|
Post by elisabeth on Mar 9, 2008 11:23:30 GMT -6
From a Dumb Civilian perspective, it would seem to me that once you've committed to battle, there are really just four options open to you: offence, defence, surrender, or retreat. At LBH, offence wasn't getting Custer anywhere much. Defence: most would agree that there were few or no obvious good defence sites, especially for a command cut off from its supply of spare ammunition. And the Indians weren't an enemy you could surrender to and live. So we're left with retreat.
If Custer had taken that option, and fled to join Terry, there are three things in particular I'd like to hear people's opinions on:
(1) Was it feasible? Given the mood of the Indians that day, would it simply have been another buffalo hunt over a longer distance? Or was there a comfort zone -- 5 miles from the village, 10 miles, whatever -- beyond which the Indians would have been satisfied he no longer posed a threat, and could be left alone?
(2) Would the world have thought any the less of him, then or now, if he'd done so? Much would depend on whether he'd left wounded behind, I suppose. That would lead to ugly mutterings at best, a court-martial at worst. But assuming he hadn't -- or that all his officers concurred in glossing over the fact, as happened with Reno -- it would surely make for a perfectly acceptable story. He's faced with overwhelming odds, thanks to false intelligence from the agencies ... he knows the rest of his command must be holed up somewhere, defending itself a la Beecher Island ... in the nick of time he cleverly extracts his own five companies, and gallops off for reinforcements. He, Terry, Gibbon, Gatlings etc. arrive to the rescue no later than happened in reality .... emotional reunion ... Reno/Benteen command saved ... hurrah for Custer.
If this scenario sounds convincing (and a master of spin such as Custer could surely make it so) then we come to the third question:
(3) Why didn't he?
Almost any alternative has to be better than sacrificing your entire command. Leaving aside a death-wish (improbable, as it would have had to embrace the deaths of Tom, Boston, Autie Reed, and Jimmi Calhoun as well) it's hard to see any explanations other than (a) he didn't appreciate the situation until too late (which might support the Ford D theory) and/or (b) he couldn't (which might suggest greater Indian numbers to the north than we think). Because looked at rationally, it has to be the best course he could have chosen if the retreat route to the south was cut off ...
Thoughts?
|
|
|
Post by mcaryf on Mar 9, 2008 11:53:08 GMT -6
Hi Elisabeth
We do not really know what Custer was trying to do. It is possible he was actually retreating but I really do doubt that was the case.
Personally I think he was on the offensive when he was moving North and got caught up in a battle before he could adopt a defensive alignment. If he had switched to a defensive mode then I think he would have tried to get back towards the pack train and the rest of his regiment.
I can understand your logic in saying anything would be better than death but for Custer personally and many of his officers I do not think that would be true. Certainly Moylan testified at RCOI that death would be preferable to dishonour.
Arriving with Terry having abandonned over half his command and the spare ammunuition just was not an option.
Regards
Mike
|
|
|
Post by crzhrs on Mar 9, 2008 11:55:33 GMT -6
<Certainly Moylan testified at RCOI that death would be preferable to dishonour>
Yet Moylan was one of the first to run with Reno and ended up hiding behind supplies boxes on Reno Hll.
If the troops with Custer had a choice of running or ending up mince meat I believe they would have run given the chance.
Dying for one's country may be honorable but throwing your alive away when the opportunity is there to run and fight another day is a better option. Can't be of any use when you're six feet under.
|
|
|
Post by crzhrs on Mar 9, 2008 12:00:24 GMT -6
1: I don't believe the Indians would have chased Custer all over the country. Once the soldiers were far enough away the Indians would have pulled back. Or Custer could have picked a better defensive position and be able to hold out with most of his entire command in tact. Remember the Indians did not storm Reno Hill, even though they had the numbers. Too risky--but kept the soldiers occupied with sniping.
2. Hard to say considering all the pressure on Custer to succeed. He had gone through quite a lot in the prior months and with an opportunity to achieve a victory may have made it mandatory that he attack regardless of the odds.
3. May have not realized just how dangerous a situation his command was under. If we assume he had no idea what happened to Reno (assumed Reno is OK and doing his job) and Benteen should be coming up soon (Boston Custer) then Custer must have felt he could take risks with reinforcements to back him up.
|
|
|
Post by AZ Ranger on Mar 9, 2008 12:50:03 GMT -6
I think Custer only considered offense. Defense occurred when trapped and surrender was not an alternative.
AZ Ranger
|
|
|
Post by Jas. Watson on Mar 9, 2008 17:43:39 GMT -6
I have to agree that GAC was on the offensive until it was too late. Fits his personality. Didn't the officers and men on Reno Hill speculate that retreat as Elisabeth tells it, was just what GAC had done? So they must have seen that as a viable action on his part.
Jas~
|
|
|
Post by mcaryf on Mar 10, 2008 6:35:11 GMT -6
I think the speculation was either that Custer might have been driven off or that he was holed up somewhere with his wounded and unable to move.
I think the implication of being driven off is somewhat different to retreating. It suggests an attack that has failed and from which you have to withdraw. I read Elisabeth's option to suggest a withdrawal before getting really engaged. In practice I do not think Custer had much of a chance to consider the withdrawal option as the warriors had him quickly surrounded.
I guess Reno would argue that he was driven off but others might suggest he had a choice to stay and defend the position he was in. I would probably allow him to claim having been driven off.
Regards
Mike
|
|
|
Post by AZ Ranger on Mar 10, 2008 6:44:37 GMT -6
Is a retreat when you recognize impending danger that would put you at the mercy of the enemy causing you to withdraw and driven off is waiting to long before you make the decision and the retreat is forced on you but you can't get away?
AZ Ranger
|
|
|
Post by elisabeth on Mar 10, 2008 7:15:39 GMT -6
AZ, I think "driven off" probably means you can and do get away -- just in slightly less good order than in the case of a planned "retreat". As far as the question's concerned, I'd be happy to accept either. I'm seeing it not as "running away", with all the pejorative implications of that: simply as Custer recognising that he's bitten off more than he can chew, and getting his force out intact, or nearly, while he can. The scenario presupposes that the way south is blocked, so he doesn't have the option of rejoining his other units. Would it be (a) foolish or (b) morally wrong to withdraw in order to fight another day? Or would this have been the most sensible course?
|
|
|
Post by conz on Mar 10, 2008 7:16:57 GMT -6
Reflect on what happened to Reynolds earlier that year when he "retreated" under Crook's command. I don't have the details at hand...maybe somebody could give us what happened to him after his battle.
Clair
|
|
|
Post by elisabeth on Mar 10, 2008 7:34:09 GMT -6
True. There was talk of a court-martial, though I'm not sure if one actually happened; maybe, after the Rosebud, Crook reflected on the wisdom of people in glass houses throwing stones, and dropped it. A slight difference there, however, in that Reynolds retreated from an already-achieved victory rather than from certain defeat.
You're right, though, it could be interesting to draw the parallels. Ditto with the Rosebud itself; Crook was never censured (officially, anyway) for breaking off the engagement after comparatively few casualties.
I'd been racking my brains for an analogy, and those are probably more useful than the only one I could think of, which was Barnitz' fight in 1867. There, he confidently goes after what he thinks are a small bunch of Indians ... suddenly finds himself confronted by 200 or so against his 40-something troopers ... and from then on, he's fighting purely to extricate himself and get his men back to the fort in one piece. No censure there; indeed, it was hailed as a Famous Victory because most of them survived. Same with Beecher. And no-one built any statues to Fetterman. On the whole, common sense seemed to prevail. Pointless sacrifice wasn't much encouraged, I think ...
|
|
|
Post by conz on Mar 10, 2008 8:15:01 GMT -6
A lot of the Army's judgment in such matters, Elisabeth, centers around what the officer's mission was.
A force chasing down a few fugitives that runs into ambush and escapes intact will be commended. A similar force that is told to destroy a village, sees "too many" Indians and retreats, will be scoured.
The 7th Cavalry was expected to get results from anything it encountered...retreating, and merely "surviving" against unexpected odds was not anything that was going to be commended, regardless of common sense...they had a mission to accomplish, or to die trying.
So results are judged against expectations and mission responsibilities.
Clair
|
|
|
Post by crzhrs on Mar 10, 2008 8:27:56 GMT -6
Re: Reynolds
Are we talking about the attack on the Indian village, March 1876?
If so Reynolds did get into the village, capture it and horses, but Indians got away with few casualties. Then warriors returned, re-captured the horses and got away. I don't think the soldiers retreated(?)
Crook was so irate he brought charges up against Reynolds, but I don't think anything came of it.
<they had a mission to accomplish, or to die trying>
If you mean throwing their lives away if there were options, then that's suicide and stupid.
|
|
|
Post by stevewilk on Mar 10, 2008 10:04:02 GMT -6
Reynolds was indeed court martialled and found guilty. His sentence was suspended and he was allowed disability retirement in 1877. The procedings left egg on Crook's face, however. Reynolds brought up the issue of Crook allowing Maj. Thaddeus Stanton, Paymaster, to accompany the campaign as a newspaper correspondent, which was against army regulations. Crook appointed Stanton Chief of Scouts, a position for which he was totally unqualified. Stanton, who Benteen would deride as a "coffee cooler" and who Charles King branded "our polemic paymaster" was the most vocal critic of Reynolds' conduct and wrote up the charges while still in the field.
Reynolds was an old soldier, Mexican War veteran, West Point graduate and former instructor there. He undoubtedly was cut some slack by Grant or whoever suspended his sentence. Two of the officers serving on his court martial were John Pope and John Gibbon. Not sure if Reynolds served with either of these men during the Civil War or if it had any bearing on the verdict or suspension.
|
|
dcary
Junior Member
Posts: 83
|
Post by dcary on Mar 10, 2008 10:11:56 GMT -6
My sense of it is that with the Reno-Benteen force where it was, the NAs would limit how far away from the village and its vulnerable noncoms they would go in the more or less opposite direction. Did the NAs, for example, know there were no more troops coming up behind Benteen or the packs? I'm not sure they did. They would have to keep Custer-Terry at a distance from the village that would allow it a certain freedom of movement without risking the noncombatants by being too far away. The 5 miles suggested above does not sound like a bad guess.
I do think Custer could have gone toward Terry (or maybe east) easier than any other direction although the longer he waits the more his move will look like Reno's retreat.
As to what others will think later, doesn't Custer come under Terry in any reunion and the command becomes Terry's not Custer's? I don't believe anyone would accuse Custer of cowardice if he did that unless the Reno-Benteen force was wiped out as a result.
|
|