|
Post by mac on Jul 11, 2014 4:56:06 GMT -6
Custer as the commander must bear the ultimate responsibility for the disaster at LBH. Many feel there are extenuating circumstances (Custer wounded, Reno drunk etc.,etc.,etc.) I do not believe that disasters like LBH come out of nowhere. Point for discussion. What can be seen in Custer's career prior to LBH that when analyzed suggest that he was always likely to create a debacle? For example some claim Washita as a great victory for Custer. Ignore all the moral issues that attach to this action! I would suggest his planning was terrible in that he had no idea that there were other forces of hostiles around him. Not the action of a good commander. In fact are there any great commanders to whom we attach the word luck? Alexander's Luck, don't think so! Custer was brave and aggressive but in cold analysis of his career leading up to LBH was he really a good commander? Cheers
|
|
|
Post by tubman13 on Jul 11, 2014 6:32:30 GMT -6
Mac, just 3 quick ones regarding his ability to create a debacle: 1)Trevilian Station 2)His being bested by J.S. Mosby and backing down, foolishness and cowardice on Custer's part. 3) His ride across Kansas to see Libby, deaths caused and lack of responsibility shown.
|
|
|
Post by Colt45 on Jul 11, 2014 10:22:35 GMT -6
When I was in the Army, I served with some fine officers and a couple who reminded me of Custer. Narcissistic and only concerned with covering themselves with glory. Willing to use others to advance in rank, assignment, etc. When they are successful they are hailed as heroes, but most of the time their successes are due to actions taken by others that cover their mistakes, thus providing the "luck". I believe Custer was one of those officers that fate smiled upon by the outbreak of the ACW at just the right time of his career, and I have no doubt that many of his "lucky" successes were due to subordinates doing the things that covered for mistakes because they had the good sense to do so. Custer was certainly not a coward, and he did put himself as risk along with the members of his unit, but he was one of those commanders whose luck put them in the right place at the right time, with good people behind him who assisted more than we can know in bringing about his successes. He was also one of those commanders that the enlisted men might admire for his courage and daring, but who also realized he really didn't give a rats butt for their welfare if it interfered with his acquisition of more glory.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Jul 11, 2014 12:50:20 GMT -6
Montrose is the one who has delved into Custer's personal life, and it is a tale of wanton excess, selfish actions that many times harmed others. bad decisions with regard to personal finance,immoral behaviour, personal jealousy, and probably ten or twelve other character flaws that I don't recall at present.What a person is in their personal life is what they are in their professional life. There is no on and off switch. A selfish person will be a selfish commander. Bad judgement in personal finance, is not a sign of ignorance in but one area, but carries over into bad judgment across the board. Personal jealousy and professional jealousy are but two sides of the same one way street. That leaves us with immorality. This type behaviour leads one to believe that the rules of society, are for others, not them, and it extends far beyond what first comes to mind when the word immoral is mentioned.
Custer was a deeply flawed, immoral, selfish man whose bad judgement in his personal life was readily apparent to anyone who cared to look. The professional carryover to these flaws and traits are there also for anyone who cares to look beyond the headlines at any engagement he was ever involved in, including Tom where he and Kilpatrick together got snookered at Buckland Mills, near Warrenton.
|
|
|
Post by mac on Jul 12, 2014 6:27:51 GMT -6
Yes tubman I would be interested in an analysis, by those who know more than I, of his performance at Trevilian Station. Cheers
|
|
|
Post by tubman13 on Jul 12, 2014 8:22:56 GMT -6
With pleasure, Mac, it is eerily similar to what happened 12 years later. He becomes focused/locked in, on capturing something and pays no attention to the situation around him! custerlives.com/custer10.htm
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Jul 12, 2014 9:34:35 GMT -6
Tom: Totally correct in analysis. It is called target fixation, where you become so focused upon one thing, the target, your objective, that you lose situational awareness and become oblivious to all around you. It has happened to better men than Custer, but it is near always fatal.
Before she moved to San Antonio my daughter lived very near Travilian Station. Not much there, but still interesting. One largely forgotten, but still very important.
|
|
|
Post by mac on Jul 13, 2014 3:17:52 GMT -6
Thank you gentlemen. This is my point, that in believing all the boy genius stuff people gloss over the fact that Custer was often caught out by lack of situational awareness; especially when he was actually calling the shots. Hence LBH is no surprise or mystery from that perspective. Cheers
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Jul 13, 2014 8:23:59 GMT -6
Mac: You may have picked up along the way that my hometown is Washington D. C. As you drive along Pennsylvania Avenue you pass the Achieves, and there graven in stone are the words "What is Past is Prologue" Those words are graven in stone for a reason, for what one's performance is in the past at places like Buckland Mills and Trevilian Station is a good indicator of how that person will perform at other places and in other times.
|
|
|
Post by mac on Jul 13, 2014 21:12:03 GMT -6
So much for the myth that Custer was a great commander and the LBH an aberration.
|
|
|
Post by tubman13 on Jul 14, 2014 4:38:06 GMT -6
Custer was an un-disciplined captain wearing silver oak leaves. A brave man to be sure, but a man who needed command and control being exercised above him. Never a big picture man, if he had been told to capture a hill or hold it, my guess he would have been a bulldog. If I am not mistaken he commanded many better officers than himself. Even Mathey retired a retired a COL. in 1904. If he had trusted those officers, or even his yes men to be a part of a planning we might have seen a somewhat different outcome. Maybe not.
Somewhere in a movie I remember a line "a man has to know his limitations," I was a decent NCO, often times my ideas were used as part of a plan, sometimes my idea became the plan, but someone above me probably singed off. Once a plan is written, an order give you had best stay on script or have a very valid reason for divergence. I was a damn good regional sales manager for a fortune 100 food company, ran a topflight region, hit my targets, hired good people, fired bad ones. Did I have capacity for more? Maybe, maybe not. We all think we can do more, but one thing is certain at any level of command, ego has to be taken out of the plan, structure and limits must be put in. Enough BS.
Regards, Tom
|
|
jaguar
Junior Member
Posts: 74
|
Post by jaguar on May 27, 2015 15:20:56 GMT -6
I have to take issue with nearly everything said on this thread. Tubman13 rightfully references Trevilian Station as an example where Custer almost got caught in a debacle but loses all credibility when he then goes on to accuse him of cowardace. Really? Quincannon objects to him as a commander on moral grounds but forgets one of the greatest cavalry commanders ever was Murat who led Napolean's cavalry and who suffered from each of the flaws Quincannon tallies rightfully, wrongfully or with exageration for the sake of emphasis against Custer. Even the great Jeb Stuart got shot in the chest chasing some NA's but lived to tell about it. If you are going to attack Custer as a commander keep it to LBH not the Civil War or be prepared to explain how in each action Custer fought in during the Civil War he errored and why Philip Sheridan was wrong to present Custer's wife with the table the terms of the Confederate surrender was written on.
|
|
|
Post by Beth on May 27, 2015 15:47:17 GMT -6
I have to take issue with nearly everything said on this thread. Tubman13 rightfully references Trevilian Station as an example where Custer almost got caught in a debacle but loses all credibility when he then goes on to accuse him of cowardace. Really? Quincannon objects to him as a commander on moral grounds but forgets one of the greatest cavalry commanders ever was Murat who led Napolean's cavalry and who suffered from each of the flaws Quincannon tallies rightfully, wrongfully or with exageration for the sake of emphasis against Custer. Even the great Jeb Stuart got shot in the chest chasing some NA's but lived to tell about it. If you are going to attack Custer as a commander keep it to LBH not the Civil War or be prepared to explain how in each action Custer fought in during the Civil War he errored and why Philip Sheridan was wrong to present Custer's wife with the table the terms of the Confederate surrender was written on. Jaguar, I am speaking only for myself but perhaps you would find the other Little Bighorn group more to your liking. The URL is thelbha.proboards.com/Both boards discuss Little Bighorn but we have different approaches and views of the battle and Custer. This group tends to be less pro Custer than you might be comfortable with. You are welcome to stay of course but be aware this is not a Custer Fan Club. We are also very military heavy having a number of retired officers who take part in this board who bring a unique perspective to any military action. Beth
|
|
|
Post by montrose on May 27, 2015 15:56:10 GMT -6
LTC Custer had a fine performance in the ACW. No one is arguing that. His performance against Indians is another matter. He was convicted by court martial for gross incompetence in 1867. kancoll.org/khq/1970/70_2_millbrook.htmHe made numerous errors in 1876. Yet his performance is consistent with his performance 1867-1876. LTC Custer is not the first successful conventional commander unable to adjust to unconventional warfare. Respectfully, William
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on May 27, 2015 16:38:06 GMT -6
You may take issue with anything I say Jaguar. Feel free, but when you do please have your facts well in and well at hand.
If you think I don't like Custer the man you are quite correct. I don't much care for Benedict Arnold the man either but I think I can recognize his leadership at Saratoga where he turned in an excellent performance and at Valcour Island, without having to like him. As a commander I despise Custer for his incompetence that needlessly killed people. I despise his recklessness, and rash judgment. That is not leadership. I also recognize Custer was a product of his time, and I ain't none too crazy about those times or the attitudes they fostered.
Let's just delve into one issue I wrote about over a year ago, directly above - personal finances. He made bad investments, rash and reckless, investments such as I cautioned Beth about yesterday - Don't invest the rent money in the corn crop at the North Pole. He died greatly in debt, and left his wife dead broke, because of his recklessness, rashness, and selfish nature. You can see those same traits exhibited in everything the man did in his military career as well. So when you start out, lets just address that one aspect first, and come loaded, no knives in a gun fight.
By the way I have not forgotten Murat, but there is a difference. Murat was competent in the job he did. Custer was not. I would not care if Custer was the most immoral man ever to inhabit the planet, if he was concurrently a competent commander. And never make the mistake of thinking physical courage and moral courage goes hand in hand, Custer was physically brave (which unfortunately clouds his shortcomings, which it obviously has with you), and a complete moral coward, and moral courage is defined as - doing what is right, because it is right, even if it hurts.
|
|