| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| aj |
Posted - July 05 2005 : 4:05:11 PM
We now all know that Custer and his men did not fight an heroic last stand as shown in 'They Died With Their Boots On'. But now that this has been discovered historians and acheologists it seems that, in my opinion, that they have gone beyond the truth.
It seems now that since MOST of the troopers did not make an heroic stand that they are cowards (not the words used by the acheologists and historians but they were hinting at it.
I just want to know your views on this.
P.S I apologise if my views offend anyone |
| 25 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| joseph wiggs |
Posted - August 02 2007 : 7:27:01 PM
Captain,
Like you, I do not feel that the ultimate end of this battle had anything to do with cowardice. Any, and all, of the soldiers and Indians who engaged in this battle were not cowards. They were men who believed in their destiny. At the end, the realization of immediate, horrific and, brutal death would have unnerved any human being. |
| Captain Outwater |
Posted - August 01 2007 : 2:37:34 PM
Just because things went to hell and fell into confusion does not mean the soldiers were not brave, it just means they were surprised and unable to cope with the sudden onslault.
Panic is a leadership failure, not a personal or personnel problem of cowardace. |
| Brent |
Posted - July 29 2007 : 10:19:27 AM
Back to the original post--
Cowards? No. Many of them scared and who didn't fight well? Certainly.
The rank and file certainly deserved better "officering"... |
| joseph wiggs |
Posted - July 19 2007 : 7:54:44 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Cloud
A Last Stand is a proactive act, although in obvious desperation. There is no evidence that those guys ended there by military intent, or intended a defensive battle at any point. Or knew what the hell was happening till the end.
A "Last Stand" need not be a pro-active act, it may be merely a geographical location where one or more individuals met their demise as a result of a battle. How the individual/group arrived at his/her/their final destination is irrelevant. Whatever the cause, they could proceed no further.
Leonidas and his 300 Spartan hoplites met their end during a holding action rather than foolishly attacking a zillion Persians in a "Pro-active act." the military intent of the Spartans was to hold the pass as long as possible.
Nor was the decision to do so a "desperate" one. It was a sound military judgment call until a "pass" to the Spartans rear was revealed.
One does not need "evidence" of a military intent, a pro-active mentality, nor complete military intelligence at the "end" to determine the classification of a "last Stand."
|
| AZ Ranger |
Posted - September 26 2006 : 09:53:40 AM
Maybe destiny |
| joseph wiggs |
Posted - September 24 2006 : 6:32:08 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Cloud
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/pathological
In the race between you and Wild to become the new Wiggs, you've panted ahead.
What a wonderful compliment! Thank you although you, obviously, did not intend it as such. Only one question though, your reference to a "new Wiggs" would infer that something occurred to the old Wiggs. Do you know something that I don't? |
| AZ Ranger |
Posted - March 29 2006 : 09:06:03 AM
Since it was up to Custer he couldn't choose wrong.Do you mean morally or militarly?From the text of the order.
Terry gave no specific turning point that would be possible to coordinate the two columns without a n exact knowledge of the village location.Custer was required to go further South than the trail.How far was left to him with a limit set at the headwaters of the Tongue.The scouts went further south than the trail. Custer probably did also but I don't want to get into the 100 yard Reno foot offensive with carbine discussion.
It goes to where Terry anticipated the village to be which is the point. If it were further up the river then going to the Tongue and down the LBH would have made more sense.
Other than on the LBH Terry had no definite location for the village.
He knew it was a fresh trail
The trail was 9 days old[
Yes that is my point the trail Reno scouted was 9 days old. Custer followed a new fresh trail that lead to the village at LBH.
The failure would be not to find the village again after finding the "fresh" trail and going into Wyoming
Going into Wyoming was not required.All that was required of Custer was that he proceed no more than a days march beyond the turn.Wild you keep implying that there was fixed date in Terry's order that would be used to show Custer got there early. Please show that date. It appears that everyone in hindsight knows the location of the village and Terry's column on the 25th and then tries to imply that Custer got there early. The village other than somewhere on the LBH possibly which is over a 60 mile stretch is at best a guess. It was a good guess but no more than that. If the village was located 25 more miles down the LBH then Terry would be first and Custer if he didn't turn would not be there on time. If he followed the fresh trail then he would be there about the same time as Terry. Without the date in the order or stating don't attack until the infantry is in place Custer could and did make his own choice.
Terry had to believe either column could handle the Indians or why did he split them.
The discussion here is strictly academic because there was a subplot which was to allow Custer to redeem himself with a spectacular victory.Terry's "orders "were no more than a little insurance just in case.Agreed
You are trying to hold Custer to a higher standard than Terry.No.This was just the old comrades act of 1865 which went badly wrong.Good point Wild and if they had bit the bullet and stated that at the time we would at least not been discussing Terry's order which they attempted to defend after the fact. |
| AZ Ranger |
Posted - March 29 2006 : 08:39:53 AM
Considering the surplus of officers in the Army after the Civil War, why was someone who had been found guilty of an offense that compromised his integrity allowed back on active duty?
Buddha-- Setting aside Custer's problems and lack of timing in coordination,if you understand the charge as done properly and appropriately then there were very commanding officer's that had more experience or zeal than Custer. Terry turned him loose with his own command and to that degree is responsible.
|
| wILD I |
Posted - March 29 2006 : 08:25:22 AM
Buddha
Considering the surplus of officers in the Army after the Civil War, why was someone who had been found guilty of an offense that compromised his integrity allowed back on active duty?
Because weighed in the balance against 5 years war service and because senior officers such as Sheridan owed much to men like Custer who led from the front he deserved to be cut a little slack. |
| Buddha |
Posted - March 28 2006 : 9:52:50 PM
movingrobewoman -
I didn't call Custer crazy, at least I changed my mind after I initially did. Maybe you missed that. Maybe you thought being a sociopath is being crazy.
I've already checked on the symptoms of ADHD and sociopathy and what I learned in the past hasn't changed. Custer's ability to focus on a task, a lack of concern about others, pathological lying, and social skills show him to be more of a sociopath, although I won't say I can prove that is what he was. ADHD just doesn't fit though. If you have a case for that, tell me, convince me, if you can, old timer.
Considering the surplus of officers in the Army after the Civil War, why was someone who had been found guilty of an offense that compromised his integrity allowed back on active duty? |
| wILD I |
Posted - March 28 2006 : 08:21:30 AM
Since it was up to Custer he couldn't choose wrong.Do you mean morally or militarly?
Terry gave no specific turning point that would be possible to coordinate the two columns without a n exact knowledge of the village location.Custer was required to go further South than the trail.How far was left to him with a limit set at the headwaters of the Tongue.
It goes to where Terry anticipated the village to be which is the point. If it were further up the river then going to the Tongue and down the LBH would have made more sense.
Other than on the LBH Terry had no definite location for the village.
He knew it was a fresh trail
The trail was 9 days old
The failure would be not to find the village again after finding the "fresh" trail and going into Wyoming
Going into Wyoming was not required.All that was required of Custer was that he proceed no more than a days march beyond the turn.
Terry had to believe either column could handle the Indians or why did he split them.
The discussion here is strictly academic because there was a subplot which was to allow Custer to redeem himself with a spectacular victory.Terry's "orders "were no more than a little insurance just in case.
You are trying to hold Custer to a higher standard than Terry.No.This was just the old comrades act of 1865 which went badly wrong.
|
| AZ Ranger |
Posted - March 27 2006 : 11:35:37 PM
There was no agreed plan just a concept with a preference.The issue is whether Custer had or had not sufficient reason for departing from Terry's desires.Since it was up to Custer he couldn't choose wrong.
Custer believed he traveled far enough south and therefore followed the order.
You must supply evidence of this.Terry wanted him to go further South than the turn off.Terry gave no specific turning point that would be possible to coordinate the two columns without a n exact knowledge of the village location.
What it shows is that Terry was not knowingly next to the village and ready to support the 7th. It would not be till the 27th and the Indians were a lot further down the LBH the then order anticipated.
Not evidence to support Custer's actions. It goes to where Terry anticipated the village to be which is the point. If it were further up the river then going to the Tongue and down the LBH would have made more sense.
You should proceed southward perhaps as far as the headwaters of the Tongue, and then turn towards the LH" That is about as clear as Terry gets. Either he thought the Indians could be there or he was trying to wear out the horses by sending them on an extra 4 day journey to Wyoming and back so they couldn't charge and would leave Gibbons as the first to contact the Indians.The distance he leaves to Custer but it was to be far enough South in order to enclose the Indians between the two forces.
It is obvious that a fresh trail has a village at the end of it unless the Indians scatter
When he turned off Custer did not know if the village would be North or South or right in front of him.He risked blundering right into the village. He knew it was a fresh trail and the scouts said they could determine it from CN. The mission was to run into the Indians and punish them. The failure would be not to find the village again after finding the "fresh" trail and going into Wyoming or worse not be able to support while the Indians attacked Terry. If Custer had continued and followed the furthest route as described in the order he would have been questioned why he passed up the village, knowing he had seen a fresh trail. Terry had to believe either column could handle the Indians or why did he split them. The fact that there was two many Indians that were willing to fight was not known by Terry in advance or he made a huge judgment error. You are trying to hold Custer to a higher standard than Terry.
|
| movingrobewoman |
Posted - March 27 2006 : 12:24:14 PM
Buddha--
Collect primary source material about Custer, and I mean other people's notes about his behaviour, moods, and habits. Then take the information and go to any website that deals with ADHD. It's pretty simple to see GAC in those determinating symptom-ologies. And it is possible for a person with ADHD to acheive hyperfocus on specific tasks as well as the more notorious penchants for risk taking activities. I've pitched my theory to the LBHA, and we'll see if they'll actually publish it ...
But when it comes to GAC's character, it is much better to look for nuances rather than psychiatric hammers. Calling Custer crazy seems to be the easy and sexy way out--especially for newbies. He was a human with--certainly--prodigious faults as well as much gentler characteristics, but I don't see anything like a psychosis or anything so dramatic.
Hoka hey! |
| wILD I |
Posted - March 27 2006 : 07:33:36 AM
There was no agreed plan just a concept with a preference.The issue is wheather Custer had or had not sufficent reason for departing from Terry's desires.
Custer believed he traveled far enough south and therfore followed the order.
You must supply evidence of this.Terry wanted him to go further South than the turn off.
What it shows is that Terry was no knowingly next to the village and ready to support the 7th. It would not be till the 27th and the Indians were a lot further down the LBH the then order anticipated.
Not evidence to support Custer's actions.
You should proceed southward perhaps as far as the headwaters of the Tongue, and then turn towards the LH" That is about as clear as Terry gets. Either he thought the Indians could be there or he was trying to wear out the horses by sending them on an extra 4 day journey to Wyoming and back so they couldn't charge and would leave Gibbons as the first to contact the Indians.The distance he leaves to Custer but it was to be far enough South in order to enclose the Indians between the two forces.
It is obvious that a fresh trail has a village at the end of it unless the Indians scatter
When he turned off Custer did not know if the village would be North or South or right in front of him.He risked blundering right into the village. |
| AZ Ranger |
Posted - March 26 2006 : 3:52:08 PM
AZ
The military by the nature of its occupation takes risks.To diviate from an agreed plan without the knowledge of the other parties to the plan is not a risk it is betrayal. There was no agreed plan just a concept with a preference.
How much further do you believe the headwaters of the Tongue in the Bighorn Mountains is if you continue up the Rosebud?
It was left to Custer's discretion how far South he proceeded.[Read the order] Custer believed he traveled far enough south and therfore followed the order.
The camps of Terry's command were scattered with a several miles separation of some of them. The Gatling guns and a cavalry troop were lost for awhile and the cavalry had moved ahead of the infantry to water their horses.
Custer knew nothing of this and it cannot be used to justify his disobedience.What it shows is that Terry was no knowingly next to the village and ready to support the 7th. It would not be till the 27th and the Indians were a lot further down the LBH the then order anticipated.
Terry believed that the headwaters area of the Tongue and LBH river may have been the the location of the village. If he didn't why suggest in the order to check it out.
He did not.[once again read the orders] "You should proceed southward perhaps as far as the headwaters of the Tongue, and then turn towards the LH" That is about as clear as Terry gets. Either he thought the Indians could be there or he was trying to wear out the horses by sending them on an extra 4 day journey to Wyoming and back so they couldn't charge and would leave Gibbons as the first to contact the Indians.
Without knowing the exact location of the village Custer knew it was closer than the headwaters of the Tongue.
He disobeyed orders without knowing where the village was. It is obvious that a fresh trail has a village at the end of it unless the Indians scatter.
|
| Buddha |
Posted - March 26 2006 : 2:51:54 PM
MRW - I'm not making a cliche'd remark about Custer, at least, not in the sense that I am repeating what someone else has said. From my point of view it's original. It's also one that came to me as I wrote so I'm not prepared to make a more definitive statement about Custer's behavior yet. I'm would like to hear what other's have to say, so tell me why you think Custer had ADHD. ADHD doesn't include lying and delusions of grandeur as symptoms, I don't think. I see Custer's determined thought process when he as trying to find Libby in Kansas, and when he was following the Indians to the LBH to be too dedicated to be ADHD. On the other hand, I'm not all that familiar with adult ADHD, so what are the symptoms and how does Custer fit? |
| wILD I |
Posted - March 26 2006 : 12:05:04 PM
AZ
The military by the nature of its occupation takes risks.To diviate from an agreed plan without the knowledge of the other parties to the plan is not a risk it is betrayal.
How much further do you believe the headwaters of the Tongue in the Bighorn Mountains is if you continue up the Rosebud?
It was left to Custer's discretion how far South he proceeded.[Read the order]
The camps of Terry's command were scattered with a several miles separation of some of them. The Gatling guns and a cavalry troop were lost for awhile and the cavalry had moved ahead of the infantry to water their horses.
Custer knew nothing of this and it cannot be used to justify his disobedience.
Terry believed that the headwaters area of the Tongue and LBH river may have been the the location of the village. If he didn't why suggest in the order to check it out.
He did not.[once again read the orders]
Without knowing the exact location of the village Custer knew it was closer than the headwaters of the Tongue.
He disobeyed orders without knowing where the village was. |
| lorendead |
Posted - March 25 2006 : 8:49:08 PM
quote:
Originally posted by movingrobewoman
"Especially if Custer is a sociopath as I suspect ..."
Buddha--
No disrespect meant, and welcome to the board, but you're going to have to try harder than that or show a little more imagination than to paint the Boy General with such a wide, cliched paintbrush. The man had emotional issues, gambled way too much, exaggerated many things, indeed, but a *sociopath* he weren't ... your deductions are not unlike the few who take GAC's penchant for vanity and extrapolate it into a classic, textbook case of narcissism. My feelings on the subject, which are well-known, are that he had ADHD and its accompanying traits, which I think explains quite a bit.
Regards,
There are a host of issues that are not discussed concerning the emotional issues of the officer members of the Seventh cavalry before and durning the LBH battle.
The emotional issues started well before this campaign was even developed. |
| movingrobewoman |
Posted - March 25 2006 : 3:48:00 PM
"Especially if Custer is a sociopath as I suspect ..."
Buddha--
No disrespect meant, and welcome to the board, but you're going to have to try harder than that or show a little more imagination than to paint the Boy General with such a wide, cliched paintbrush. The man had emotional issues, gambled way too much, exaggerated many things, indeed, but a *sociopath* he weren't ... your deductions are not unlike the few who take GAC's penchant for vanity and extrapolate it into a classic, textbook case of narcissism. My feelings on the subject, which are well-known, are that he had ADHD and its accompanying traits, which I think explains quite a bit.
Regards, |
| AZ Ranger |
Posted - March 25 2006 : 2:11:51 PM
AZ
Custer did both he determined the direction of the trail toward the LH and the Indians did not escape to the south or back across the Wolf Mountains as long as Custer was alive.
By directly following the trail Custer took a risk for which there was no need.He also placed his troops where they were discovered which then forced him to attack a day early with fatal consequences.
The military by the nature of its occupation takes risks. The potential location of the village within 25 miles of current Busby needed to be determined before continuing on the jaunt into Wyoming. How much further do you believe the headwaters of the Tongue in the Bighorn Mountains is if you continue up the Rosebud? From there how much further would you have to travel to the LBH and follow it downstream till you ran into Indians? These are both important questions because it goes to timing in Terry's order. Custer would have known that the Tongue headwaters was several days ride in the wrong direction of the fresh trail. This trail was fresher than would have been antic pated in the terry orders based upon Reno's
Custer could not do what the order suggests as "perhaps" and be at the Indian village on the 26th which would have moved in Terry's direction on the 25th. The Indians were planning on moving downstream on the 25th when Custer modified their plans. They needed to keep moving to feed all those horses within a reasonable distance of the village.
Fortunately for Terry, Custer saved his bacon.
This cannot be used to justify Custer's disobedience.Also with infantry supported by gatling guns Terry's bacon could give a good account of itself. It was a statement of fact not of Custer's intention. The camps of Terry's command were scattered with a several miles separation of some of them. The Gatling guns and a cavalry troop were lost for awhile and the cavalry had moved ahead of the infantry to water their horses. It was a good thing the Indians didn't attack Terry at dawn. If Terry himself believed he was going to cooperate with Custer on the 26th why was his command so disorganized on the 25th. I believe head still was under the impression that the Indians were several days away up the LBH or or the Tongue headwaters area.
The discrepancy between the facts and what Terry believed when he wrote the order was sufficient reason for Custer to deviate.This is hind sight.If you are going to justify Custer's actions by hind sight you have to condemn him by hind sight---- by disobeying his orders he was defeated. Terry believed that the headwaters area of the Tongue and LBH river may have been the the location of the village. If he didn't why suggest in the order to check it out. Custer knew from scout information that this was not correct. Without knowing the exact location of the village Custer knew it was closer than the headwaters of the Tongue. |
| wILD I |
Posted - March 24 2006 : 5:26:04 PM
AZ
Custer did both he determined the direction of the trail toward the LH and the Indians did not escape to the south or back across the Wolf Mountains as long as Custer was alive.
By directly following the trail Custer took a risk for which there was no need.He also placed his troops where they were discovered which then forced him to attack a day early with fatal consequences.
Fortunately for Terry, Custer saved his bacon.
This cannot be used to justify Custer's disobedience.Also with infantry supported by gatling guns Terry's bacon could give a good account of itself.
The discrepancy between the facts and what Terry believed when he wrote the order was sufficient reason for Custer to deviate.This is hind sight.If you are going to justify Custer's actions by hind sight you have to condemn him by hind sight---- by disobeying his orders he was defeated. |
| Buddha |
Posted - March 24 2006 : 1:33:16 PM
The information is incomplete and it’s reliability is unknown. That’s normal, at least for me. I can choose to continue to debate about it in a search for something more, or you can say I think I know what it means and move on. That means that the real truth may lie with space aliens or that all of the Indians who picked up carbines got together and fired as many rounds after the battle was over as during it. Who knows? I’ll adjust to new information when it arrives. In the meantime, I think that an impact area of carbine bullets is where Indians most likely placed themselves, and impact areas of mixed bullets probably means that soldiers were there being shot at by Indians.
I wouldn’t argue that the ‘no recon’ method of attack wasn’t frequently used given the philosophy of the Army at that time, that the Indians would run whenever possible, and a few soldiers could defeat any number of Indians. What I was looking for were events from Custer’s past that would likely influence how he thought and acted at LBH. Without some momentous event occurring, most of us continue on in our lives as logical extensions of our past. What worked for us once, we repeat rather than wake up in a whole new world and start over every day. That’s what I want to know, his past, to better understand what Custer might have seen and thought at LBH.
I don’t think Custer, based on his own description of events at Ouchita, was in a bind or had a command
that was in danger of surviving. Here’s why. He had 800 troops under his command. The Indians who gathered did not outnumber him, or he didn’t claim so. They just watched, even when the soldiers started killing horses. Ammo may have run low, but the Indians didn’t know that. There was no lack of control in the unit, and events were moving at a slow pace for Custer rather than rushing at him quickly and ceaselessly. Custer had time to send out a patrol to look for Elliot, and to wait for it as well as the pack train to arrive. So what was the rush? He could have bivouaced in the village rather than heading out on the trail one hour prior to nightfall. Without coats or crackers, sleeping in teepees or whatever they could find, and stealing Indian food, would have been helpful for troops that had been up most of the last 48 hours and would be hungry in the cold weather. Indians don’t fight at night, so the night’s rest would have made dealing with an attack, if it came, much easier the next morning. In so doing, he could have waited for Elliot, or sent out more patrols to look for him. Instead, he did just what he did on the trail in Kansas. He let his thoughts or fears of what Indians might do drive his thinking and he moved away from them. Both times, soldiers died.
How did the Cavalry ever ride to the rescue if they all thought like Custer?
I understood that Custer’s words are not necessarily reliable, especially if Custer is a sociopath as I suspect. Nevertheless, he is the only one who is in contact with his own mind, and that is worth something.
I’ll keep looking for stories of actual fights with Indians. However, if it turns out that the no recon, lets split up and surround’em school of thought was the prevailing practice, then Custer just got screwed.
|
| Dark Cloud |
Posted - March 23 2006 : 10:28:07 PM
Oddly, perhaps, most here understand Occam's Razor. Now, apply it. We know all of Custer's men were killed. The only Army witnesses to the action on Custer's field saw naught but Indians firing, and that into the ground. They had Custer's carbines. The Indians, by all accounts, had low casualties, and a significant percentage had to have been friendly fire. Now, what's the simplest explanation for found bullets from those carbines? Or, at least, equally plausible?
Whether he mentioned them or not, I've forgot, he fought battles with the Sioux under Crazy Horse in 1873 along the Yellowstone. Of course, he fell for a ruse, took to the trees, and was rescued in the largest fight. Perhaps, for space considerations only, he overlooked it, but more likely since MLOTP was published in Galaxy Magazie in early 1874, it was completed and sent East before the Stanley expedition. No doubt, you've also noticed other activities of interest missing from his MLOTP, like his courtsmartial and verdict. Folks can read MLOTP here: http://www.kancoll.org/books/custerg/ Also, Markland has some articles about the Yellowstone Expedition.
Regarding accepting Custer's story on anything, be wary. Read Barnitz on the Wa****a as well.
I'm not sure how you can assume his frame of mind in one battle from his claimed actions in others. |
| AZ Ranger |
Posted - March 23 2006 : 10:22:00 PM
Why a number of 45-55 bullets found impacted in a given area indicates that there were Indians there even in the face of numerous possibilities:
“Occam's Razor (also spelled Ockham's Razor) is a principle attributed to the 14th-century English logician and Franciscan friar William of Ockham. It forms the basis of methodological reductionism and is fundamental to the scientific method. It is also called the principle of parsimony and the law of economy.
In its simplest form, Occam's Razor states that, in explaining a phenomenon, one should make as few assumptions as possible, trimming away all unnecessary ones. Furthermore, if multiple theories or subtheories have equal predictive power, the simplest one — the one with the fewest unnecessary assumptions — should be chosen.
As an example, imagine that a fallen tree is noticed after a storm. One reason the tree fell might be that the storm blew it down. Another hypothesis would be that the tree was blown down by the storm and then found by space aliens, who carefully replanted the tree, knocked it down themselves, and left without leaving any sign of their presence. This second hypotheses fits the evidence as well as the first one, but it contains unnecessary assumptions, so the first explanation should be preferred (even though the second one might, in fact, be true).”
We all can Goggle wikipedia so try the link to the scientific method "Specific hypotheses are formed to propose explanations for natural Phenomena, and experiments (or studies) test the predictions for accuracy in order to make increasingly dependable predictions of future results." Fox never tested the hypotheses and states so in his book.
Regarding Custer’s having fought the Indians only once in the years preceding LBH: I read through Custer’s book , “My Life on the Plains”. Aside from Ouchita, he mentions no battles. There are a few skirmishes that the 7th was involved in, but they were reactive situations and Custer did not personally participate in all of them. In these fights, his role was like a Cavalryman, adapting and responding. What I am concerned about is whether there were situations where Custer planned an attack in advance and went through all of the steps, such as a recon and telling all of his officers what they were doing, and so on. At Ouchita, he did a good job. He even trusted his scouts when they told him the village was there when he couldn't’t see it. If there were other fights, I’m curious to know about them to help me understand his frame of mind when he marched on LBH.
In many attacks the military tracked the Indains to a village and attacked. That was the only Recon they did prior to the attack. Custer's method of attack at the Wa****a was used frequently by the military. They did not recon how many were in the village before attacking. One source I read stated there were over 100 attacks made by the military this way. I have tried to find that source again but believe it was a military site that is not working now. Maybe someone knows the source for that information.
FWIW, in the US military, it’s customary to not leave people behind, as in Blackhawk Down. It’s promotes loyalty and morale and makes troops fight harder. Other armed forces do the same thing for the same reasons. Also, his men took off their winter coats and left their rations behind for the attack. Afterward Indians found them and took them. Not taking care of your men, as demonstrated by their coats and food being stolen would get you a really low efficiency report rating and kill a career today.
Leaving military dead is not limited to Custer or the US Army. If the choice is to save a command or retrieve the dead then the commander must make that choice. It wasn't long ago we saw bodies of an American soldiers being dragged through the middle of a street in Africa. The Marines have a proud history of not leaving wounded or dead behind but it happens. Certainly Reno's battalion left a wounded soldier in the timber. When two of the troopers horse broke loose Reno didn't go to their rescue. Custer was faced with overwhelming forces and saved his command, although he came back much later and buried the dead. If it not something that someone just made up then when Major Elliot said a brevet or a coffin he knew the risk he was taking. Did anyone claim they could hear Elliot fighting in the distance before he was overrun and killed to the last trooper? Sounds familiar?
|
| Buddha |
Posted - March 23 2006 : 8:49:15 PM
Why a number of 45-55 bullets found impacted in a given area indicates that there were Indians there even in the face of numerous possibilities:
“Occam's Razor (also spelled Ockham's Razor) is a principle attributed to the 14th-century English logician and Franciscan friar William of Ockham. It forms the basis of methodological reductionism and is fundamental to the scientific method. It is also called the principle of parsimony and the law of economy.
In its simplest form, Occam's Razor states that, in explaining a phenomenon, one should make as few assumptions as possible, trimming away all unnecessary ones. Furthermore, if multiple theories or subtheories have equal predictive power, the simplest one — the one with the fewest unnecessary assumptions — should be chosen.
As an example, imagine that a fallen tree is noticed after a storm. One reason the tree fell might be that the storm blew it down. Another hypothesis would be that the tree was blown down by the storm and then found by space aliens, who carefully replanted the tree, knocked it down themselves, and left without leaving any sign of their presence. This second hypotheses fits the evidence as well as the first one, but it contains unnecessary assumptions, so the first explanation should be preferred (even though the second one might, in fact, be true).”
Regarding Custer’s having fought the Indians only once in the years preceding LBH: I read through Custer’s book , “My Life on the Plains”. Aside from Ouchita, he mentions no battles. There are a few skirmishes that the 7th was involved in, but they were reactive situations and Custer did not personally participate in all of them. In these fights, his role was like a Cavalryman, adapting and responding. What I am concerned about is whether there were situations where Custer planned an attack in advance and went through all of the steps, such as a recon and telling all of his officers what they were doing, and so on. At Ouchita, he did a good job. He even trusted his scouts when they told him the village was there when he couldn’t see it. If there were other fights, I’m curious to know about them to help me understand his frame of mind when he marched on LBH.
By his own words, at Ouchita, Custer was surprised by the Indians who showed up after the attack was over. He was surprised because he thought they had all been run off, but a scout told him that they were from a neighboring village after talking to a squaw. When their number reached well over a hundred, he became very concerned that they would attack before his ammo train arrived., which it finally did with a few thousand rounds. After shooting the 875 horses, they left. Elliot had not been seen, according to Custer, since the attack began. When things slowed down in the afternoon, he sent a scout and some men 2 miles out to look for them with no luck. Near dark he left.
FWIW, in the US military, it’s customary to not leave people behind, as in Blackhawk Down. It’s promotes loyalty and morale and makes troops fight harder. Other armed forces do the same thing for the same reasons. Also, his men took off their winter coats and left their rations behind for the attack. Afterward Indians found them and took them. Not taking care of your men, as demonstrated by their coats and food being stolen would get you a really low efficiency report rating and kill a career today.
|
|
|
