| Author |
 Topic  |
|
donfisk
Recruit
USA
Status: offline |
 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?
|
Don Fisk |
|
|
movingrobewoman
Lt. Colonel
USA
Status: offline |
 Posted - March 16 2005 : 4:02:32 PM
|
Well, that would blow the conspiracy theory, eh? And in Custer, as in all theories addressing grassy knolls, there's got to be some crazy plot--especially the one supposedly hatched by the Grant Administration to destroy GAC's plans for a presidential run, thanks to his hearsay evidence before the Belknap Committee. Right. The only thing GAC missed out (well, other than life itself, ugh) was a fall lecture tour ... I think Billy may be the best source for this compare/contrast essay.
Welcome to the board!
Regards, |
movingrobe |
  |
|
|
Heavyrunner
Captain
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - March 16 2005 : 5:15:04 PM
|
My first guess is that Custer simply would have found another way to screw it all up. But, I'm just guessing.
However, Custer didn't have the rank to command a force that size. Had he, who would have been in command of the Custer column? |
Bob Bostwick |
|
|
|
movingrobewoman
Lt. Colonel
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - March 16 2005 : 5:48:43 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Heavyrunner
My first guess is that Custer simply would have found another way to screw it all up. But, I'm just guessing.
However, Custer didn't have the rank to command a force that size. Had he, who would have been in command of the Custer column?
Wasn't Reno put temporarily in charge of getting the Seventh ready for the Summer Campaign--well, he and Tom? But I am certain that there was another candidate dated for promotion to LTC. I know Reno had certain hopes ... |
movingrobe |
|
|
|
joseph wiggs
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - March 16 2005 : 9:05:46 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by donfisk
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?
I am certainly no expert but, like most people I do have an opinion. I don't believe that Custer's rank would have prevented him from leading the command. In fact, prior to his testimony at the Belknap Inquiry, Custer may have been in the running as the leader of the Dakota column.
General Sheridan's plan of campaign required three columns of troops to move against the Sioux at the same time. This thrust was to occur in March or early April. Crook and Gibbon were able to get underway on schedule, however, the Dakota column was hampered by a sudden burst of "politics." According to E.I. Stewart, Custer "was preparing to the take the field against the hostile Indians as the leader of Dakota column" when he was summonsed to testify at the inquiry. President Grant took exception to this testimony and the rest of the story is well known.
Only after Custer's humble plea to "accompany his men into battle" did Grant relent, specifying that he would be subordinate to General Terry.
As for your original question, had Custer led the Dakota column he probably would have committed himself to the same tactics that destroyed his command. How could anyone possibly know this? We can't. However, the perusal of two critical factors may help us in reaching the aforementioned conclusion.
A. Terry's broad discretion given to Custer made him "ipso facto" in charge anyway, very similar to Benteen's position on Reno Hill later.
B. Unless one understands that every member of all three columns were totally convinced that the "red heathens" would flee at the very approach of the military, much of the subsequent military actions become puzzling at best, bizarre at worst. The most common charge of idiocy leveled at Custer is his decision to divide his command without knowing the strength or disposition of the enemy. 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.
Let us ask an important question, did any military commander involved in this fiasco make preparations to deal with the off chance that the Indians would make a stand? Absolutely not! This is the irony of this battle. The U.S. did not lose because of any poor generalship by Custer, the alleged cowardice of Reno, or the failure of Benteen to "come quick", 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. Blinded by the ideology of "racial superiority" and the stereotypes that accompanies it, many men (white and red) died for naught. |
|
|
|
donfisk
Recruit
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - March 16 2005 : 10:56:57 PM
|
| Interesting, thanks for the replies. I am still curious about how GAC might have used the additional forces, or if he would have, given his confidence in the 7th. Can one assume that since he would have had twice the # of troops, that he would have divided his force the same geographically, but with increased/doubled strenght? Benteen would probably not have been given more men, since his job was not necessarily to engage, but to scout. Would Reno's charge have failed if he had 2x the troops? Would GAC have been repulsed at MTC (for those who believe he tried to cross the LBH there) 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? Had Reno also been forced to retreat, would his force have been strong enough when Benteen came along to attempt to link with GAC? Or was it just not his day, even with more troops? |
Don Fisk |
|
|
|
Heavyrunner
Captain
USA
Status: offline |
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. |
Bob Bostwick |
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
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? |
|
|
|
joseph wiggs
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
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? |
Edited by - joseph wiggs on March 19 2005 12:48:41 PM |
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
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
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
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. |
|
|
|
hunkpapa7
Lieutenant
United Kingdom
Status: offline |
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 ! |
wev'e caught them napping boys
Aye Right ! |
|
|
|
joseph wiggs
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
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. |
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
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
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
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
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - March 20 2005 : 12:52:57 PM
|
| What can I say Joe. |
|
|
|
hunkpapa7
Lieutenant
United Kingdom
Status: offline |
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 |
wev'e caught them napping boys
Aye Right ! |
|
|
|
donfisk
Recruit
USA
Status: offline |
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"! |
Don Fisk |
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
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. |
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
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. |
|
|
|
joseph wiggs
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
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
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
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. |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - March 22 2005 : 1:25:12 PM
|
| Gibbon was sick |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
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. |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
WHAT IF...CUSTER HAD COMMANDED THE DAKOTA COLUMN
