|
Post by Beth on Apr 16, 2015 16:40:27 GMT -6
I suspect that contempt for the enemy was huge factor in everything that happened at LBH. I think that the 'they will run' mindset probably was in effect until Keogh found all routes for escape were blocked. It kind of reminds me of a person sitting in his stalled car on a railroad track and waiting for the approaching express to stop. I think the only ones who quickly realized that 'this village' wasn't going to run were Reno and Benteen. Beth Well said Beth. When your strategy is based on "they will run", all sorts of things happen when they don't. I don't think the 7th failed as much as the NA's succeeded. Don't musunderstand me, the 7th made mistakes especially at the GAC level. The NA's made few mistakes on June 25th, 1876. To take this a step further. They were better led. They had greater numbers. They were better armed for the type of battle that was fought. They had interior lines of communication. They could shift warriors quickly to the point of attack. They didn't make the big mistake which was trying to carry Reno Hill once GAC was wiped out. They might have succeeded but their loses would have been high. Benteen was up there and he wasn't going to make a big mistake. We seldom talk about the NA leadership. I know there is a train of thought that they were all sort of small independent guerrilla fighter groups but several people like Crazy Horse and Gall were able to lead large groups of fighters which shows the same type of respect and belief in a leader's ability that you find in trained armies. They showed amazing leadership and a strong understanding of using the field of battle against the enemy. Sometimes it's easy to say the NA won based on numbers but actually NA won because of better leadership. I agree about not taking Reno Hill afterward. If it weren't for approaching armies though I tend to believe that they might have starved them out for longer, JMHO. The only reason to attempt to take Reno Hill after Custer was defeated would have been an almost suicidal belief that it was better to die in battle than as a captive in a reservation. At this point in history, I don't know if the NA realized how close the end of their society truly was. They could see the writing on the wall of course, but was the wall in their face or miles away. Beth
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 16, 2015 17:14:49 GMT -6
Your summation is arrived at solely on hindsight. Not a luxury afforded Keogh or GAC. They didn't know Reno would ignore his orders, Benteen would sit out and free the majority of the NAs to attack them in force. Arrant nonsense. You're right. Keogh (no "u") and GAC had the benefit of hindsight, they didn't face the majority of the NAs warriors, Benteen did attack, and Reno did follow orders and charge the village. Regards Mark
|
|
|
Post by montrose on Apr 16, 2015 17:24:37 GMT -6
Thanks for your insight, Jethro Bodine.
|
|
|
Post by mac on Apr 17, 2015 5:40:22 GMT -6
Wargaming Battle Ridge is not possible. No human player would screw up as badly as Keough. Even an Artificial Intelligence engine would refuse to do what Keough and Custer did. It is quite possible the Indians took more casualties from friendly fire than they did from US forces in the north. The US fought in the smallest elements possible, all far apart, and sequentially. Indians were fighting with odds of 6 to 10 to one. All of these fights lasted minutes. Outside of Calhoun, these fights were very short with maximum US and minimal Indian casualties. It is possible the only Indian casualties against I company were friendly fire. Agreed! The thing nagging at me is that sometimes things can be too good to be true and also they can be too bad to be true. It looks such a terrible mess but I just wonder if what we see is the result of something we have not yet identified. The gap helps explain some but maybe there is something we are still missing. What we see is a snapshot in a continuous motion. Cheers Incidently are you being fair to Jethro?
|
|
|
Post by AZ Ranger on Apr 17, 2015 5:54:52 GMT -6
Beth
The problem with thinking the Indians will run exclusively is that affects what you see. In firearms safety we teach to look for brass in the chamber. If you look for an empty chamber you may see it mentally even if it is not there. So thinking the Indians will run in itself was not wrong. Discerning that it was not happening till to late was the error. That's why an officer like William would not make the same mistakes and they would know what to do.
It doesn't take hindsight to figure out that there was a potential that the Indians would not run. The scouts stated it to Custer. What they told Custer was not hindsight it was foresight. What did they base their opinion on?
What Intel was gathered that could be used to form the best available decision?
Regards
AZ Ranger
|
|
|
Post by Beth on Apr 17, 2015 6:38:53 GMT -6
Beth The problem with thinking the Indians will run exclusively is that effects what you see. In firearms safety we teach to look for brass in the chamber. If you look for an empty chamber you may see it mentally even if it is not there. So thinking the Indians will run in itself was not wrong. Discerning that it was not happening till to late was the error. That's why an officer like William would not make the same mistakes and they would know what to do. It doesn't take hindsight to figure out that there was a potential that the Indians would not run. The scouts stated it to Custer. What they told Custer was not hindsight it was foresight. What did they base their opinion on? What Intel was gathered that could be used to form the best available decision? Regards AZ Ranger Custer had some intel, he just was unwilling to believe it. He could see they were following the biggest trail of Indians they had ever seen but he didn't take the time to really see what the trail was telling him. I wonder if he even asked one of his scout or Indians what the buring teepee could mean. Benteen said it was beautifully decorated I believe. They might have learned something useful. Custer knew from his scouts it was a big village, the most Indians they had ever seen. He was told that there was plenty to go around and that the chances of surviving a battle at that point was very poor. "We will travel home on different paths" Why didn't Custer listen to them instead of believing a scout claiming a handful of Indians was the village running. (I believe it was Gerard) Reno's messengers told him that the Indians were not running, that they were coming out to meet him in force. Custer only seemed to be open to intel which fit what he wanted the situation to be, not what it actually was. He chose to barrel through things like he was pizza delivery man instead of taking time to think about what he was seeing and hearing. Final question and blame it on being up all night. Could Custer have turned to go up the bluffs because he could only see a very small, if any at all part of the village and thought perhaps more were on the other side of the river?
|
|
shaw
Full Member
Posts: 187
|
Post by shaw on Apr 17, 2015 8:49:23 GMT -6
Narcissists tend to only listen to information that reaffirms what they believe. It's inherent in their psychological makeup. Think Fetterman, not Sheridan.
If the story is true, that was the message the squaws were sending Custer when they put sewing awls into his ears. So he could hear better in the afterlife.
|
|
|
Post by AZ Ranger on Apr 18, 2015 8:38:09 GMT -6
I am not sure this has anything to do with "Narcissists". It is something to be aware and can happen to anyone. We use decoy wildlife to protect live wildlife. It is interesting to watch persons behavior when they believe it is real and just how much they ignore the clues that is not real. During archery hunts they make solid hits on the decoy and you can hear it yet some will send another arrow. In the watching the video they can't believe it. They also believe they are doing something different sometimes. I have walked up next to a person firing a rifle and said something to them and saw their eyes cut over and look when I shouted. Yet they continued to fire. Since in this case the person was standing off the road and in a legal location the only thing they were doing is destroying the decoy. I did ask the guy didn't he think it was funny that an officer was standing next to him while he was shooting.
Another plug for the book Blink recommended by Montrose. It discusses rapid decision making without a lot of input and how accurate it can be. That it might work in the opposite is also possible. Whatever Custer believed we will never know. We do know that his decision making lead to the destruction of 5 companies which were fully capable of defending themselves regardless of the actions of he other 7 companies. Three of 7 were out of the battle because Custer failed to support them in a timely manner.
It does not take a rocket scientist civilian or the best ever military officer to look at decisions being made and follow military practices to see where things went terribly wrong. In this case there was limited Intel, a lack of gathering more, a promise of support, a choice to place NOGO terrain features into play, and the lack of plan where everyone was on the same page and could actually do something and not just "try".
Custer was always about the 'try" and I certainly would give him high praise for that. Sometimes try is not sufficient. Weir being a perfect example. All try no action results. In my dog family one of our Chihuahua is all try and looks brave. A strange dog may be at our gate deserving dog attention. He leads the packs to investigate barking as vicious as he can. Then he looks back and sees that old Autie is not there and slows allowing the rest of the pack to catch up. The slowest old dog is eventually face to face with the intruder and wins the day.
Regards
AZ Ranger
|
|
|
Post by Beth on Apr 18, 2015 19:59:59 GMT -6
I am not sure this has anything to do with "Narcissists". It is something to be aware and can happen to anyone. We use decoy wildlife to protect live wildlife. It is interesting to watch persons behavior when they believe it is real and just how much they ignore the clues that is not real. During archery hunts they make solid hits on the decoy and you can hear it yet some will send another arrow. In the watching the video they can't believe it. They also believe they are doing something different sometimes. I have walked up next to a person firing a rifle and said something to them and saw their eyes cut over and look when I shouted. Yet they continued to fire. Since in this case the person was standing off the road and in a legal location the only thing they were doing is destroying the decoy. I did ask the guy didn't he think it was funny that an officer was standing next to him while he was shooting. Another plug for the book Blink recommended by Montrose. It discusses rapid decision making without a lot of input and how accurate it can be. That it might work in the opposite is also possible. Whatever Custer believed we will never know. We do know that his decision making lead to the destruction of 5 companies which were fully capable of defending themselves regardless of the actions of he other 7 companies. Three of 7 were out of the battle because Custer failed to support them in a timely manner. It does not take a rocket scientist civilian or the best ever military officer to look at decisions being made and follow military practices to see where things went terribly wrong. In this case there was limited Intel, a lack of gathering more, a promise of support, a choice to place NOGO terrain features into play, and the lack of plan where everyone was on the same page and could actually do something and not just "try". Custer was always about the 'try" and I certainly would give him high praise for that. Sometimes try is not sufficient. Weir being a perfect example. All try no action results. In my dog family one of our Chihuahua is all try and looks brave. A strange dog may be at our gate deserving dog attention. He leads the packs to investigate barking as vicious as he can. Then he looks back and sees that old Autie is not there and slows allowing the rest of the pack to catch up. The slowest old dog is eventually face to face with the intruder and wins the day. Regards AZ Ranger There are several books named Blink. Is the one recommended "Blink, the Power of Thinking without Thinking"? I understand what you are saying about being so focused on something that you just don't get a true picture what is going around you. My hubby gets very focused and would miss a brass band going through the house when he is concentrating, he is very detail oriented too (a software engineer--need I say more). I am the big picture kind of person so it works well for us, before I became a 'housewife' I was in statically process control which is sort of gathering all sorts of information before making changes to keep things running well. I would think that it would be key for someone in charge, be it a military commander or business leader to be more of a big picture kind of person, not one so focused on one thing that they miss many other oppurtunties--or signs of problems. Everyone would love to know what Custer was thinking but it is impossible. I am sure that in the generations that have each passed a lot of very smart people have tried, and have not been able to because the events just don't make sense. Our brains are hard wired to make sense out of things, we see faces in random places, we find patterns when there really aren't any, and we look for a 'master' plan when a whole lot of chaos happens. Sometimes things just happen but that though becomes uncomfortable to a number of people. If they can't find a cause or explaination, there must have been a conspiracy or even a divine reason. For Custer it seems that almost anything that could go wrong, did while for the NA everything went right. It just happened small mistakes became bigger, bad choices were made and key information was missed. I agree with you about Custer and his try. He had moxie. However I also tend to think he was a gambler and tried things that a more cautious commander would not have. Some of the times Custer had huge paybacks in accolades when his gambles paid off, but when they failed--not so much. Was Custer trying to play an impulsive long shot when he decided to head up to the bluffs instead of supporting Custer? It appears that way to me but who knows. I'm also not really sure if Custer made a bunch of little mistakes that compounded into a major problem--like when you are building something and your tolerances are just a smidge out. Each smidge out wouldn't hurt things much but if you get enough smidges out and you will have a catastrophic failure. Or did Custer make a large castastrophic mistake perhaps like a number people suggest at Busby and never had a chance of recovering from that point on. Enough rambling, I guess. Sometimes I would love to know why things happened but it is impossible. I do think it is possible to learn how things happened though. How did people move from place to place and when an event happened how was it countered. I am going to start working with my younger daughter on a simple animation using Fred's book as a guide. It will be basically dots on the map type of thing but perhaps having an eagle eye view of the action will be enlightening. At the very least, I'll hope for entertaining. Beth
|
|
shaw
Full Member
Posts: 187
|
Post by shaw on Apr 18, 2015 22:27:38 GMT -6
|
|
shaw
Full Member
Posts: 187
|
Post by shaw on Apr 18, 2015 22:34:25 GMT -6
AZ ranger. I'm am speaking of a psychological condition, not the classic description of narcissism. It includes the inability to see things from others perspective and to show empathy.
However, your points are well made.
|
|
|
Post by Beth on Apr 18, 2015 22:46:14 GMT -6
I've watched his maps before. I also refer to his battlefield videos often to see how one section relates to each other and my experience visiting the area. I want to put a different spin on the map by trying to show things on a timeline. Like what was going on across the entire battlefield all at the same time instead of just here and there. I am hoping by seeing it all parties in motion at the same time it will give at least me a better idea about when things happened in relationship to each other. First thing I have to do is find a good map of course. Beth
|
|
|
Post by Beth on Apr 18, 2015 23:15:50 GMT -6
AZ ranger. I'm am speaking of a psychological condition, not the classic description of narcissism. It includes the inability to see things from others perspective and to show empathy. However, your points are well made. I don't know if I would consider Custer narcisstic either. It strikes me that Custer tries to be chivalrous, not as in gentlemanly but as in the Knights and maidens and courtly love type chivalry. He's also a romantic and not just about love but about history, war and world that was starting to leave him behind. Custer wants everyone to like him, view him as brave and loyal. He seeks friendship and admiration as well as a high social standing while someone who is narcissistic just believes it's all owed to him because he's so fine. I would be willing to bet there was a bit of insecurity lurking in his soul. It's probably why Custer surrounded himself with yes men and pushed people who weren't willing to act as yes men further away. I wonder if he was really 'aware' of rank even in a social settings and demanded his and Libby's correct place in any grand march Beth
|
|
|
Post by AZ Ranger on Apr 19, 2015 7:23:05 GMT -6
I am not sure this has anything to do with "Narcissists". It is something to be aware and can happen to anyone. We use decoy wildlife to protect live wildlife. It is interesting to watch persons behavior when they believe it is real and just how much they ignore the clues that is not real. During archery hunts they make solid hits on the decoy and you can hear it yet some will send another arrow. In the watching the video they can't believe it. They also believe they are doing something different sometimes. I have walked up next to a person firing a rifle and said something to them and saw their eyes cut over and look when I shouted. Yet they continued to fire. Since in this case the person was standing off the road and in a legal location the only thing they were doing is destroying the decoy. I did ask the guy didn't he think it was funny that an officer was standing next to him while he was shooting. Another plug for the book Blink recommended by Montrose. It discusses rapid decision making without a lot of input and how accurate it can be. That it might work in the opposite is also possible. Whatever Custer believed we will never know. We do know that his decision making lead to the destruction of 5 companies which were fully capable of defending themselves regardless of the actions of he other 7 companies. Three of 7 were out of the battle because Custer failed to support them in a timely manner. It does not take a rocket scientist civilian or the best ever military officer to look at decisions being made and follow military practices to see where things went terribly wrong. In this case there was limited Intel, a lack of gathering more, a promise of support, a choice to place NOGO terrain features into play, and the lack of plan where everyone was on the same page and could actually do something and not just "try". Custer was always about the 'try" and I certainly would give him high praise for that. Sometimes try is not sufficient. Weir being a perfect example. All try no action results. In my dog family one of our Chihuahua is all try and looks brave. A strange dog may be at our gate deserving dog attention. He leads the packs to investigate barking as vicious as he can. Then he looks back and sees that old Autie is not there and slows allowing the rest of the pack to catch up. The slowest old dog is eventually face to face with the intruder and wins the day. Regards AZ Ranger There are several books named Blink. Is the one recommended "Blink, the Power of Thinking without Thinking"? I understand what you are saying about being so focused on something that you just don't get a true picture what is going around you. My hubby gets very focused and would miss a brass band going through the house when he is concentrating, he is very detail oriented too (a software engineer--need I say more). I am the big picture kind of person so it works well for us, before I became a 'housewife' I was in statically process control which is sort of gathering all sorts of information before making changes to keep things running well. I would think that it would be key for someone in charge, be it a military commander or business leader to be more of a big picture kind of person, not one so focused on one thing that they miss many other oppurtunties--or signs of problems. Everyone would love to know what Custer was thinking but it is impossible. I am sure that in the generations that have each passed a lot of very smart people have tried, and have not been able to because the events just don't make sense. Our brains are hard wired to make sense out of things, we see faces in random places, we find patterns when there really aren't any, and we look for a 'master' plan when a whole lot of chaos happens. Sometimes things just happen but that though becomes uncomfortable to a number of people. If they can't find a cause or explaination, there must have been a conspiracy or even a divine reason. For Custer it seems that almost anything that could go wrong, did while for the NA everything went right. It just happened small mistakes became bigger, bad choices were made and key information was missed. I agree with you about Custer and his try. He had moxie. However I also tend to think he was a gambler and tried things that a more cautious commander would not have. Some of the times Custer had huge paybacks in accolades when his gambles paid off, but when they failed--not so much. Was Custer trying to play an impulsive long shot when he decided to head up to the bluffs instead of supporting Custer? It appears that way to me but who knows. I'm also not really sure if Custer made a bunch of little mistakes that compounded into a major problem--like when you are building something and your tolerances are just a smidge out. Each smidge out wouldn't hurt things much but if you get enough smidges out and you will have a catastrophic failure. Or did Custer make a large castastrophic mistake perhaps like a number people suggest at Busby and never had a chance of recovering from that point on. Enough rambling, I guess. Sometimes I would love to know why things happened but it is impossible. I do think it is possible to learn how things happened though. How did people move from place to place and when an event happened how was it countered. I am going to start working with my younger daughter on a simple animation using Fred's book as a guide. It will be basically dots on the map type of thing but perhaps having an eagle eye view of the action will be enlightening. At the very least, I'll hope for entertaining. Beth Yes that is the book. "Blink, the Power of Thinking without Thinking" I believe that Custer's Luck could be explained in some of the examples. Less reliance on intel or at least limited intel. It served him reasonably well in the ACW. Not so well with Indians. Regards Steve
|
|
|
Post by AZ Ranger on Apr 19, 2015 7:43:37 GMT -6
AZ ranger. I'm am speaking of a psychological condition, not the classic description of narcissism. It includes the inability to see things from others perspective and to show empathy. However, your points are well made. That's why the leaders get paid the big bucks. Subordinates can suggest that the leader see things differently and maybe then they modify their decision. I can't recall any superior rank either EM or Officer ever showing me empathy in decision making. I must be missing your point on empathy. If Custer was psychologically detrimental to Army operations than I would hope the Army would have recognized it and take appropriate action. I think you bring up a good point and it may go to what attributes the Army of the time valued. I think they may have viewed attributes different than a civilian employer. My view is that in boot camp they created my pain and did not want to feel. The attributes of a DI should be different than other NCOs in my opinion. I remember observations of Recon Marines and questioning their sanity(not to their face) but had full confidence in their ability to get the job done very well. Regards AZ Ranger
|
|