| Author |
 Topic  |
|
terri
Private
USA
Status: offline |
 Posted - August 22 2005 : 12:17:28 AM
|
Okay, here is the scene:
It's June 25th. You are Custer and have just been informed by Mitch Boyer that if you ride into the hostile village you will not come out alive. You have also been in the Crows Nest and HAVE SEEN for yourself the massive pony herd that your scouts claim is amassed on the plains.
You as Custer BELIEVE Mitch Boyer and your scouts. What are your orders?
Me? I send a rider for Gibbons fast and hold on any plan for attack until I disceren what the hostiles will do. Yeah, I know I'm giving Sitting Bull time to ready for battle, but hey, I'm a rookie and this is just a senario. Besides, the hostiles don't know Gibbons is only a day away and they just might have a wait and see attitude like me. And if Gibbons hurries, we can most likely pull it off.
Okay, give me a cigarette and a blind fold please. I'm ready to be stood up next to the firing squad. 
|
|
|
lorenzo G.
Captain
Italy
Status: offline |
Posted - August 22 2005 : 11:51:07 AM
|
| No firing squad, but you are making your decision knowing the outcome of the battle and sitting at the pc, not while riding for one official mission in open field, with the risk that any mistake done should ruin your carrier or even lose your life.. I guess the better way to give this question is: what should have do better Custer than what he did? |
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 |
  |
|
|
movingrobewoman
Lt. Colonel
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - August 22 2005 : 12:17:16 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by terri
Okay, here is the scene:
It's June 25th. You are Custer and have just been informed by Mitch Boyer that if you ride into the hostile village you will not come out alive. You have also been in the Crows Nest and HAVE SEEN for yourself the massive pony herd that your scouts claim is amassed on the plains.
You as Custer BELIEVE Mitch Boyer and your scouts. What are your orders?
Me? I send a rider for Gibbons fast and hold on any plan for attack until I disceren what the hostiles will do. Yeah, I know I'm giving Sitting Bull time to ready for battle, but hey, I'm a rookie and this is just a senario. Besides, the hostiles don't know Gibbons is only a day away and they just might have a wait and see attitude like me. And if Gibbons hurries, we can most likely pull it off.
Okay, give me a cigarette and a blind fold please. I'm ready to be stood up next to the firing squad.
What you're engaging in, then, is a wild goose chase. Everything I have read points out that the Native Americans were already pulling up stakes to move from the village on the river--which they did shortly after LBH. A mobile enemy, despite the meeting columns of Custer and Gibbons would have proven to be a real nightmare. This is one of the reasons Was-hita was fought during the winter. Seems militiarily at least, advantage moves to the Indian enemy that goes mobile ...
Given the problem, I guess Custer did do the right thing in going after the village ... timewise, I'm not so sure the attack at mid-day was such a great idea. But then again, they thought they'd been found ...
And I don't think Custer would have been put off too much by the warning, "this way to certain death." His army career did seem to need that big victory.
Hoka hey! |
movingrobe |
|
|
|
Heavyrunner
Captain
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - August 22 2005 : 2:08:09 PM
|
| If you're looking for a scenario in which Custer could have won, well, there ain't one.. With Gibbon, Terry and a better battle plan, all launched on the 26th, we might have had a standoff and avoided a massacre. Give the Sioux and Cheyenne some credit. They had higher morale, higher motivation, good weapons and much better leadership (if that was a factor). The "what ifs" regarding this event always seem to reflect a disrespect for Indian prowess and determination. Come to think of it, that's exactly what got Custer killed..along with his entire command. |
Bob Bostwick |
|
|
|
lorenzo G.
Captain
Italy
Status: offline |
Posted - August 22 2005 : 7:27:06 PM
|
| Custer admired the prowess of indians, what killed him was instead a lot of wrong informations. Of course I'm not agreeding with you when you talk of better leadership. |
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 |
|
|
|
terri
Private
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - August 22 2005 : 7:37:54 PM
|
| Thanks guys for the feed back. I've been pondering what Custer could have done differently and it all is beginning to come back to Terry's initial plans for the campagin and the lack of communication with Crook, and Gibbons. I also truly believe that Custer failed to take into account the hostiles determination to fight it out. |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - August 22 2005 : 9:35:37 PM
|
Given the 1864 battles in Minnesota against many of the same Sioux, the Army should have known that huge villages did not run or, once they did move, proceed as fast as smaller ones, and that inertia and confusion would keep the camp where it was while the warriors fought. Is there a single example of such a large village as at LBH or Kildeer Mt. running at the mere advance of an army? The Army had all these "facts" about the enemy that simply weren't true, but you'd think that somehow the experience of Kildeer - where the Sioux willingly fought it out even against artillery - would wobble those minds fearing a Sioux steeplechase when they saw an advance Crow scout. But no.
You'd think that someone would have asked "...and if they stand?" Nope. And it's not like that had not happened. But that's the commander's job, to imagine and plan ahead. Custer failed at that this once.
I don't think it's the determination that he underestimated as the fact that huge numbers without a central command of actual authority wouldn't lend itself to logical or predictable moves even if they wanted to. Once the dust rises, they're in small world not being able to see what's happening.
|
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
Edited by - Dark Cloud on August 22 2005 9:36:33 PM |
|
|
|
terri
Private
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - August 22 2005 : 10:34:47 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Cloud
Given the 1864 battles in Minnesota against many of the same Sioux, the Army should have known that huge villages did not run or, once they did move, proceed as fast as smaller ones, and that inertia and confusion would keep the camp where it was while the warriors fought. Is there a single example of such a large village as at LBH or Kildeer Mt. running at the mere advance of an army? The Army had all these "facts" about the enemy that simply weren't true, but you'd think that somehow the experience of Kildeer - where the Sioux willingly fought it out even against artillery - would wobble those minds fearing a Sioux steeplechase when they saw an advance Crow scout. But no.
You'd think that someone would have asked "...and if they stand?" Nope. And it's not like that had not happened. But that's the commander's job, to imagine and plan ahead. Custer failed at that this once.
I don't think it's the determination that he underestimated as the fact that huge numbers without a central command of actual authority wouldn't lend itself to logical or predictable moves even if they wanted to. Once the dust rises, they're in small world not being able to see what's happening.
I still don't understand the lack of communication between Crook, Terry and Gibbons. Doesn't make sense. But let me ask you this, put yourself in Custer's place. Boyer and your scouts have basically informed you that if you send the 7th against these hostiles, you won't come out of it alive. What do you do? Do you sacrifice your command? Do you send gallopers to Gibbons? He was only 24 hrs away. Do you attack without dividing your command? I mean what options under the circumstances could one take? 
|
|
|
|
terri
Private
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - August 22 2005 : 10:40:01 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Heavyrunner
If you're looking for a scenario in which Custer could have won, well, there ain't one.. With Gibbon, Terry and a better battle plan, all launched on the 26th, we might have had a standoff and avoided a massacre. Give the Sioux and Cheyenne some credit. They had higher morale, higher motivation, good weapons and much better leadership (if that was a factor). The "what ifs" regarding this event always seem to reflect a disrespect for Indian prowess and determination. Come to think of it, that's exactly what got Custer killed..along with his entire command.
I agree that the Native Americans had the greater moral, weapons etc.. They sure had the motivation. I'm not sure though about leadership due to the fact it's my understanding that warriors basically fought as individuals and not in military formation - at least in respects to what I understand as military discipline. Wasn't it their medicine which they trusted? Perhaps I'm wrong on this one. |
|
|
|
movingrobewoman
Lt. Colonel
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - August 22 2005 : 11:24:27 PM
|
Terri--
The problem is that Custer, despite any warnings offered by the scouts, still would have gone with the standard tactics recommended in the Tactical Manual of 1874--that is to divide the regiment into three prongs. One would be led by the regimental commander (Custer), the other by the second in command (Reno) and the last by the third (Benteen). In this respect GAC followed procedure to the letter. If there are arguments, they would come with his further splitting his battalion.
From his ACW experiences, I don't think Custer would have been even slightly bothered by the odds as you think Bouyer offered. I'm almost certain that in the Civil War, Custer probably faced worse (Trevelian Station?). His reputation seemed ruined in 1876, and he needed a win.
Of course, the Native Americans were more motivated. Fighting for one's survival as a nation will do that ... sending folks to established reservations didn't, I guess.
Hoka hey ... !! |
movingrobe |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - August 23 2005 : 12:38:34 AM
|
Oh good. Military manuals. My favorites.
To start, Terry and Gibbons had excellent communication for the time. They rode together.
But if Terry and Custer and Crook had easy communication, what were they doing there? Communication was assumed to be blocked with the Sioux, which it mostly was. Second, they weren't expected to act in close harmony, rather with notional concepts of where to drive the village so as to include the most possible friendly forces. Messengers would tend to ride where the Sioux were not, so it's misleading to say they were 24 hours apart if they had to go around.
I have no real objection to anything Custer did until his micromanagement of Benteen's Scout and his run north leaving Reno. Even so, there can be good and valid reasons for that.
But heading NORTH from MTC along the ridges was stupid if intentional. I still think the first companies to attempt to cross at MTC were blunted and ran to Calhoun and LSH while the back companies, unclear what was happening, provided downhill covering fire as they rode north to unknown purpose. I don't think Custer intended this. Awful ground for cavalry, and he'd avoid it.
If he were going to cross, MTC was his best chance. Riding north to another place lost any surprise and pulled a greeting crew to him, making the move rather stupid. But he didn't have enough guys to make a go of it and that MUST have been apparent at the time MTC backed up on him. I don't understand any of that, and the highly detailed dance lines purported as accomplished by a force on the offensive strike me as nutty and based on the location of shell casings that could have any number of other reasons for being there. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
Heavyrunner
Captain
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - August 23 2005 : 11:57:22 AM
|
Terri,
We all know the Indian side didn't fight in formal, military formations, but they did have leadership. Some credit Gall, some credit Crazy Horse and some credit Sitting Bull at LBH. Agreed, their leadership was probably as much inspirational as it was tactical or strategic, but I would respond with this question:
Who would you rather be following on June 25th, 1876, Custer or any of the three mentioned above? |
Bob Bostwick |
|
|
|
terri
Private
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - August 23 2005 : 12:14:31 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Heavyrunner
Terri,
We all know the Indian side didn't fight in formal, military formations, but they did have leadership. Some credit Gall, some credit Crazy Horse and some credit Sitting Bull at LBH. Agreed, their leadership was probably as much inspirational as it was tactical or strategic, but I would respond with this question:
Who would you rather be following on June 25th, 1876, Custer or any of the three mentioned above?
That's easy, Gall! :) |
|
|
|
terri
Private
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - August 23 2005 : 12:17:28 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Cloud
Oh good. Military manuals. My favorites.
To start, Terry and Gibbons had excellent communication for the time. They rode together.
But if Terry and Custer and Crook had easy communication, what were they doing there? Communication was assumed to be blocked with the Sioux, which it mostly was. Second, they weren't expected to act in close harmony, rather with notional concepts of where to drive the village so as to include the most possible friendly forces. Messengers would tend to ride where the Sioux were not, so it's misleading to say they were 24 hours apart if they had to go around.
I have no real objection to anything Custer did until his micromanagement of Benteen's Scout and his run north leaving Reno. Even so, there can be good and valid reasons for that.
But heading NORTH from MTC along the ridges was stupid if intentional. I still think the first companies to attempt to cross at MTC were blunted and ran to Calhoun and LSH while the back companies, unclear what was happening, provided downhill covering fire as they rode north to unknown purpose. I don't think Custer intended this. Awful ground for cavalry, and he'd avoid it.
If he were going to cross, MTC was his best chance. Riding north to another place lost any surprise and pulled a greeting crew to him, making the move rather stupid. But he didn't have enough guys to make a go of it and that MUST have been apparent at the time MTC backed up on him. I don't understand any of that, and the highly detailed dance lines purported as accomplished by a force on the offensive strike me as nutty and based on the location of shell casings that could have any number of other reasons for being there.
Wow, I've got a lot of reading to do on this subject. I'm certainly a newbie. And it's a safe bet, I wasn't a military guy in a past life. Just kidding.... :)
|
|
|
|
joseph wiggs
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - August 23 2005 : 9:24:44 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by terri
Okay, here is the scene:
It's June 25th. You are Custer and have just been informed by Mitch Boyer that if you ride into the hostile village you will not come out alive. You have also been in the Crows Nest and HAVE SEEN for yourself the massive pony herd that your scouts claim is amassed on the plains.
You as Custer BELIEVE Mitch Boyer and your scouts. What are your orders?
Your reaction (in this given scenario)is plausible, reasonable, and completely rationale, particularly when one knows the fatal outcome of this battle. Since it was a total disaster for the military, one can only assume that any military tactic would have been better that what Custer employed;right?
However, the scenario, unintentionally, omits two vital components that are extremely critical in comprising alternatives that General Custer may have utilized; alternatives that may have changed the outcome of this battle.
A. The village could have been as large as the city of Chicago and Boyer's announcement still would have been disregarded. Custer's mission was to chastise the recalcitrant Indians and, he firmly believed the 7th. Cavalry was perfectly capable of performing this task. His personal experiences in Indian fighting reinforced his belief (rightly or wrongly)that Indians normally fled when approached by a large force of U.S. military.
One must remember that the Native American defense force was not comprised of volunteer soldiers with no families, felons running from the law, juveniles escaping the drudgery of a harsh farm life, or "snowbirds" looking for the next gold mine before jumping ship. It consisted of husbands, sons and brothers who were counted upon to supply food for the young and old during the winter. As such, substantial deaths of warriors could be devastating to the tribe. This is why, when given the opportunity, they fled. Certainly not because they were afraid, they were simply smart. The size of a village was absolutely irrelevant regarding its ability to disperse. Survival of the village depended upon the crucial ability to divide and disperse into 360 degrees of flight.
B. The players in this tragedy were members of a nineteenth century society with instilled beliefs, customs, and entrenched sense of right or wrong, totally alien to contemporaneous mindsets. Thus,in the main stream society of that era and geographical location, most were convinced that Indians were savage heathens incapable of meeting and besting the finest the military had to offer. Custer and the 7th Calvary became victims to that ideology when the "heathens" chose to stand and fight for their loved ones.
Ironically, Custer's "tactics" were so successful that there was no time for the village to disperse thus, only one alternative remained; stand and fight.
No military commander of the twentieth century would have approached this battle as did Custer which means absolutely nothing. Warfare has achieved greater standards and success since then. Prior to the battle the vast majority of Americans were confident that the military would be successful. Only after the fatal results did the naysayers and Monday Morning Quarterbacks (then as now)resolve to comprehend this great American failure by scapegoating. |
Edited by - joseph wiggs on August 23 2005 9:38:10 PM |
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - August 24 2005 : 03:15:35 AM
|
Do you attack without dividing your command?
Yes.Custer had one chance and that was to attack over the same ground as Reno with the entire regiment. |
|
|
|
Heavyrunner
Captain
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - August 24 2005 : 3:17:29 PM
|
| Sorry, wILD, that wouldn't have worked either... Custer had no chance with the forces at his command except, maybe, to get all 600 killed. In this one, the Indians were better..bigger, better, stronger, faster and, very importantly, far more pissed off. |
Bob Bostwick |
|
|
|
joseph wiggs
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - August 24 2005 : 9:44:44 PM
|
I agree with Wild. A concerted charge, consisting of the entire command, may have presented an overwhelming, military front that the warriors may not have been capable of stopping, despite their superior numbers.
Reno's charge of only three companies resulted in absolute panic and chaos by a majority of the warriors who bolted in the opposite direction when confronted. Only when Reno decided to go into "skirmish" did the Indians regroup and pressed an attack.
Now, for those who may doubt my assertion that Reno ceased his charge when it was not necessary to do so I refer to his own testimony:Reno Inquiry, Graham page 277.
"I deployed and with the Ree scouts on my left charged down the valley driving the Indians with great ease for about 21/2 miles. I however soon saw that I was being into some trap as they would certainly fight harder." Reno then, suddenly, asserts that "the very earth seemed to grow Indians, and they were running towards me in swarms."
How did the actions of the warriors suddenly and inexplicable change from absolute flight to aggressive "swarming"? When Reno charged they ran, when he stopped his charge they recognized obvious tactical indecision and ineptitude and quickly took advantage of the situation.
I am not suggesting that a combined effort by Custer's command would have won the battle. However, it is highly doubtful that any portion of the command would have been wiped out. A charge led by Custer would not have petered out as a result of unsubstantiated speculation and "what ifs." At the very least, a concentrated effort of the entire command would have afforded him an opportunity to extricate his men from the clutches of the hostile warriors. |
Edited by - joseph wiggs on August 24 2005 9:50:58 PM |
|
|
|
movingrobewoman
Lt. Colonel
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - August 25 2005 : 12:35:44 PM
|
But Joe and wILD ...
Wouldn't your scenario then allow the Native Americans to flee to the north? Wasn't that Custer's primary concern that day, one that caused him to implement the three pronged tactic, not unlike that he employed at Was-hita ... and that his personal battalion would have been able to cut off any potential scattering?
Well, supposedly.
Hoka hey! |
movingrobe |
Edited by - movingrobewoman on August 25 2005 12:36:50 PM |
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - August 25 2005 : 12:59:57 PM
|
But Joe and wILD ...
Wouldn't your scenario then allow the Native Americans to flee to the north?
They were not in a fleeing mode.They were fishing and making whoopee ya know a normal day and then 600 troopers appear out of nowhere.Move yar robe woman we gota flee northwards like the script says.
Sorry MRW but 600 troopers for afternoon tea? |
|
|
|
movingrobewoman
Lt. Colonel
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - August 25 2005 : 2:43:58 PM
|
wILD--
Okay, I see what's going on. You're staying true to Terri's scenario, right, that Custer actually believes he's facing certain death. Even then, I still don't think that would have kept him from employing the tactic he used. He's "afraid" they might flee ... his experience (other than at a sleeping Was-hita) has taught him nothing else, so I guess Custer wrote that script, eh?
Hoka hey
|
movingrobe |
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - August 25 2005 : 5:33:50 PM
|
MRW
I still don't think that would have kept him from employing the tactic he used. He's "afraid" they might flee
You miss the point MRW at approx 3.00 he is no longer afraid they will flee he is in "we've caught them napping"mode.He now is faced with the problem of killing them which the silly bugger tries to do by feeding his men piecemeal to them.
Here's a question for you Joe [or anyone else].What is the least number of men Reno required to have successfully charged into the village and survived? |
Edited by - wILD I on August 25 2005 5:37:51 PM |
|
|
|
movingrobewoman
Lt. Colonel
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - August 25 2005 : 5:47:55 PM
|
Yeah, but wILD, didn't GAC say that on the bluffs, after the battalions had already been split? Forgive me, I might be mightily confused.
Fat chance. Reno was in charge. |
movingrobe |
Edited by - movingrobewoman on August 25 2005 5:48:55 PM |
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - August 26 2005 : 04:07:17 AM
|
Yeah, but wILD, didn't GAC say that on the bluffs,
Sure but that was just confirmation all indications from the Crows nest on were going in favour of catching them napping. |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - August 26 2005 : 4:13:59 PM
|
| The exact opposite. At the Crow's Nest they advanced on the village because Custer thought they'd been seen and the village would be alerted and run. He certainly was not under the impression he was approaching a napping village. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
joseph wiggs
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - August 26 2005 : 9:35:40 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by movingrobewoman
But Joe and wILD ...
Wouldn't your scenario then allow the Native Americans to flee to the north? Wasn't that Custer's primary concern that day, one that caused him to implement the three pronged tactic, not unlike that he employed at Was-hita ... and that his personal battalion would have been able to cut off any potential scattering?
Well, supposedly.
Hoka hey!
This is merely a theory with no corroborative evidence to support it, nevertheless, I will offer it up for discussion. When Custer uttered those memorial words, "We've caught then napping boys",he may not have been referring to a befuddled, sleepy village suddenly aroused from a deep sleep by the startling sounds of the soldier's firing. He may have, and I emphasis MAY HAVE, been referring to two other acts being portrayed before him.
The frenzied rush of the vast majority of warriors towards Reno's skirmish line(or the unanticipated absence of warriors in the village proper)along with the mass exodus of women, children, and the elderly fleeing in terror, NORTH! Such a panorama of events viewed from the heights of Sharpshooter ridge(?) may have elated him to a frenzy of joy. The Capture a substantial portion of the non-combatants while the warriors were confronting Reno's skirmish line would have rendered them completely powerless.
Hence the necessity of Benteen's three troops to augment Custer's five may have prompted the "Come Quick" order. Capturing so many non-combatants required additional manpower and ammunition should the warriors returned prior to Custer's actualizing their capture.
At the very least, Custer did not believe that the warriors were actually napping,rather they (he thought)had unknowingly fallen into his trap. His one shot at success was coming to fruition. The Warriors had, it seemed, in their haste to stop Reno had foolishly abandoned their loved ones. Thus the "Hurrah Boys, we've caught them napping. Unfortunately, for Custer,the nap was extremely short lived.
The events that transpired of the Crow's Nest(as mentioned) and, Girard's spotting of the huge dust cloud heading toward the village convinced Custer that the Indians were, in fact, running.
I believe Custer's three prong movement, which did,eventually, evolved into an attack, was in the beginning a Surveillance-in-Force. A military tactic of the nineteenth century utilized to gather intelligence while affording minimal protection for each unit. A tactic used when the disposition and exact location of the enemy(read INDIANS HERE)in unknown. Native Americans fought in the "guerrilla" style as opposed to the Civil War,Standing Armies style. As such, Custer was forced to utilize the tactic I have referred to. At the Wa****a, Custer was confident of the location of Black Kettle's village. The prong attack was, therefore, utilized to bring havoc and confusion upon a startled enemy caught suddenly by surprise by an enemy coming into the fray from all directions. What Custer did not realized was that for several miles down river, numerous other tribes were station along the Wa****a river. |
Edited by - joseph wiggs on August 26 2005 9:56:20 PM |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Let's engage a senario
