|
Post by crzhrs on Aug 18, 2008 10:57:43 GMT -6
Custer should have sent Herendeen to Terry and INFORM him of what was discovered.
Scouting Tullocks' Creek may have become unnecessary . . . but Terry expected some word as to what was going on.
It may not have saved Custer, but it could have saved more casualties for Benteen/Reno.
(PS: Custer did say he would cut loose from Terry as soon as he had the chance)
|
|
tatanka
Full Member
Live for today like there was no tomorrow
Posts: 125
|
Post by tatanka on Aug 18, 2008 11:41:03 GMT -6
Custer had no intention of sharing the glory with Terry or anyone else.
|
|
|
Post by crzhrs on Aug 19, 2008 6:56:58 GMT -6
Custer had no intention of sharing the glory with Terry or anyone else. If Custer didn't want to share the glory . . . then he should be solely responsible for the LBH disaster.
|
|
tatanka
Full Member
Live for today like there was no tomorrow
Posts: 125
|
Post by tatanka on Aug 19, 2008 8:50:11 GMT -6
That's my take on it.
|
|
|
Post by conz on Aug 19, 2008 10:31:07 GMT -6
What did Custer care about "glory?" Maybe we need to discuss the concept of "glory," in military and psychological terms.
Military "glory" comes from doing something outstanding, as judged by your peers. It is above and beyond just being better, so you get promoted faster. You can do that with great efficiency reports, but that doesn't make you "glorious." To get glory, you have to do something everyone talks about positively, and no matter what happens, even if you die, you become legendary as long as people remember your name.
Part of gaining glory is to standout...you get MORE glory if you don't share the spotlight with many others. It is one thing to talk about a bunch of guys who pulled off a miracle...much better to talk about ONE guy who was central in performing a miracle! It makes you somewhat immortal, eh, even if you die.
Was Jesus Christ, then, a "glory hunter?" Hmmmm...do Custerphiles then equate GAC with JC? Maybe with good reason! <BG>
There is a military side to glory as well, beyond the personal positives of psychology. In getting glory, you must have accomplished something great militarily as well, and in some way be positive to the society you are serving. I don't think you can gain personal glory if your society does not wildly profit by it, in some, even indirect, way. If society doesn't see a profit, than it is infamy, not glory, you gain...ala the "Charge of the Light Brigade." Not much glorious about that...infamously exciting, to be sure.
So Custer gaining glory equals military and society profit, in extremes no less glorious an action could attain. It is the "brass ring" of accomplishment in military operations...everybody wins.
As such, the military ALWAYS strives to instill a desire for glory in its men and officers, both personally, and as units. Some call it "esprit d'corps." Some call it a "Hussar" attitude. But it is all tied up with the desire for glory, and to be glorious, in battle.
The more glory a leader and a unit want, the higher it is esteemed in the military. We're not talking here about "vain-glorious," which can allow the epitaph: "big hat, no cattle." Many aspire to humility, even units do. "Don't celebrate in the end zone, act like it is just your duty"...Americans can understand that attitude. But the most humble Super Bowl champions are glorious and glorified, just the same.
Many military leaders were vain-glorious like Custer...all the "Hussar" types. But that doesn't mean that they weren't also truly glorious and gained glory the right and hard way. Patton, Napoleon, Murat, Stuart, Alexander...vain-glorious but also truly glorious. And we admire and encourage those traits in officers. Maybe YOU don't like braggarts, but it ain't bragging if you are really that good, eh?
We also admire the Bufords, that perform glorious acts like the first day at Gettysburg, but maintain a humble and "professional" air. But they still swagger with an air of superiority. <G>
So don't be too quick to condemn just because the person is out for glory, or is "vain-glorious." Those are commendable traits if used wisely.
Clair
|
|
|
Post by crzhrs on Aug 19, 2008 10:45:36 GMT -6
<Patton, Napoleon, Murat, Stuart, Alexander...vain-glorious but also truly glorious>
Who in that group commanded a military disaster . . . not just a defeat . . . but a DISASTER where not just the enlisted men were killed but the officers and commanding officer?
|
|
|
Post by clw on Aug 19, 2008 10:54:29 GMT -6
Geez, Claire. You're spreading it just a bit thick. Don't ya think?
|
|
tatanka
Full Member
Live for today like there was no tomorrow
Posts: 125
|
Post by tatanka on Aug 19, 2008 12:02:00 GMT -6
<Those are commendable traits if used wisely> But they weren't used wisely, were they? In his quest for success and "glory" he ignored the advice of his scouts, failed to carry out a proper recon, and in the end threw away not only his own life but those of his officers and men.
|
|
|
Post by conz on Aug 19, 2008 12:26:45 GMT -6
Aye, those are the good arguments...how wisely decisions were made. My point is that you cannot condemn a "knight errant" for wanting glory.
Rather, Custer and his ilk should be lauded for wanting glory...the more the better, for himself, his unit, and his country.
Clair
|
|
tatanka
Full Member
Live for today like there was no tomorrow
Posts: 125
|
Post by tatanka on Aug 19, 2008 12:48:23 GMT -6
I don't think the men of his unit would agree with you.
|
|
|
Post by crzhrs on Aug 19, 2008 12:55:54 GMT -6
I can't think of one glorious thing about combat, let alone war.
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on Aug 19, 2008 13:44:38 GMT -6
Clearly, over and into the Chronic Bin.
There probably never were 'knight errants' outside of fairy tales and literature. This can be divined because they appear in literature and fairy tales which, in aggregate with their absence in historical existence, provides a helpful clue. It's a ludicrous argument by any standard, but it doesn't even work in context, because these fictional entities were out for themselves to prove courage, rather fully in keeping with the Indian warrior, to be discouraged in the units of any side that wants to win a war, like the U.S. Army.
It's to be noted that the sides that fluff up that image about themselves always seem to lose in the end, and to some competent like Wellington, who thought there was nothing quite as stupid as a cavalry officer. Although, that was said before he listened to Blucher explain that the Prussian General was pregnant by a French Grenadier. You go to war with the allies you have.
In feudal Europe, putting yourself first, then your unit, then your country may conceptually have flown because there were no countries as we now understand them. Today, that's virtual treason, especially when on the payroll of the your third choice for allegiance.
Fortunately, it's a childish view mostly held by those who've never actually been in combat.
And good point about Christ. The first thing that springs to mind reading the Golden Rule and the Sermon on the Mount is that this guy is a self centered glory hound just like, er, Custer and, of course, conz. Really, not only should lesser folk be impressed this Bevo Officer is walking among mere mortals but they ought to secretly bow and worship him, or at least his photographs which must suffice till the equestrian statue is completed.
|
|
|
Post by conz on Aug 19, 2008 14:24:14 GMT -6
Thank you, dc, for your mature contribution.
But really, you guys don't know anything about Army officers, now or then, if you don't think glory is part of the equation.
The men of the 7th Cavalry CHEERED as they rode into battle that day. They LOVED to fight, and they were looking forward to a good battle against the Natives that day.
Combat can be horrible and addictive all at the same time, many vets have told me. If it is so horrible, why does anyone do it? None of these men are conscripts, right? And most were combat veterans, right?
Why are military men (and women), climbing all over themselves to get to Iraq and Afghanistan today before they miss their chance to get their combat badges?
Glory IS an important element in the military psyche, now and then...make no mistake. If you don't understand that, then you don't understand Soldiers.
Clair
|
|
|
Post by crzhrs on Aug 19, 2008 15:14:05 GMT -6
<The men of the 7th Cavalry CHEERED as they rode into battle that day. They LOVED to fight, and they were looking forward to a good battle against the Natives that day>
I'm assuming there are references that you are referencing for the above, especially they LOVED to fight, etc.
Maybe the cheering was to give them a little courage.
I believe an Indian warrior stated during the battle that Indians had to quirk (word?) other warrior's horses to ensure they continued forward into battle, so even Indians may have felt a little nervous about fighting.
I think we need someone who had REAL combat experience to explain the "glory" part to us.
|
|
walkingstar
New Member
Life is but a dream...
Posts: 39
|
Post by walkingstar on Aug 19, 2008 16:59:07 GMT -6
Custer should have sent Herendeen to Terry and INFORM him of what was discovered. Scouting Tullocks' Creek may have become unnecessary . . . but Terry expected some word as to what was going on. It may not have saved Custer, but it could have saved more casualties for Benteen/Reno. (PS: Custer did say he would cut loose from Terry as soon as he had the chance) Without a doubt, one part of Terry's orders were clear enough: "if the trail was found to turn away from the Rosebud, he wanted Custer to proceed southward to the headwaters of the Tongue before turning west to the Little Big Horn to descend the stream." His not doing so was a violation of one of Terry's directives. If we buy into the theory that the militarys greatest concern was detection than dispersion, then the newly discovered Indian "signs" prompted his move. Why? If he followed Terry's directive he may have not reached the conjunction point until after the 26th.
|
|