|
Post by lbhstudent on Jan 29, 2009 8:32:54 GMT -6
apart from the numerical advantage, were the indian warriors tactically better on this occasion, and did they have better weapons?
|
|
|
Post by AZ Ranger on Jan 29, 2009 8:58:31 GMT -6
Tactics can not be separated from the number of fighting individuals. The tactics were enough to win. Large numbers using individual tactics with or without group tactics won the battle. The cavalry's weapon system was not the cause of the defeat.
AZ Ranger
|
|
|
Post by clw on Jan 29, 2009 9:04:49 GMT -6
Large numbers using individual tactics with or without group tactics won the battle. We've had pages and pages dealing with this question. But that's the best and shortest answer I've heard yet!
|
|
|
Post by sherppa on Mar 1, 2009 10:38:24 GMT -6
Tactics can not be separated from the number of fighting individuals. The tactics were enough to win. Large numbers using individual tactics with or without group tactics won the battle. The cavalry's weapon system was not the cause of the defeat. AZ Ranger I largely agree but do feel that the weapons system if not the actual cause was a contributing factor in the defeat.
|
|
|
Post by AZ Ranger on Mar 1, 2009 11:23:54 GMT -6
Tactics can not be separated from the number of fighting individuals. The tactics were enough to win. Large numbers using individual tactics with or without group tactics won the battle. The cavalry's weapon system was not the cause of the defeat. AZ Ranger I largely agree but do feel that the weapons system if not the actual cause was a contributing factor in the defeat. There are many things that contributed to the defeat of Custer but the weapon system would be a minor minor percentage I would think. Reno and Benteen had the same weapon system and survived and the Indians thought the weapon systems were good enough to pick and put to use against Reno.
|
|
|
Post by sherppa on Mar 1, 2009 17:56:14 GMT -6
I largely agree but do feel that the weapons system if not the actual cause was a contributing factor in the defeat. There are many things that contributed to the defeat of Custer but the weapon system would be a minor minor percentage I would think. Reno and Benteen had the same weapon system and survived and the Indians thought the weapon systems were good enough to pick and put to use against Reno. The weapons system sucked. Reno and Benteen survived because of greater numbers and a better defensive position then Custer. A trapdoor was probably better than a bow and arrow or trade musket so why not pick it an use it. If weapons are a minor factor, what would you consider as a major factor?
|
|
|
Post by AZ Ranger on Mar 1, 2009 18:01:06 GMT -6
There are many things that contributed to the defeat of Custer but the weapon system would be a minor minor percentage I would think. Reno and Benteen had the same weapon system and survived and the Indians thought the weapon systems were good enough to pick and put to use against Reno. The weapons system sucked. Reno and Benteen survived because of greater numbers and a better defensive position then Custer. A trapdoor was probably better than a bow and arrow or trade musket so why not pick it an use it. If weapons are a minor factor, what would you consider as a major factor? Lots of Indians ready to fight.
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on Mar 1, 2009 18:19:28 GMT -6
If you include the soldier as part of the weapons' system, which you should, it did indeed suck.
If you do not train and practice with regularity in the expected manner of battle it really doesn't matter which of the then extant weapons of the day the 7th had. The scouts, some officers, and apparently the Sioux and Cheyenne managed to live out their lives without feeling the need to compose an ode to the shooting skills or riding skills in aggregate of the 7th cavalry of that year. Rather the opposite.
The Indians were bad shots, the soldiers were bad shots, the least incompetent side 'won' their portions of the battle.
|
|
Reddirt
Full Member
Life is But a Dream...
Posts: 208
|
Post by Reddirt on Mar 28, 2009 19:22:43 GMT -6
apart from the numerical advantage, were the indian warriors tactically better on this occasion, and did they have better weapons? When a given situation is desperate enough, plains Indians could be formidable fighters. For the soldiers, the Indian wars were a business for which they were compensated by a salary. For the Indians it was a matter of survival. I truly believe that the following factors were critical components of the battle: a. numerical superiority; b. terrain unsuitable for cavalry tactics but very suitable for warrior concealment and encroachment; c. the desperation of the warriors to protect their loved ones. My opinion is that the above factors help to create the circumstances (or advantage) that ultimately led to Custer's defeat.
|
|
|
Post by biggordie on Mar 28, 2009 23:41:44 GMT -6
our list were certainly major contributing factors.
Gordie Shhbbom.......................
|
|
Reddirt
Full Member
Life is But a Dream...
Posts: 208
|
Post by Reddirt on Apr 12, 2009 16:36:38 GMT -6
An afterthought:
Another important reason, Governmental policies that placed the troopers their in the first place.
|
|
|
Post by conz on Apr 13, 2009 10:57:08 GMT -6
While all these listed are good factors, and all important, my perspective is that this question should really focus on decision making by both parties to understand the result.
The cavalry decision making was more centralized. The officer's duty was to take all the above factors into account (numbers, terrain, weapons, motivations) in making their decisions. It was LTC Custer's and his subordinate commanders job to accomplish this mission no matter what all those factors were. So I have to say that the most important factor in what happened there were the decisions made by those officers, especially Custer, Reno, Benteen, and Keogh...to a lesser extent perhaps Yates and McDougall.
The Native decision making was more decentralized, but it was still not "auto-drive." They did have the ability to affect their actions...they weren't animals driven only by instinct. Had Sitting Bull or Crazy Horse, or a number of other significant leaders, decided that it was not their day to fight, they would have influenced the group to break contact and flee, rather than attack. So the decisions made by key Indian leaders are also half of the "most important factors" in what happened that day.
All the other things are just considerations...they make things easier or harder, but they don't determine anything. Because any of these things can be accounted for and overcome, or taken advantage of, by the decisions made by leaders.
To look at the causes and effects without first considering this broader perspective is to believe the outcome was preordained, and human will really couldn't have affected it much...because those factors "caused" the result, not thinking human leaders.
Clair
|
|
|
Post by galderton on Jun 30, 2009 11:49:17 GMT -6
I think the battle hinges on three key elements......
1. Custer divided his forces
2. The indian numbers were just too overwhelming for the troops
3. The leadership in command - Reno and Custer were caught off guard by the indians tactics - not that they fought individually, but the fact that they stood their ground and actually took the offensive.
The indians were only superior in numbers..
Greg
|
|
|
Post by crzhrs on Jun 30, 2009 12:52:06 GMT -6
I think #3 may be a major factor . . . after all the military's greatest phobia was Indians running rather than making a stand.
And Custer's decision to attack was based on reports of Indians running rather than the exact location of the village.
#1 & #2 were also a factor . . . but Indians running is my top reason for all of Custer's decisions.
|
|
|
Post by conz on Jul 1, 2009 10:49:43 GMT -6
I like these comments.
The 7th should not have taken signficant casualties, regardless of the numbers of Warriors. If cavalry leaders hadn't screwed up their decisions, and Warrior leaders hadn't been very aggressive, the result would have been something like Rosebud, I believe.
For this "perfect storm" of death to occur, a very UNUSUAL, and UNPREDICTABLE event, then the two most important reasons must be:
1) bad decisions by cavalry leaders,
2) good decisions by Warrior leaders.
All the other considerations can be gotten around and compensated for by good decisions on the part of the Army leaders. Had they been good, they would not have lost the Soldiers that they did. So all those other elements become unimportant when determining, really, WHY it happened.
Clair
|
|