Political Crossfire Forums

[XxMorningStarxX]

Whenever the military historians mention custer, they always seem to portray him nostalgically as some fallen hero who led brave men in a romantically desperate battle.

What is up with this? From what i've read of Custer, he appears to have fought severely underequipped Native Americans who are obviously of no match to a modern U.S. Cavalry... Where is the glory in this? Custer doesn't seem to be a military genius either- his command experiences are limited and he doesn't seem to be a master of tactics.

So wtf is with historians and Custer anyways.

[bigstick61]

He was a very good cavalry tactician and also a hard fighter, which he proved during the Civil War and during two Indian Wars. However, he wasn't a great strategist (although he was a decent one), and he really wasn't any good outside of being a cavalryman, which is why he never became a general in the regular army. The one crucial mistake he made during the campaign which included the Battle of the Little Bighorn was that he left behind his Gatling Guns, which would have turned the tide in his favor during the battle. He underestimated the enemy (although rightfully, based on the analysis of the situation at the time), and as such, wanted to be able to move quickly, which precluded the bringing along of the guns on the campaign. He still fought well despite the odds at the Little Bighorn, and the reason he died where he did was because he led a few troops (companies) of the 7th Cav to the rear of his position to counter the massive flanking attack being conducted by Crazy Horse. He literally saved Reno and Benteen's troops from being slaughtered with him by this manoeuver. Custer also fought well personaly during the battle, according to the Indians, killing many up close and in hand to hand combat, and nearly killing Crazy Horse in hand to hand combat before Crazy Horse killed him, and he was one of the last to die. His valiant move to protect the rear of the rest of the 7th despite the size of the enemy force, his stand, and his personal courage and fighting abilities were the reason why his body was the only one that was not mutilated, stripped, or anything like that on the field. He was guilty of killing innocent women and children which is hardly justifiable, but nonetheless, he was a very courageous and apt cavalryman and officer, which is what earned him his good reputation, even despite the atrocities he committed.

[DSwain]

bigstick61 wrote: He was a very good cavalry tactician and also a hard fighter, which he proved during the Civil War and during two Indian Wars. However, he wasn't a great strategist (although he was a decent one), and he really wasn't any good outside of being a cavalryman, which is why he never became a general in the regular army. The one crucial mistake he made during the campaign which included the Battle of the Little Bighorn was that he left behind his Gatling Guns, which would have turned the tide in his favor during the battle. He underestimated the enemy (although rightfully, based on the analysis of the situation at the time), and as such, wanted to be able to move quickly, which precluded the bringing along of the guns on the campaign. He still fought well despite the odds at the Little Bighorn, and the reason he died where he did was because he led a few troops (companies) of the 7th Cav to the rear of his position to counter the massive flanking attack being conducted by Crazy Horse. He literally saved Reno and Benteen's troops from being slaughtered with him by this manoeuver. Custer also fought well personaly during the battle, according to the Indians, killing many up close and in hand to hand combat, and nearly killing Crazy Horse in hand to hand combat before Crazy Horse killed him, and he was one of the last to die. His valiant move to protect the rear of the rest of the 7th despite the size of the enemy force, his stand, and his personal courage and fighting abilities were the reason why his body was the only one that was not mutilated, stripped, or anything like that on the field. He was guilty of killing innocent women and children which is hardly justifiable, but nonetheless, he was a very courageous and apt cavalryman and officer, which is what earned him his good reputation, even despite the atrocities he committed.

Very interesting. Did any similar disasters befall US forces in any of the Indian wars?

Just three years after the Little Big Horn, the British Army suffered a similar defeat, although on a slightly larger scale - the slaughter of 1,800 British and colonial troops at the Battle of Isandhlwana in the 1879 Zulu War in South Africa.

[ATrow]

XxMorningStarxX wrote: Whenever the military historians mention custer, they always seem to portray him nostalgically as some fallen hero who led brave men in a romantically desperate battle.

What is up with this? From what i've read of Custer, he appears to have fought severely underequipped Native Americans who are obviously of no match to a modern U.S. Cavalry... Where is the glory in this? Custer doesn't seem to be a military genius either- his command experiences are limited and he doesn't seem to be a master of tactics.

So wtf is with historians and Custer anyways.

Alot of the hype about Custer was result of the time. Native Americans were regarded as the evil that was stopping manifest destiny. When Custer died he was automatically viewed as a martyr. It doesn't really matter what attrocities he commited, or how insignificant his victories were; he was a hero.

[bigstick61]

Rarely. There were a couple other battles which were smaller in scale which had similar results. I think one was called the Fetterman massacre if I remember correctly. In one of these, an unlikely hero emerged. One of the company buglers was still fighting well after nearly every trooper in his unit was killed. He was fighting hand to hand, using his bugle ti kill the Indians, until he was killed, one of the last, after having killed quite a few Indians in hand-to-hand combat. The chief had so much respect for his courage and bravery that he ordered the body not to be touched at all and put his buffalo robe over the bugler to cover him, which in their culture is the highest honor you can give a fallen enemy. I can't remeber which battle it was, though.

[melchizedek22]

DSwain wrote: bigstick61 wrote: He was a very good cavalry tactician and also a hard fighter, which he proved during the Civil War and during two Indian Wars. However, he wasn't a great strategist (although he was a decent one), and he really wasn't any good outside of being a cavalryman, which is why he never became a general in the regular army. The one crucial mistake he made during the campaign which included the Battle of the Little Bighorn was that he left behind his Gatling Guns, which would have turned the tide in his favor during the battle. He underestimated the enemy (although rightfully, based on the analysis of the situation at the time), and as such, wanted to be able to move quickly, which precluded the bringing along of the guns on the campaign. He still fought well despite the odds at the Little Bighorn, and the reason he died where he did was because he led a few troops (companies) of the 7th Cav to the rear of his position to counter the massive flanking attack being conducted by Crazy Horse. He literally saved Reno and Benteen's troops from being slaughtered with him by this manoeuver. Custer also fought well personaly during the battle, according to the Indians, killing many up close and in hand to hand combat, and nearly killing Crazy Horse in hand to hand combat before Crazy Horse killed him, and he was one of the last to die. His valiant move to protect the rear of the rest of the 7th despite the size of the enemy force, his stand, and his personal courage and fighting abilities were the reason why his body was the only one that was not mutilated, stripped, or anything like that on the field. He was guilty of killing innocent women and children which is hardly justifiable, but nonetheless, he was a very courageous and apt cavalryman and officer, which is what earned him his good reputation, even despite the atrocities he committed.

Very interesting. Did any similar disasters befall US forces in any of the Indian wars?

Just three years after the Little Big Horn, the British Army suffered a similar defeat, although on a slightly larger scale - the slaughter of 1,800 British and colonial troops at the Battle of Isandhlwana in the 1879 Zulu War in South Africa.


St Clairs defeat at the hands of the Indians in Ohio,was much worse than
the little big horn,lost over 600,some of them civilians!

[Fido]

Custer was one helluva leader of men in the civil war, and as daring and dashing as any of them. He made several mistakes with the Natives, and it was enough to kill him, and he was smart and actually killed himself, and because no brave would take credit for a death by suicide the only damage done to his body was having awls driven into his ears to improve his hearing on the other side. His body was hastily buried, and grizzlies and wolves got their share, so that when they found what was left, part of his rib cage and thigh bone, they decided he made a perfect monument to stupidity at West Point. It was not the first time he got himself outnumbered and surrounded in the same place, but he probably did not have time to ask the question he made famous the first time: Where is our front?

Who the gods will destroy they first make mad.

[melchizedek22]

Fido wrote: Custer was one helluva leader of men in the civil war, and as daring and dashing as any of them. He made several mistakes with the Natives, and it was enough to kill him, and he was smart and actually killed himself, and because no brave would take credit for a death by suicide the only damage done to his body was having awls driven into his ears to improve his hearing on the other side. His body was hastily buried, and grizzlies and wolves got their share, so that when they found what was left, part of his rib cage and thigh bone, they decided he made a perfect monument to stupidity at West Point. It was not the first time he got himself outnumbered and surrounded in the same place, but he probably did not have time to ask the question he made famous the first time: Where is our front?

Site your source that Custar committed suicide!
Who the gods will destroy they first make mad.

[bigstick61]

I was at the Little Bighorn the other day, and supposedly Crazy Horse and Custer fought hand-to-hand, and Custer almost beat Crazy Horse before Custer was killed. Native Americans from the plains also will not touch a body if they have respect for his courage and prowess in combat, which they did hold for Custer, despite some of his atrocities he ordered. He certainly died well.

[craze]

While Custer had a very successful CW career his Indian Fighting Career was inconsistent and filled with accusations against the Grant Administration, going AWOL, court marshal, and inability to inspire esprit de corp among officers and men. His only victory over Indians at the W-a-s-h-i-t-a was controversial and planted the seeds of discontent among Benteen and other soldiers.

At the LBH his decisions led to a debacle that resulted in his death along with his immediate command and the death and wounding of many of the combined Reno/Benteen command.

Most of the testimony by surviving soldiers and Lakota/Cheyenne seems to indicate that Custer's fight was not an organized battle but a rout with warriors firing from concealment until most of the soldiers were down. It was only then that warriors made mass charges.

No where is there any testimony that Crazy Horse and Custer fought hand-to-hand or any testimony that Custer was killing Indians left-and-right. He had two wounds, one to the chest and one to the head. No one knows when or where the wounds were inflicted. He may have been wounded/killed early in the battle or near the end.

There is no evidence that he personally ordered or killed woman and children intentionally. He was not a Chivington.

Indian testimony stating the soldiers fought hard and killed many Indians needs to be taken with a grain of salt. After they surrendered they realized it was better to tell the white man what he wanted to hear rather than the truth. Many were fearful of retribution and said nothing. Even today, elderly descendants of LBH Indians are still afraid to talk to outsiders.

The Battle of LBH is filled with myths, outright lies, and confusing and contradictory testimony.

I look forward to discussing Custer/LBH/Indians in an adult and professional manner . . .

[GTTofAK]

Custer was a very well known an accomplished officer at the time. He lead teh cavalry charges that defeated Jebb Stewarts cavalry at East Cavalry Field during the battle of Gettysburg ending any hope Lee had of breaking the Union lines of communication.

The sad part is that thanks to modern political correctness East Cavalry Field is left entirely out of most historical references out of fear of praising Custer. Was he even in Gettysburg(movie)? If you want to get a complete account of the battle you have to read books as most media is afraid to even mention Custer's role in the battle.

[Wizard From Oz]

The biggest issue facing the 7th Cav that day was weapons. The US were equiped with very reliable and accurate weapons, that had a slow rate of fire

The Indians could fire two shots for every US Cav one.

So once the Indians were able to get close enough, using terrain and such, the final result was predictable

One of the great mysteries of the battle was a break out group that headed down the hill and made a stand near the river. Both sides agree to this element of the battle, but no bodies or artifacts have ever been recovered from that particular area

[David]

MG1962 wrote: The biggest issue facing the 7th Cav that day was weapons. The US were equiped with very reliable and accurate weapons, that had a slow rate of fire

The Indians could fire two shots for every US Cav one.

So once the Indians were able to get close enough, using terrain and such, the final result was predictable

One of the great mysteries of the battle was a break out group that headed down the hill and made a stand near the river. Both sides agree to this element of the battle, but no bodies or artifacts have ever been recovered from that particular area

They were using 45/70's with 500 grain bullets.They were very deadly and accurate but the shell casing was too thin.You could rapid fire it but after 5 rounds the receiver would get hot and swell enough to grip the shell casing and it being too thin would rip the back off when trying to eject for the next round.They had a special tool to pull the jammed and broken casing but it took time and that they didn't have.

[melchizedek22]

In the end EGO killed Custar

[DSwain]

David wrote: MG1962 wrote: The biggest issue facing the 7th Cav that day was weapons. The US were equiped with very reliable and accurate weapons, that had a slow rate of fire

The Indians could fire two shots for every US Cav one.

So once the Indians were able to get close enough, using terrain and such, the final result was predictable

One of the great mysteries of the battle was a break out group that headed down the hill and made a stand near the river. Both sides agree to this element of the battle, but no bodies or artifacts have ever been recovered from that particular area

They were using 45/70's with 500 grain bullets.They were very deadly and accurate but the shell casing was too thin.You could rapid fire it but after 5 rounds the receiver would get hot and swell enough to grip the shell casing and it being too thin would rip the back off when trying to eject for the next round.They had a special tool to pull the jammed and broken casing but it took time and that they didn't have.

The exact issue that significantly contributed to the British defeat at the hands of the Zulus at the Battle of Isandhlwana in 1879. The British Army at the time were issued with the breach-loading, single shot Martini-Henry. The rifle used .45 calibre ammunition with shell casings in soft, rolled brass. After maybe a dozen rounds the round would stick in the breach. Troops typically would use their socket bayonets to extract the jammed round.