|
Post by weir on Apr 1, 2005 15:02:49 GMT -6
And that are self called LBH scholars. Reading and believing Van de Water and Benteen. I have to write it to believe.
|
|
|
Post by twomoons on Apr 1, 2005 15:33:30 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by michigander on Apr 1, 2005 16:47:34 GMT -6
And that are self called LBH scholars. Reading and believing Van de Water and Benteen. I have to write it to believe.
I'm sure you would not boicot this: And that are self called historians, believeng Nightingale and Custer. That's not a fair behavior.
|
|
Son of a Cavalryman
Guest
|
Post by Son of a Cavalryman on Apr 1, 2005 21:14:05 GMT -6
Twomoons; Very cool.
SOACM
|
|
|
Post by twomoons on Apr 1, 2005 22:13:30 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by michigander on Apr 2, 2005 5:43:23 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by crzhrs on Apr 2, 2005 14:59:36 GMT -6
Believing Van de Water is not the issue. Just because someone has a differening opinion of Custer does not mean he is wrong.
I've read more then GLORY HUNTER . . . I have more books on Custer/LBH than I can count. I've taken all those books into account and formed an opinion. Custer was not perfect . . . nor was he a fool. His bravery and fearlessness during the CW earned him fame and honor.
He made mistakes during his post-CW career that cost him a court-martial, condemnation from Grant, Benteen, Brisban, Stanley, Barnitz, and numerous others, and in the end cost many men, and his own, their lives.
Did something snap in Custer after the Civil War? Was there a psychological issue. Great men do not lead other men to death!
|
|
|
Post by michigander on Apr 2, 2005 16:56:45 GMT -6
Your last statement is untrue at the maximum level. How much great men leaded troops to death? How much Napoleon leaded?
|
|
|
Post by crzhrs on Apr 3, 2005 12:00:41 GMT -6
Great men led others to their deaths . . . but not a disaster like the LBH. Custer's entire command wiped out, including the commanding officer . . . and by "savages" no less!
How to explain a loss to "inferior" fighters with no formal training in combat . . . no West Point education . . . no "organization" or "discipline" . . . no unlimited resources?
|
|
Son of a Cavalryman
Guest
|
Post by Son of a Cavalryman on Apr 3, 2005 14:42:09 GMT -6
The Sioux and Cheyenne were hardly "inferior" to the U.S. Cavalry. They were some of the finest horsemen to ever ride the plains of America and by far the best irregular cavalry since the Mongols under the Khans.
SOACM
|
|
|
Post by michigander on Apr 4, 2005 2:33:44 GMT -6
Did you know how much men died under Napoleon? At Waterloo? And in Russland? Did'nt you call this a disaster? In 1812 Napoleon went to war with Russia, assembling a force of over 400,000 soldiers, accompanied by the same number of followers and support. The Emperor continually dithered, eventually reaching Moscow on September 8th after the Battle of Borodino, a bludgeoning conflict where over 80,000 soldiers died.and by the end of 1812 only 10,000 soldiers were able to fight. Many of the rest had died in horrible conditions, with the camp's followers faring even worse. In the final half of 1812 Napoleon had destroyed most of his army, suffered a humiliating retreat, made an enemy of Russia, obliterated France's stock of horses and shattered his reputation. A great General could have also great losses. And Napoleon in Russland, was perfectly obeyed...
|
|
|
Post by twomoons on Apr 4, 2005 8:51:16 GMT -6
I think you missed the point michigander. The question didn't concern others. Could we please stick to the topic at hand.
The question was: as was so eloquently asked by Crzhse, "Did something snap in Custer after the Civil War? Was there a psychological issue. Great men do not lead other men to death!? And I might add: Great men do not execute their men for desertion. As was noted elsewhere in the threads by Leyton: "Custer DID order deserters to be shot in the summer of 1867--he publicly called for the regimental surgeons to withhold medical attention (but privately allowed it). One soldier died. These events were included in the charges placed against him during his court martial that fall (September, I believe)." I ask you is this the action of a Great General? Is this the action of someone in complete control of their faculties?
So "Did something snap in Custer after the Civil War? "Was there a psychological issue" burning within him?
Stick to those questions and try to answer them. You and others claim that he was a great general, a great tactician, a great anything, standing defiantly to the last atop last stand hill bravely standing there until the very end. A picture that has been erroniously painted for the last 128 years. And I must add, by supposed authors who claim anything just to make a fast buck, and didn't and still don't give a d**n about the truth.
Yet when it comes down to the facts. He did lead them into a situation of his own choosing. And he tactically made huge mistakes. And yet you choose to defend him because of supposed statements by outdated material that archaeology has proved wrong! There simply was no tactical cohesion after Calhoun Hill. None, nada, kaput, nonte'! What made him do this? What prompted the man to disobey orders? What made this so d**n important that it cost him his life and the lives of the men under his command? Was he nutso? Did something snap? Was he insane? Those questions will never be properly answered because people like you refuse to believe the facts.
Perhaps Benteen, Reno and others knew something we may never know. And just perhaps that's why they didn't risk their lives trying to save him. Because they knew that they would surely die too! Else why turn back from Wier Point? They weren't nutso, they weren't insane, and they did the right thing for their own survival. Chastize them, criticise them, whatever. But if you had been put in the same situation, I seriously doubt very much, that given the same circumstances, your decisions would have been any different.
|
|
|
Post by michigander on Apr 4, 2005 10:44:22 GMT -6
Which facts? We will never know the truth simply because people like you refuse to believe facts. You believe everything that seems against Custer and nothing that is pro his well known experience as a soldier. And you even close your paragraph with a statement quite ridicule that Benteen and Reno could have known something that we don't know...Please! Do you really think that Benteen wouldn't have delivered to the newspapers (as it was his habit) everything that could have discredit the object of his hate? If I would use a kind of statement like yours to defend Custer you and the company surely would raise the head accusing: oh oh oh look you are talking not about facts, you are fabricating criterias, your telling womething out of facts, fiction etc etc. There are full of explanation for the movements of Custer. And the historians that are convinced that Custer did'nt disobeyed the orders have more knowledge of me and you put togheter. (However they have theories too, reasons as well as anti-Custer). I don't think that all such historians are refusing to accept facts. Maybe they just see facts in a different way. We have two way of thoughts, I respect yours. Even if some of your last statements are really comic to don't say obsessive.
|
|
|
Post by crzhrs on Apr 4, 2005 12:38:28 GMT -6
<The Sioux and Cheyenne were hardly "inferior" to the U.S. Cavalry. They were some of the finest horsemen to ever ride the plains of America and by far the best irregular cavalry since the Mongols under the Khans>
At the time of the LBH the Indians were considered savages, inferior to the white race, and unable to stand and fight against a well-organized, disciplined "western" army.
And that's what I meant as "savages". I fully agree that man-for-man the Indian warrior was far superior in hand-to-hand combat, horsemanship, ability to survive and live off the land that would make white people blanch.
However, if you have read any of the newspaper accounts after the LBH you will see that it was a complete shock, inconceivable, that Indians, "savages," could have killed Custer and all his men.
Racism may have been a factor in Custer's defeat as were his mistakes.
|
|
|
Post by twomoons on Apr 4, 2005 13:01:23 GMT -6
I agree crzhrs. I think you may have something there that could give some insight behind the decisions he made. Right or wrong. If I remember correctly, I saw something on that in one of the books I read recently. Facsinating reading by the way!
The other consideration seems to be concerning his wife. There was something there that compelled him to get these kinds of operations over quickly. And even he hinted at this when he said, "we can go home to our station." In other words to his wife. The same can be said for the incident when she wanted to come west and there was a big rowe over that too! If I remember correctly he 'deserted' and went to get her. Somethings amiss with that.
|
|