|
Post by Beth on May 27, 2015 18:21:36 GMT -6
Beth: I visited this site to obtain others opinions about a subject (LBH) I am not that well versed in. Now it is because of what I have learned about Custer's battles and Union cavalry tactics in general that I thought I should gain more insight into his defeat at LBH, thereby understanding him better. The fact that there are retired military who contribute here lends a unique and welcomed perspective to the discussion. I would however suggest that unless they retired 2 centuries ago or have studied after action reports of union cavalry engagements extensively they would probably not know the reason for a saber charge or pistol charge by Union cavalry (CSA always seemed to prefer pistols under any circumstance). So there are some things that others can bring to the table. I do not wish to visit a Custer Fan Club because I do not need my opinions to be reinforced but challenged by facts. Am I in the right place for that or are opinions here so hardened that discussion is unwelcome? Discussion is more than welcome. We even like differences of opinion when offered respectfully--or at least I do. I won't put words in anyone else's mouth. I think it's safe to say that Custer in the Indian Wars is a very different commander than Custer in the Civil War. Imagine if you did a job for four years and received acclaim and fame for the job you did, then suddenly you are a fossil in your workplace. Your way of doing things is no longer relevant and you have to begin your career and start working up the command chain again. That is how I think the world must have appeared to Custer. It is a process that happened both in military and the civilian world whenever there is a change in technology. Some people are able to adjust and rise to the occasion, others flounder and get lost. Custer floundered. Beth
|
|
|
Post by dave on May 27, 2015 18:23:32 GMT -6
Beth: I visited this site to obtain others opinions about a subject (LBH) I am not that well versed in. Now it is because of what I have learned about Custer's battles and Union cavalry tactics in general that I thought I should gain more insight into his defeat at LBH, thereby understanding him better. The fact that there are retired military who contribute here lends a unique and welcomed perspective to the discussion. I would however suggest that unless they retired 2 centuries ago or have studied after action reports of union cavalry engagements extensively they would probably not know the reason for a saber charge or pistol charge by Union cavalry (CSA always seemed to prefer pistols under any circumstance). So there are some things that others can bring to the table. I do not wish to visit a Custer Fan Club because I do not need my opinions to be reinforced but challenged by facts. Am I in the right place for that or are opinions here so hardened that discussion is unwelcome? jaguar Of course your welcomed to join in any and all discussions. I myself am not ex military just an ole history buff. I give no offense and take no offense since we are not talking about a family member but rather a historical figure and event. I admire folks that take a stand and back it with facts and insights that are grounded in history. I like you am always interested in learning more about the War, the 7th Cavalry and GAC. Robust and vigorous debate is welcomed and promoted by all posters. One thing I have learned since I joined in February is that tactics are tactics and humans act the same way now as they did 150 years ago. As QC's hero Captain Nathan Brittles said "The army is always the same. The sun and the moon change, but the army knows no seasons." I believe the army is always the army and so are it's soldiers. Regards Dave
|
|
jaguar
Junior Member
Posts: 74
|
Post by jaguar on May 27, 2015 18:26:20 GMT -6
quincannon: Murat met his LBH when he tried to regain the throne of Naples by landing a party of soldiers mimicking Napoleon's return from Elba. He was caught and executed. So much for success. Custer sought and obtained investors in a silver mine which did not pan out and died before could recoup his losses. At the time many men smarter and more financially aware than he lost money in the same sort of venture. I think if you read any of his after action reports or even the articles he wrote about the plains you would find him to be a tad more insightful and thoughtful than you think. It is not my intention however to defend him but to find out how he made the mistake of a lifetime. Having read your posts I believe you are too analytical to chalk up his defeat and command to a moral defect.
|
|
|
Post by dave on May 27, 2015 18:44:04 GMT -6
jaguar You wanted to know what to know how Custer made the mistake of a lifetime.
Montrose made this post in the The Valley thread that might answer your question:
At the divide LTC Custer commanded 12 companies.
At the lone tepee he had eight.
At 3411 he had five.
After Calhoun Hill he had two.
At Last Stand Hill he had one.
Now as we watch LTC Custer make decisions that decrease the size of his force, look at the intelligence and information on the enemy force.
Did the data on the enemy show that the threat was 1/12th of the village they had been following? Or did data show a larger force?
How does a commander receive data that he faces a larger enemy force than projected by deciding to go in with a single company. LTC Custer's own estimate of the enemy from 24 Jun 76 was 1500 warriors. Explain how E Company can defeat this force by itself.
Now the lunatic school believes MAJ Reno could clear the valley with 3 companies, by themselves. Note the belief that Reno could beat 10,000ish Indians with 3 companies, but LTC Custer epically failed fighting a fraction of this force with 5 companies.
Good stuff. Regards Dave
|
|
|
Post by tubman13 on May 27, 2015 18:49:07 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on May 27, 2015 18:49:58 GMT -6
No I chalk up his defeat to being both incompetent and unadaptable apparently to a situation that he was mentally unprepared for as well as being morally deficient.
I will give you an example of the latter so you may better understand. If in your reading on this battle specifically that Custer was driven in his decision making process that can be attributed to forces at work completely unconnected with the battle.
It is no surprise to you I am sure that he was in the cheap seats of Grant's dog house. If in your reading you conclude that Custer made any, even a small, decision based upon wishing to do something to get out of that dog house and restore his reputation instead of making the proper decision that the situation called for. Hint these pages are full of such commentary. If you find he did only one thing of this nature the man is morally bankrupt, in the eyes of a soldier. His prime duties are the accomplishment of the mission and looking out for the welfare of his soldiers, not accomplish the mission so he could again look good, and if the soldiers survived, good for them.
I suspect you don't know where I am coming from, and cannot relate to the morality that is woven into the fabric of the uniform, and even more so into the brass you wear as a badge of rank. It is the moral responsibility you have for your duty and the people that look to only you for, in some cases their continued existence on this earth. If you are moral you cannot run away from it, and it knows no compromise with self.
|
|
|
Post by Beth on May 27, 2015 19:07:42 GMT -6
What an appallingly ugly piece of history. But I am struck by the fact that Mosby would have adapted better to the Indian Wars.
|
|
jaguar
Junior Member
Posts: 74
|
Post by jaguar on May 27, 2015 19:19:14 GMT -6
Thanks for the article from the Civil War Trust. The article I referred to is less than 5 years old and squarely pins hangings on Merritt. The hangings did occur. I will try and find a citation and the article. Another basement box dive I should keep quiet.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on May 27, 2015 19:25:09 GMT -6
Try Virgil Carrington "Pat" Jones' Ranger Mosby. He used to live in a twin cabin in Centreville. Virginia and I visited with him often. If Merritt hung Mosby's men, Pat Jones knew nothing of it I assure you.
|
|
jaguar
Junior Member
Posts: 74
|
Post by jaguar on May 27, 2015 19:35:46 GMT -6
Quincannon: I understand and appreciate the virtue of morality. I do believe that Custer in battle did not ask his men to do what he would not do. He led from the front and not the rear. He led from the front not simply because he was brave but cavalry unlike infantry needed its commander to be in the front to react quickly. I have read that Custer was motivated to regain his position and was therefore reckless in the attempt. This is a plausible motivation but It is based on inference stacking without any direct evidence. Ambitious he was but he was also calculatting during the CW. Some say dividing his forces was an error others claim it was required. I am here to read all the opinions.
|
|
jaguar
Junior Member
Posts: 74
|
Post by jaguar on May 27, 2015 19:43:55 GMT -6
Quincannon: Centerville now has homes that cost 1 mill + and few cabins. Information changes as times change and more facts come to light. It comes down to you can't be at two places at one time. If Custer hanged Mosbys men he would have to have been commanding Merritt's men.
|
|
|
Post by Beth on May 27, 2015 19:46:56 GMT -6
Quincannon: I understand and appreciate the virtue of morality. I do believe that Custer in battle did not ask his men to do what he would not do. He led from the front and not the rear. He led from the front not simply because he was brave but cavalry unlike infantry needed its commander to be in the front to react quickly. I have read that Custer was motivated to regain his position and was therefore reckless in the attempt. This is a plausible motivation but It is based on inference stacking without any direct evidence. Ambitious he was but he was also calculatting during the CW. Some say dividing his forces was an error others claim it was required. I am here to read all the opinions. It strikes me that a commander can only lead from the front when they know what their rear is doing--one of the many problems Custer had at LBH. Beth
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on May 27, 2015 19:51:30 GMT -6
It is not even a question of asking your people to do something you would not do. Immorality is not a function of bravery, or inspiration, or any of those things that are on the surface. Morality has to do with what is the motivation behind your actions.
I am getting nowhere with you on this issue, and it is if we are on two different planets. Let me suggest a compromise that should be both neutral and agreeable to you.
Go out, this very evening if possible and purchase a copy of "Once an Eagle" by Anton Meyer. It is a novel, but the lessons are so classic that it has been on the Chief of Staff of the Army's reading list for at least three or more decades . It is still in print and fairly easy to find.
In the novel you will find two characters Courtney Massengale, and Sam Damon. When you read and digest this book, we can revisit morality as it pertains to the Army officer again. Massengale is a Custer, probably even worse in many respects, and Damon, well Damon is Damon, no compromises, no bullshit, duty first (and last)
Merritt gave the order around the table with Lowell and Custer. Neither of the other two objected. Evidently Custer's men carried out the murder, for that is what it was, including a seventeen year old noncombatant that was shot in front of his mother by one of Custer's soldiers. Mosby held all three responsible, but in the main Custer in that it was his men who carried the order out.
Now if tactics do not change, and they don't, and the nature of humanity does not change and it does not that does seem to poke a hole in your argument that all us retired folks retired much too late to understand what was happening with Georgie. What was it you said - We would have had to have retired two hundred years ago to have been relevant.
|
|
jaguar
Junior Member
Posts: 74
|
Post by jaguar on May 27, 2015 20:01:18 GMT -6
Beth, CW tactics did not translate to the West . Let me share one thought however that has puzzled me and perhaps has made me respect Custer despite the fact that I don't think I would like him personally. At his court martial he said something to the effect that if he were an Indian he would be a Hostile because you can not be an Indian if your culture is taken away and you are forced to live on a reservation. This understanding of the Indian seems so at odds with his function as an Indian fighter. So I have difficulty accepting him as someone who simply acted impetuously.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on May 27, 2015 20:06:58 GMT -6
ACW tactics did translate into the West or the East or the North or South for that matter. ACW tactics would translate on the Moon or Mars. Tactics are tactics. They do not change. It is the technique of employing them and the adaptation of tactics that change. Please get that ingrained in your mind. Never forget it. It is that important.
The tactics in use in Afghanistan today are the very same tactics used by Caesar's legions in Gaul. The difference is the adaptation of those tactics to the environment in which they are employed.
Also dismiss from your mind that there are cavalry tactics or armored tactics or Infantry tactics. Tactics are universal. My good friend Colt is on at the moment and he was an Armor officer and I Infantry, We can operate together because we operate under the rule of the same tactical principles. He would have no trouble understanding what I am doing, nor would I his actions. Where we differ is in the adaptation of tactics to our differing forms of mobility. He mounted can move faster and deeper than I can on foot for instance. WO of the Royal Regiment of Wales could understand us both. Montrose on the other hand will use the same tactics, but his application takes both more patience and understanding by those not of his community. This is where Custer's failure to adapt comes in. Custer, and the Army were fighting an irregular war (and we can discuss the use of the word irregular at some other time) It is a war that requires the same tactical skillset, but a completely different mindset, and perhaps going as far as requiring a completely different personality. Custer, had he been the King of Egypt, direct offspring of the Virgin Mary, been canonized by Holy Mother Church was still not the right personality to wage the type war that confronted him
|
|