paul, the mental perspectives regarding one's adversary will often determine which tactics are utilized at any given encounter. Perspectives based on erroneous beliefs could, and often do, lead to a blunder.
Wild a "Mistake?" is exactly what happened. It was a mistake for Custer to divide his forces and, I believe, he did so because of incorrect assumptions. I did not mean to infer that the warriors were a disorganized rabble. I have read much about their martial expertise and, have long admired their ability to fight well. I was referring to the false perspective of the troops engendered by false information concerning the Native American in general.
It was they, the troops, who believed that they were about to face a rabble of men who would rather run than fight.
How could such an erroneous belief find fruition in the minds of these men. I have two theories:
1. Until the Battle of the Rosebud and the Little Big Horn, running instead of fighting was generally what the Plains Indians did. Custer spent an exorbitant amount of time chasing them for years before he finally caught them. The Lakota and their allies wisely avoided confrontation against the military whenever they could, unless they were trapped and forced to fight. So this belief, they'd rather run then fight had some merit, although cowardice and lack of martial skills were not the reasons for it;
2. The second theory may sound harsh to some but, militarist of all Nations, predictably demean their "foes" to make them appear slightly less than human. Different than "us". Apparently, it is psychologically easier to kill another when the other is believed to be unchristian, savage, unintelligent, dirty, or sexually deviated, etc. In other words, heathens who are unable to confront a trained unit of civilized men with superior intellect and "God" on their side.
Again you are right when you comment on Custer's receiving a "Carte Blanche" to do what he did. He got it from Terry, who got it from Sherman, who got from Sheridan, who got it from Congress, who got it from President Grant. They all shared the false assumption that the difficulty would not be in defeating the Indians, but preventing them from escaping.
He may or may not have regarded Benteen as his insurance, I don't know. Remember though, that he sent Benteen to block any possible chance of an Indian escape up river. This maneuver adds credence to my theory that "escape" of the village was Custer's paramount thought. |
| wILD I |
Posted - March 19 2005 : 4:14:04 PM
Wild, "you are a gentleman and a scholar" and the personification of what this forum is about;disagreement!
I like it Joe but more comfortable with "an officer and a gentleman"
no high command personally accompanied Custer and his men onto the field. However, my personal belief is that their "mindset" followed the troops into battle, a mindset everyone was aware of. A firm and entrenched philosophy that mere "savages" would not dare to stand against "civilized" troops.
To support your case you mention a sergeant I can trump that with a brigadier General ----Terry.There was only one mindset that mattered and that was Custer's and it had [and you support this]got carte blanche from Terry to do as he felt best.
Now I have often been accused by a certain contributer of having the analytical intellect of a company clerk.I must come clean and plead guilty.I cannot see for the life of me see how the problem of confronting a disorganised rabble is improved by sowing confusion and disorganisation in your own forces.
Baring a sudden bout of insanity, why else did he divide his forces?
A mistake? Benteen was his insurance.Reno his diversionary attack.If only he could find a way across the river.S**** this village is huge ,no way to cross.Quick Cooke send a message to Benteen.Where are the Indians Martin?they're running captain.RIP,Last post and chorus.
Best wishes
|
| joseph wiggs |
Posted - March 19 2005 : 12:38:01 PM
Wild, "you are a gentleman and a scholar" and the personification of what this forum is about;disagreement! You are quite right, no high command personally accompanied Custer and his men onto the field. However, my personal belief is that their "mindset" followed the troops into battle, a mindset everyone was aware of. A firm and entrenched philosophy that mere "savages" would not dare to stand against "civilized" troops.
When Sgt. Kanipe spurred his mount towards the supply train, he ballyhooed and shouted with glee that,"we got um running boys."
Some troopers became disenchanted upon the fear that they had missed out on the battle (read fun?).
I am convinced that Custer would not have divided his troops, as he did, if he was not convinced that the village was on the "jump" and that his fear of Indian "scatteration" was coming true.
Had he suspected that they were willing to do as they did, stand and fight, his original plan would have made far more sense to me.(speculation) Send Reno in as the first wave of assault, followed by his own battalion for an additional element of shock to prevent regrouping, with Benteen's column following in for mop up and containment.
At the very least, this combined strength of numbers may have allowed a withdrawal, if need be, without the resulting massacre.
A regiment is a system that is also constructed to operate in smaller segments. From the very beginning, the high command developed a plan of attack that involved sending three columns to locate, contain, and defeat the enemy;Cook, Gibbons, and Terry. Custer utilized the same tactic as he approached a village that he, too, was unsure of the exact location. The wisdom of both tactics is certainly debatable. However, they were considered "sound" by many during this era.
As ludicrous as it sounds to us today (hindsight being 20-20) perhaps Custer contained no thought that he could be possibly doing anything that would effect the soundness of his organization. Could he have been convinced that each segment could hold its own until the arrival of support? We know now that this was not possible. Baring a sudden bout of insanity, why else did he divide his forces? |
| wILD I |
Posted - March 17 2005 : 2:44:39 PM
it lost because of the stupidity of the high command who refused to prepare for this battle as they would have against any "Euro" force.
Hi Joe
Sorry to bring our mutual admiration session to a close but have to disagree.There was no high command there just Custer.And as for this idea of always running,hardly 10 years had passed since US forces had suffered a check and bloody nose in the Bozeman trail campaign.
You do not need to keep your command intact when you are convinced that the the enemy will quickly stumble and fumble in its collective haste to flee in terror at your very approach.
A regiment is a system as long as it is intact and maintains cohesion.Custer turned a system into chaos.How can you solve a military situation by causing disorganisation in your own forces? |
| Heavyrunner |
Posted - March 17 2005 : 12:02:11 PM
I don't think twice the number of troops would have done the 7th any good, except to extend the length of the battle. I would speculate that 10 times the troops might have created a push. My thinking is based on the tribes and their defense of their elders, wives and children. They were reasonably well-armed and, as I've written before, highly motivated. In fact, for them, it must have been viewed as a fight to the death, considering what was at stake. Accounts I've read say that Reno was stopped in his tracks with the first volley by defenders. I don't think his force of 130, or so, would have had any better chance with 260.
The Indians couldn't possibly scatter and run, as Custer apparently hoped. They were all that stood between the troops and their own families, loved ones, ect. They weren't going anywhere. |
|
|
