Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 13, 2015 15:29:14 GMT -6
What would anyone here do if their loved ones were held hostage by a hostile force? Society can afford the loss Scarface? It is obvious you do not live in an Army town. I don't believe you would say that if you did. Dismiss all talk of hostage taking, being a motivating factor. It is nonsense. Hostage taking is an act of complete desperation, by someone or somebodies, who have expended all other options for survival. No one goes in with that intention. Custer took them at Washita ONLY because his defecation was weak and watery. Agreed. Hostage taking would have been a last ditch attempt to rescue a bad situation. At the time GAC moved to Ford D he believed he was still on the offensive and in control of the battlefield - again only explanation for split from Keogh, no immediate danger.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Feb 13, 2015 15:32:48 GMT -6
All this hostage taking nonsense assumes these people to be defenseless. We assume that because we want to assume it. Those old men shepherding those women and kiddies were armed with something, the issue would be disputed, and the outcome would not be pretty, but Colt is completely correct. That's why it's nonsense. When you go after Orphan Annie, Daddy Warbucks is liable to blow your butt into next week.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Feb 13, 2015 15:35:03 GMT -6
Best post you ever made here Mark. I expect more of the same in the future.
|
|
|
Post by Beth on Feb 13, 2015 16:42:19 GMT -6
If we assume Custer's plan by going to Ford D was to capture the non-coms fleeing north and west, how in the world would he have been able to do that with only about 80 men? There would have been close to a thousand women, childen, and old men in that fleeing convoy. All of his limited combat power in the Yates battalion would have been consumed with keeping the non-coms under control. Seeing that, I have no doubt but the Cheyenne warriors would have seen that as a tremendous opportunity to attack, kill soldiers, and free the non-coms. If Custer had crossed at Ford D and managed to halt the fleeing non-coms, we would find all the Yates battalion markers west of the river instead of on LSH. I agree it would have been impossible to do with the forces Custer had and I don't think that was Custer's plan even though others will insist on it. If they wanted to capture and contain the NA they chose one of the worse places to do it and had too few of men and started the battle too early before everyone was in place. The NA though would not have selected a village area that would leave them so vulnerable so it was probably a pipe dream anyway. My question was more about the mindset of the tribes in the village, would by being all together mean that they would protect each other like they are one common community or would each tribe act as individual comminities. I realize that it might be an unanswerable question. Beth
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 13, 2015 16:43:14 GMT -6
Best post you ever made here Mark. I expect more of the same in the future. Thanks, every once in a while even a blind squirrel finds a nut.....have a sneaky feeling I won't meet your expectations :-)
|
|
|
Post by fred on Feb 13, 2015 18:03:43 GMT -6
At the time GAC moved to Ford D he believed he was still on the offensive and in control of the battlefield - again only explanation for split from Keogh, no immediate danger. Precisely!Best wishes, Fred.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Feb 13, 2015 20:02:29 GMT -6
Mark: To answer your inquiry about what I expect ----Excellence in all things, meaning your very best at all times. I am never satisfied, for when you are, the back slide begins.
|
|
|
Post by brenda56 on Feb 14, 2015 12:24:24 GMT -6
When the Bosnian Serbs attacked Srebrenica we were outraged. Although on a different scale to the LBH similarities exist. When you attack women and children the price can be high for the loser. Indeed should we be horrified at the eye gouging and other acts of mutilation ? If Custer had no intention of concluding the battle by capturing a few of the defenceless he would probably have been Hague bound, in a different world of course.
|
|
|
Post by montrose on Feb 14, 2015 13:12:22 GMT -6
Brenda,
I doubt anyone thinks I am a Custer fanboy.
Yet his behavior in both ACW and Indian Wars showed a certain degree of chivalry.. He showed restraint, even kindness, in his treatment of civilians at Washita. I do not believe for an instant that if he had entered the village at LBH he would have allowed a massacre of the women and children.
I also do not believe he had any intention of capturing squaws while a large and active warrior force was present for duty. The papoose theory is unique to the literature of LBH and does not exist for the general history of the Indian wars, which consists of hundreds of engagements.
I believe GAC planned an 8 company attack on the village from the north. I believe he must have realized he would have to fight to take the village, else no need to wait for Benteen and McDougall.
William
|
|
|
Post by fred on Feb 14, 2015 13:15:42 GMT -6
Brenda, I doubt anyone thinks I am a Custer fanboy. Yet his behavior in both ACW and Indian Wars showed a certain degree of chivalry.. He showed restraint, even kindness, in his treatment of civilians at Washita. I do not believe for an instant that if he had entered the village at LBH he would have allowed a massacre of the women and children. I also do not believe he had any intention of capturing squaws while a large and active warrior force was present for duty. The papoose theory is unique to the literature of LBH and does not exist for the general history of the Indian wars, which consists of hundreds of engagements. If it wasn't for the great discrepancy in our ages, I would almost say Will and I were surgically separated at birth. That is how much we seem to agree with one another. This post, above, is a perfect example. Best wishes, Fred.
|
|
shaw
Full Member
Posts: 187
|
Post by shaw on Feb 14, 2015 18:42:24 GMT -6
Custer was many things, but he was no John Chivington. Washita was as close as he came to it. He stepped in stopping the slaughter of non combatants. Chivington would never have taken this step. Still women and children died at Washita. If you attacked a NA camp it meant you were dealing with warriors and women and children. There was no way around it. There were massacres on both sides. The 1862 Dakota War is an example where the Sioux killed somewhere in the neighborhood of 800 soldiers and civilians. Here's a list of "massacres". en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_massacre#1830.E2.80.931911
|
|
|
Post by tubman13 on Feb 15, 2015 4:21:10 GMT -6
Shaw, I had always considered this the Minnesota War. No matter, one of the NA leaders and members of his family were at the LBH, he later went to Canada with Sitting Bull. The name was Red Top or Inkpaduta. Later rumor had it that one of his sons took Custer's horse.
Regards, Tom
|
|
|
Post by crzhrs on Feb 17, 2015 13:57:06 GMT -6
Would Custer have made any change of plans if he was attacking a Confederate camp? Would he have divided his command before he knew exactly where the Confederates were camped? Did he base his decisions on it being Indians and everyone thought would run instead of making a stand? Would it have made any difference in Custer's strategy if he was attacking Johnny Rebs instead of Poor Lo (the poor Indian!--"poor" because uneducated and a heathen)
|
|
|
Post by tubman13 on Feb 17, 2015 14:50:31 GMT -6
Would Custer have made any change of plans if he was attacking a Confederate camp? Would he have divided his command before he knew exactly where the Confederates were camped? Did he base his decisions on it being Indians and everyone thought would run instead of making a stand? Would it have made any difference in Custer's strategy if he was attacking Johnny Rebs instead of Poor Lo (the poor Indian!--"poor" because uneducated and a heathen) If he did that in the ACW he would not have been the "Boy General."
Regards, Tom
|
|
|
Post by Beth on Feb 17, 2015 16:38:34 GMT -6
Would Custer have made any change of plans if he was attacking a Confederate camp? Would he have divided his command before he knew exactly where the Confederates were camped? Did he base his decisions on it being Indians and everyone thought would run instead of making a stand? Would it have made any difference in Custer's strategy if he was attacking Johnny Rebs instead of Poor Lo (the poor Indian!--"poor" because uneducated and a heathen) Maybe I am not understanding your point but don't you base any military plan on the enemy you are facing, not who you faced in the past? Please correct me wrong but I don't believe you could plan battles in Korean based on the Germans in WWII. Custer couldn't base what he did at LBH on attacking a Confederate Camp, but on the other hand he couldn't base it off of what he did at Washita either because none of them are the same. Beth
|
|