| Author |
 Topic  |
|
bhist
Lt. Colonel
Status: offline |
|
|
lorenzo G.
Captain
Italy
Status: offline |
 Posted - March 25 2004 : 7:49:50 PM
|
| No, he was'nt to blame! Benteen first and Reno they was to blame and not last, few unlucky circumstances! The truth about this story has never been told since today and, sadly, people like to hide it using Custer as a scapegoat. |
If it is to be my lot to fall in the service of my country and my country's rights I will have no regrets.
Custer |
  |
|
|
joseph wiggs
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
 Posted - May 03 2004 : 9:06:52 PM
|
| Whenever we attempt to select a singletary reason as the causation of any event we must be ever cautious. Seldom does a single factor determine the outcome of any event. I do not believe that General Custer was the reason for the fatal conclusion of he and his men. A battle consist of hundreds of different incidents occuring in a complex weave of time and space that defies any human attempt to place them in a sequential rate of occurrence. No one participant observed everything that occurred. We can only surmize the sequence of events based on the outcome of a battle and the statements of those who were involved. In summation, Custer, Reno, Benteen, nor any other individual was responsible for the fatal results. Rather the responsibility must fall upon the shoulders of a government which sanctioned the force removal of a people from their homes. The same government who sent the evictors to remove them. Custer, a good soldier who followed the orders of his superiors was fearful of one outcome of this battle, he and every soldier with him. The fear that the warriors would not make a stand, but instead flee. Despite the media blitz of the 50's and 60's that portayed the Indian foolishly attacking a stationary structure defended by well armed white men, such a thing never occurred in reality. The Battle of the Rosebud was the first time a large contingency of warriors initiated an attack against a large U.S force. In conclusion, the troopers lost because the Indians won. They chose to fight, to protect their loved ones thereby accomplishing the victory. |
|
|
|
biashickory
Recruit
Canada
Status: offline |
 Posted - May 05 2004 : 4:41:47 PM
|
I think Custer was to blame because he miscalculated the size of the hostiles and because he rode on even though he was instructed to wait for Terry with the full unit. Here is a thought. What would of happened if he had waited and the accounts of thousands of hostiles was accurate?? Would the whole column had been defeated??
I think the number of hostiles is exagerated.
Any thoughts??? |
|
|
|
joseph wiggs
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
 Posted - May 05 2004 : 9:09:49 PM
|
Dear biashickory,
Although I completely dissagree with your conclusion regarding the guilt of General Custer, I fully respect your opinion and welcome the opportunity to persuade you to a different conclusion. It has now been determined by, worthy Custer researchers, that the amount of warriors involved in this conflagration between two cultures were approximately 1500 to 1800 warriors from a village of 6000 to 8000 people.
Are you aware that prior to the battle, the General received an estimate of 800 warriors "on the jump" from governmental Indian agents? However, information received from his scouts and the phycical Indian trail itself convinced him that his command would meet at least 1500 warriors! The General was perfectly ware of the task that lay before him and, was confident that it could be accomplished.
Custer was not instructed to wait for General Terry's arrival per se. His fast moving calvery was specifically chosen to catch up to and engage an elusive enemy sometimes referred to as the finest "light calvary" on the North American Continent. Terry desired that Custer would "herd" the recaltrant Indians towards his position where they would be crushed between the two forces. The problem was that no one was certain as to the exact location of the village. Custer, through is personal investigation, discovered the location to be at the lower section of the Little Big Horn rather than the previously suspected upper regions. In addition, Custer was led to believe that the newly discovered village was now in flight. Without a doubt, had the village escaped Custer would have been charged with dereliction of duty and Court Martialed.
In conclusion, the General possesed a true estimate as to the approximate number of Indians that he would be confronting. His plan of approached, which is often maligned, was based on sound military strategy. Commonly referred to as a "reconnaisance-in-force" which is required to gather combat intelligence under the conditions he faced.
Custer failed because he was out gunned by warriors who possesed many repeater rifles and used them to their advantage by using the battlefield terrain of revines and gulley's to silently infiltrate trooper positions and wrech havock among them.
Please let me know what you thing of my theory. |
|
|
|
biashickory
Recruit
Canada
Status: offline |
Posted - May 06 2004 : 4:55:09 PM
|
Ok so he had an idea he was going to face a force of 1500. In his book, "My Life on the Plains" a couple of times he goes on about his respect for the plains Indian as a worthy opponent. He is about to face 1500 of them with his small column, compared to 1500, he had to be aware the hostiles had SOME repeating rifles and would be fighting on their home turf. He was aware the element of surprise was lost, so again I feel he was reckless and cost the lives of his men and himself. I think he was itching for a fight he couldn't win and he knew if he waited for the rest of the force if in fact there was a battle he wouldn't have the glory he craved.
I agree with you that in a perfect world, he would of had the surprise advantage, his tactics should of worked and he would of been successful. But someone forgot to tell this to the Indians.
I like Custer, I would have followed him and I would have believed in him. I have the advantage of History and hindsight so I know what would of happened to me back then.
You have more knowledge of this subject than I and I enjoyed your comments. If you have anything to add to this I will reply to yours.
Take care. |
|
|
|
joseph wiggs
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - May 06 2004 : 9:22:38 PM
|
As one new recruit to another, let me say it was a pleasure to read biashickory's responce to my perspective regarding the General's responsibility for the fall of the 7th calvary. Your remarks reflect an honest insight and comprehension of the basics of the battle. I too like him and would have followed him also. Unfortunantly, I believe, it is not considered politically correct to admire a man many regard as a war monger and murderer. Whenever we select a historical personage and judge him by our current standards we do ourselves, and the individual selected, an injustice.
In the nineteenth century, it was generally regarded as an honor and moral obligation to punish recaltrant Indians who refused to obey the law of the land. How the Native American felt about this "law" was irrevalent. An anology would be the war in Iraqi, after the death of so many of our brave soldiers, is their an American who gives a rat's ass about the ****i resurgents who are killing our brave men and women? I think not. Correspondingly, the death of many pioneers who lost their lives because they violated treaty after treaty while infringing upon Indian territory produced the same emotions in the hearts of nineteenth century Americans. The result was that men like Custer, Reno, and Benteen, thought it perfectly natural to seek, locate, assist in the capture of , punishment, or death of the contemporaneous foes of their life times. The General, as an acknowledged warrior of his society could not but help admire the martial arts of his foe. This admiration, however, in no way prevented him from following what he construed to be direct, and morale, orders.
He was not itching for a fight as much as upholding the "rightous" chastizement of the "evil redman." While this philosophy may appear bizzare to modern man it was totally acceptable over a hundred years ago. Lastly, and this may shock you, Custer's assault caught the village (with a few exceptions) completely by surprise. Had the warriors had any indication that troopers were anywhere near their village they would have confronted the troopers many miles away while the non-combatants escaped. This is exactly what occurred at the Battle of the Rosebud eight days earlier. I really enjoy your view points and look forward to continued correspondance.
|
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - May 11 2004 : 08:07:47 AM
|
Hurrah there.
This is my first post so regards to all.
Custer was to blame for the defeat at the LBH.
My opinion is this.Cavalry are worse than useless on the defensive.If you want to destroy a military unit what better way to do it than by putting it on horse back and on the defensive.Cavalry are an offensive element and have to be used as such.Custer knew this but manoeuvered his force in column of march close to the enemy.He knew full well that to attack he had to first cross the river and then form up his force in line prior to delivering a cavalry charge.Negotiating a river crossing then changing formation while under sustained attack would be extremely risky for elite troops,for Custer's untested troopers this would be impossible.
The bottom line is this Custer was caught in column spread over more than a mile.The lead elements were driven back in confusion.Credit however must be given to Custer for stopping the headlong flight of his lead units and forming some kind of defensive line.
I believe the troops of Keogh and Calhoun got some warning of what was coming and to their eternal credit they stood their ground.These two troops could have escaped the slaughter but choose to fight sending their troop sergeant James Butler on a desperate ride for help.Butler's body was found some distance from the battlefield [troop sergeants don't desert.]
If Custer had taken the route Reno had taken[using Reno as a decoy/flank attack]with his five troops he could have caught the tribes by surprise .The shock of five troops charging a disorganised
enemy might just might have carried the day. |
|
|
|
biashickory
Recruit
Canada
Status: offline |
Posted - May 11 2004 : 09:30:04 AM
|
For reasons listed above I agree with you that Custer was to blame. I however don't think that even with his full troop he could of won the battle for we are led to believe that therer were too many hostiles. I think that if he had not divided his company up the way he did, and been so spread out they would not of been wiped out. I think the indians were more aware of the surroundings and the troop movements than is discussed and as a result if Custer had net spread himself so thin the fighting would not have been so one sided. Also I think the indians were probably aware of Terry and his column and if they hadn't been able to dispatch of Custer so quickly they would not of hung around too long to fight the whole outfit.
Of course we will never know. |
|
|
|
joseph wiggs
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - May 11 2004 : 9:45:03 PM
|
| I must admit that I am constantly fascinated by the, apparently, majority of responces that claim that Poor General Custer was soley responsible for the defeat of the 7th. Calvary at the Battle of the Little Big Horn. This incompetant, foolish, vainglory clown rushed towards death taking over 600 comrades, friends, and family with him. Have we forgotten that he was not on the hills of Montana on his own hook? He was ordered by the greatest Country in the annals of mankind, the United States, to seek, locate, and if neccessary, exterminate the largest conclave of Plains Indians ever known. Should he have followed those orders or not is a moral issue not to be determined in this forum. What we know is that he did follow orders. The reality of the situation is this, despite the media blitz of the 50's and 60's that displayed hordes of Indians attacking forts and wagon trains, they were extremely relunctant to confront the best that the United States had to offer; Calvery and foot soldiers. When pressed and their villages threatened, this was a different story and they, like you and I, fought back. Custer based his plan of attack upon a fundamental approached approved and, agreed upon by every military commander of that era, Indians would flee rather than fight. It was this erroneous ideology based on ethocentric beliefs that set the stage for this military fiasco. No my friends, it was not Custer who should shoulder the blame for what occurred, it is the responsibility of those who sent him there that must be addressed. |
Edited by - joseph wiggs on May 11 2004 9:58:49 PM |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - May 11 2004 : 11:20:06 PM
|
The United States didn't order Custer to do squat beyond obey his commander, being one of the few officers that would require that reminder. The Army of 1876 was far from the best we had to offer. We don't know it was the largest conclave of Plains Indians ever, and in any case the goal was to get them back on reservation.
In the event, as a hypocritical deserter himself and murderer of men without trial - and convicted of such - Custer still didn't obey orders that didn't suit him. Hence, the presence of Kellogg.
The media portrayals of the fifties and sixties were pretty much reconfigured in the seventies and eighties, and in the fifteen years since then, much has been learned to render all that mostly incorrect as well. We don't know what Custer planned, but if a flank attack, that was a pretty standard gimmick since the Cro-magnons, one he'd used before, albeit by surprise in winter at dawn on a village he seriously outnumbered.
However, please point out the military manual that recommends cavalry action consisting of calling attention to your presence, cringing from a direct attack despite available fords and no resistence of note and then retreating more than a mile to unprotected ground and, not content at this martial excellence, failing to note or break out of imminent surround.
Is that harsh? Is that stretching the known facts? Is it unreal? Silly?
Not as silly as the preposterous claims that Custer would camp out hoping for reinforcements, signalling for help, while being 'on the offensive' till the last moment.
He made logical and good decisions till the 25th. He could have attacked down the valley with the entire regiment, given it was good cavalry ground and the Indians most likely would have headed north into Terry.....if they weren't too much for the Seventh in toto as well. But he chose to keep dividing his forces in the face of an enemy most of his men couldn't hit with a tracking beam. He knew early on that the Sioux were not running but attacking Reno in force. This constitutes 'a clue.' And whatever his plan was, he didn't adapt successfully.
And here's the example of Custer Buff hypocrisy. Reno, with three companies, is condemned for failure to follow through his attack in the current PC theory that the camp wasn't that big. Custer, with five, didn't dare attack at all even though, to be consistent, we are told most of the Indians were fighting Reno, because when Reno retreated THAT's when Custer got nailed by the Sioux. If all or most of the warriors are fighting Reno, what prevented Custer from crossing at MTC, which was the quickest way to the supposed potential captives as well as the way to 'support' Reno's attack of an hour previous? The camp must have been much bigger than current estimates, which bolsters Benteen's claims, or Custer wussed out.
Or was hurt early and nobody dared supplant him in that nepotistic outfit, then divided, and it fell apart pretty easy.
I'm sorry my posts contain no wind swept hills or tears coursing down cheeks, but I'm too old and cynical for that romantic glurge. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
Brent
Lt. Colonel
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - May 12 2004 : 06:25:04 AM
|
Brings me to mind of a military concept that was drilled into me while I was a officer in the Army:
"The commander is responsible for everything his unit does--or fails to do".
Which, ultimately, when the debate dust has settled, makes Custer responsible. |
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - May 13 2004 : 04:24:57 AM
|
I think luck combined with unbeliveable stupidity had a hugh bearing on the outcome.
Was it luck or brillant military insight on the part of the Indians that after defeating Reno and driving him back out of the valley they left him, now reinforced by Benteen's 3 troops and the large pack train in their rear.How did they know how big a force Benteen had,how did they know this was not the main attack,how did they know Custer was not with this force?The Indians did not even leave a blocking force.I believe luck was on their side and they had no idea of the presence of Benteen thus they headed back in the direction of main attack.
Was it luck or brilliant military insight that now delivered this force onto the flank of Custers embattled units to confront Keogh's and Calhouns troops who were further back and putting up the only organised resistance on the battlefield that day?
The whole battle was a comedy of errors.How can a trooper who hardly speaks English be given the responsibility of carrying such an urgent order?
The mistakes of Custer doomed him,the mistakes of the Indians appeared to be brillant military tactics.
Hi Dark Cloud
Very informative post on the other thread.Would agree with most of what you said.However the circulation of the Tribune or Kellog's prose style is irrevlant.He is important because he is a source of information.
Further to the battle I think a case can be made for the contention that the last and perhaps only organised resistance was offered by Keogh's battalion.Any ideas? |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - May 13 2004 : 09:26:15 AM
|
Kellog was a source of info regarding what, precisely? All boilerplate stuff. For what is he the sole source? In over a century and a quarter, hardly a single line of his other than "I ride with Custer" is ever quoted.
The soldiers on the field after the battle seemed to think Calhoun made the only good defense, based upon shell casings. Benteen didn't think anybody had done well, and it was 'absolute confusion.' I don't think the supposed science since then has improved on anything, because artifacts can't be proven to have come to rest during a two hour period in 1876.
I have no proof, but if Custer led an attack down MTC, and he was hurt, and the two front companies were deflected off to the north to bring him to safety while he was conscious and muttering instructions, and the back three retreated to await orders/developments, and family concerns warred with regimental issues of the moment, and the Indians attacked in force before command could be re-established and the ensuing battle was fought at the company level, the field and location of officers and the dead and the crappy ground on which to fight are accounted for. Simple, possible, not unlikely, and accounts for everything.
That's not heroic and doesn't allow furrowed brow discussions of which company executed which crisp military manuever but is more in keeping with common sense, Indian warfare, and the resultant field. I cannot believe Custer, given an open attack route, did not attack if he could. I cannot believe Custer, with that terrible cavalry ground clearly visible, would willingly go where he did for the reasons offered.
The increasingly ludicrous and intricate explanations for supposed movements on offense sound quite silly to me, and obviously designed to excuse why MTC wasn't crossed, the village attacked. For common Indian recollection was that there were hardly any defenders there, and what evidence exists doesn't point to a large battle there.
Of course, railroad picnics at that location could explain the current lack of evidence as souvenirs were popular back then as now. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
biashickory
Recruit
Canada
Status: offline |
Posted - May 13 2004 : 12:16:52 PM
|
In his book "Custer's Fall" David Humphries Miller on page 97 has Custer shot while crossing the river to attack the village. The wound is to the left breast, and fatal, not necesarily right away. He goes on to describe the troopers confusion and probable panic. This event alone could go a long way in explaining the downfall of Custer and his men. If this is factual, how do we know truly what happened?, perhaps Custer did have a master plan and had he survived the out come could of been different.
Any thoughts?? |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - May 13 2004 : 1:40:55 PM
|
I would bet lots of people thought this through the years. There is a certain handiness about it.
Because this battle attracts lots of military wannabe's, though, who want to exhibit their baseball card knowledge of the battle and weaponry, this theory has never caught on despite its simplicity and logical strength.
Absolutely no proof, though. But when you think about what we do, more or less, know, if the five companies were heading down the coulee, rebuffed with Custer shot, where they ended up makes a certain elegant sense.
Custer was not a fool, and I've never bought the theory that he looked for high ground with no shelter as a reasonable course of action. He'd temporarily retreat, I'd think, no shame in it.
But the Seventh was often run by his family rather than by rank or seniority. Boston decided he'd rather be with Custer and simply left his post. Earlier in the day, Tom had brought the regiment forward on his own, bypassing Reno and Benteen who thought Custer had ordered it, when Custer had not, and castigated Tom for it. Why was Tom with his brother and not his company? Why were several officers not with their companies but with Custer? Headquarters? For 210 men, how large a headquarters do you need? It would make sense if they were trying to sort out command and what to do while suddenly under attack. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - May 14 2004 : 04:04:01 AM
|
Hi Dark Cloud
You raise a very interesting question---"why did Custer not cross at the MTC"? As you point out it was undefended.
Your solution is Custer was shot.How unfortunate particularly as there were so few defenders.This also accounts for the catastrophic collapse of command and control of the regiment and thus their erratic move to the north and doom.
I would disagree and offer this scenario.
Custer realises just how big the village is and sends for Benteen and the packs.His only chance of success is to attack the village from the North[a similar attack as Reno's from the south].He is unfamilar with the terrain and does indeed ride down MTC only to find it brings him to a crossing right in the centre of the village.OK lets assume that you are right and the crossing itself is lightly defended.Which way does he attack?Towards Reno?If he does he leaves hundreds of Indians in his rear.If he turns and attacks North the same happens.If he attacks West he leaves both flanks exposed.
Second reason he does not cross at MCT.It may not have been defended but the Indians were very aware of his presence and there were hundreds of warriors to his front.Further the regiment could have only crossed in column which would have been like feeding meat into a grinder.
Now my understanding of the layout of the Village is that Gall's tribe was camped to the South thus he was occupied in fighting Reno.On the other hand Crazy Horse was at the extreme North of the village.Your observation about the situation at the crossing totally ignores the whereabouts of Crazy Horse and his warriors.
Custer did not cross at MTC because he did not want to.Oh sure he checked it out dismissed it swung up out of it,proceeded North and was turning into the next ravine---his lead troop E was actually in it when he was hit from the north by Crazy Horse.
The regiment was flanked when it was in the worst of all formations.Strung out in Column in broken country.Most of E company are cut off and slaughtered in the ravine.HQ group and the jumbled up survivers of the lead units fall back in headlong flight to the high ground of LSH.Keogh and Calhoun see what's coming.They dismount and form skirmish line and Butler is sent on a desperate ride for help.[What if he had got to Benteen? thats for another day]
There are 120 markers on the Keogh/Calhoun part of the field.Even allowing for spurious markers this would seem to indicate that whatever further movement took place during the Battle was away from LSH and towards Keogh.Thus my point that the last organised resistance took place here.
If your point about Custer being shot is true it raises the interesting question of" was he eventually finnished off by his brother or Cooke[bullet to the head]when it became clear that all was lost and that he could have been captured.
Kellog for another day
|
|
|
|
Brent
Lt. Colonel
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - May 15 2004 : 06:40:03 AM
|
Wild1:
To me, one of the interesting things about all of this is that it is happening TO a commander who had indicated to Reno he was going to support him with the "whole outfit". Now turns out HE is the fellow who needs support.
When you are not exactly sure of where the enemy is, how many there are of him, what the terrain to get to him is really like--and you divide your command three ways, out of immediate mutual support of one another --trouble lurks just around the corner.
AS to whether or not Custer was wounded early--I honestly can't say.
A case can certainly be made for it. But I'm inclined to think that when he realized MTC led more or less to the center of the village, he opted to continue on. At that point, I'm not sure he realized the trouble he was REALLY in. |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - May 15 2004 : 1:15:26 PM
|
Custer saw most of the village from Reno Hill; the size -whatever it was - would be known to him before MTC. He could tell by the size of the pony herd, surely, and all that would be visible on the west side of the valley.
I don't buy the 'feint' theory because Custer knew the Sioux were not that efficient at large scale anything. It's not like there was a Sioux commander. For a feint to do anything, most of the Sioux would have to see it, not just a command structure to issue orders, because it they didn't, they wouldn't react. In any case, the run north could be seen by more in the village than the coulee attack.
Given that shock and speed are the essence of cavalry, stealth and defense do not appeal as explanations for what Custer did.
Why deliberately race to a very bad defensive position when you could race south just as well? Or cross into the camp? Any cavalry charge into a camp exposes you to enfilade fire in theory, but the whole idea is that there would be panic to save families and the defense wouldn't hold.
Further, I don't see a cavalry commander of any merit looking at LSH or that area and think that's where my cavalry should be. Cavalry is useless and vulnerable when stopped, especially without cover, more especially with wounded. At that point you lose up to half your fire power to horseholders et al and you're dependent upon great shooting. I doubt the marksmanship of the 7th ever impressed anyone.
Zero proof, again, but a wounded Custer would need to be swept out of danger and protected while things got sorted out. They never got the chance.
I don't know or care where the last soldier fell, but my impression of the field is consistent with a rapid rush to high ground in two general bunchs and an inability to react as a command to the pressing of the Indians. It was fought at the company level, if that, at least by Calhoun and Keogh.
The bunching of officers might indicate a "who's the boss?" moment. What others see as bunching of soldiers rather suggests to me locations of dead horses to hide behind. Given the number of shell casings NOT found by the Army two days later, I don't think it was much of a battle, and didn't last long. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
Brent
Lt. Colonel
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - May 16 2004 : 07:24:51 AM
|
'Twould have been nice if at least some of the Seventh had some repeating rifles--a few of which the Indians seem to have had. Tho I agree that the marksmenship of the ordinary 7th soldier was probably atrocious, at least repeating rifles SOUND better, and wildly shooting 7 (or 16) shots may increase your chances of hiting something!! Mathematically, anyway--.
|
|
|
|
El Crab
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - May 16 2004 : 5:39:18 PM
|
| Wildly firing 7-16 shots in rapid succession will definitely succeed in wasting a large percentage of a trooper's personal ammunition... |
I came. I saw. I took 300 pictures. |
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - May 17 2004 : 04:14:57 AM
|
Hi Dark Cloud
In relation to Custer's attempted crossing at the MTC.
Reno deployed and charging fails to get into a surprised village yet you think Custer in column could cross a river and then deploy in the midst of raging hostiles? .If he did not deploy just charged into the village and attacked South by the time he reached the end of the village Calhoun would have only been entering the village.And I ask again where was Crazy Horse?
Why deliberately race to a very bad defensive position when you could race south just as well?
You are hardly suggesting that the great Custer race back to be saved by Benteen[of all people].Can you just imagine what our friend Kellog would have made of that."BENTEEN SAVES CUSTER AND HIS ENTIRE COMMAND"
Further, I don't see a cavalry commander of any merit looking at LSH or that area and think that's where my cavalry should be.
Whatever Custer maybe accused of it is not cowardice.Custer in headlong flight with the hostiles in hot pursuit--- noway.
So was he shot at MTC? I think it's an easy way out.If he was shot then you don't have to explain the wanderings north of the command or their pathetic response to being attacked or their choice of a defensive position.
Cuater saved the only thing that could be saved and that was honour.
Slan
|
|
|
|
Brent
Lt. Colonel
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - May 17 2004 : 06:30:37 AM
|
El Crab:
Indeed!!
It's a case of firing single shots and hitting mostly nothing, or lots of "repeater" shots and hitting mostly nothing. I had the "pleasure" of seeing exactly that in Vietnam--men using up their entire M-16 "basic load" (which for us was 180 rounds-10 clips of 18 rounds each)in l0 minutes or less.
And not hitting a thing.
But it sure sounds awesome, and the soldiers always felt they were giving the enemy one hell of a pounding. Then we'd go out, find nothing, and everybody would agree the enemy must have taken their dead bodies away (mysteriously leaving no blood stains, etc)
Note: I know that some of you know the M-16 clip would hold 20 rounds. But filling it up put a lot of tension on the magazine clip spring, and after multiple 20 round loads, the spring would weaken and might not have enough pressure to feed the next round. In a semi-automatic weapon, that's not good.
Sorry to deviate from the original post. |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - May 17 2004 : 12:12:56 PM
|
Retreating to Reno (not Benteen, because nobody knew where he was) and reassembling for a charge up the valley with the united regiment wouldn't be a loss of honor, whatever that is. He could say he came to Reno's aid. You know, like he'd told Reno he'd do.
Custer wasn't a fool, so I discount a healthy Custer heading east deeper into Cavalry No-No Land.
As you recall, MTC opens on to the river at which point there was and is some trees on the west bank and then the village. There was ample space to fan out, the only deployment they'd do, and attack. There is no evidence of or testimony of a meaningful defense there. I admit a wounded Custer is altogether convenient, but it logically explains everything, violates no known evidence, and is the simplest theory that does. It makes far more sense than these complicated feints and and deployments of which I doubt that cavalry was remotely capable of doing and I cannot see the point of any of it with either a modest village or a huge one. Once in contact with the enemy, cavalry HAS to attack or retreat out of combat; Custer did neither, which is odd, and that's why I think he was hurt and other motivations of family and confusion piled on. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - May 18 2004 : 04:39:50 AM
|
Hi Dark Cloud
Many thanks for your observations and opinions.You have a huge advantage over me as you have seen the battlefield and in particularly MTC. I'm depending on rather dubious maps.
Not much point trying to develope the discussion by saying the horses were dead beat and it was at least 3 miles back to Reno and Reno was on the other side of the river and heavely engaged and Custer was going to appear in his rear with hundreds of warriors in hot pursuit
Seriously though where was Crazy Horse and the hundreds of warriors that just materalized on Custer's North Flank?
Bye the bye is the battlefield worth a visit?What's the best time of year to go?
Slan agus bennacht
|
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - May 18 2004 : 10:26:40 AM
|
The Battlefield is INDEED worth the visit. My favorite time is autumn, because the tourists are gone, the weather is good, and the quiet is nice. It's an eerily beautiful place. I haven't been there since the Indian memorial was complete, and I wasn't there long enough to adjudge the effect of the casino (which, being honest, Custer would love)but I cannot believe it to be so bad.
What's impressive is the size and expanse of the field and the really crappy horse land that Custer ended up on. I think my not-too-emotionally held theory makes far more sense when you get to Weir Point and look north. I cannot but assume that ANY cavalry man would see such land and risk it solely as necessary to affect a crossing. That he didn't......
I have, and others have, video and stuff. I might put it on my site. It's nothing exciting except that people who have not seen the field might get a vague sense of it, and together with the map in Gray's last book be oriented better. I, myself, STILL get confused and got all flustered trying to figure out where this expanded parking lot by the memorial was. Age. Stupidity.
Video was taken in 2002. Would that be of interest? I guess it would have to be streaming video rather than a straight download. It makes no sense if hardly anyone has the ability to download streaming video, or nobody would care about it. Safe to say, no cinematographer is threatened by my 'work.' |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Was Custer To Blame?
