|
Post by crzhrs on May 10, 2010 11:38:58 GMT -6
<What we need to explore is why things turned unexpectedly>
Ah . . . to many Indians?
|
|
|
Post by Gen. Kuster on May 10, 2010 15:13:11 GMT -6
<What we need to explore is why things turned unexpectedly> Ah . . . to many Indians? Crazy Horse, Apparently that is your schtick and you are sticking to it. But the numbers alone don't tell the entire story. We really don't know how things could have turned out because Colonel Benteen and his men never entered into the fray, and we also don't know whether Gen Custer had been shot while charging at MTF. Those are two BIG factors that could have changed the outcome. But something tells me you are just being sarcastic.
|
|
|
Post by wolfgang911 on May 11, 2010 5:03:22 GMT -6
sarcastic? 800 ndns routed 800 men from the by some respected Crook / so the question too many indians when the lowest account is 1500 in this case has nothing of sarcastic but just common sense, numbers make more sense then reasoning all theories in favour of THE General.
GKuster we all have our prejudices : mine is mostly set simply by reading Custer's own writings. What better source do you have to grab a man's thoughts or reasoning. The letters of Gen Hazen on his 1868 campaigns are a good exemple of a reasonable general versus a cocky one on the same subject. For me it is only logical that LBH had to happen. (and indian pride for centuries to come need some sacrifice of reckless soldiers) Where comes your prejudice from?
|
|
|
Post by Gen. Kuster on May 11, 2010 8:30:27 GMT -6
sarcastic? 800 ndns routed 800 men from the by some respected Crook / so the question too many indians when the lowest account is 1500 in this case has nothing of sarcastic but just common sense, numbers make more sense then reasoning all theories in favour of THE General. GKuster we all have our prejudices : mine is mostly set simply by reading Custer's own writings. What better source do you have to grab a man's thoughts or reasoning. The letters of Gen Hazen on his 1868 campaigns are a good exemple of a reasonable general versus a cocky one on the same subject. For me it is only logical that LBH had to happen. (and indian pride for centuries to come need some sacrifice of reckless soldiers) Where comes your prejudice from? Was he being sarcastic? Of course he was. We all know that there were thousands of Indians, and that was probably the overriding factor that caused Custer’s defeat (that and the fact the NAs fought hard), but for Crazy to say that considering the purpose of this board is to ask such questions, I think he is being sarcastic. If the answer to all the little mysteries of this battle is that there were too many Indians so Custer was doomed to defeat, then why are we even here discussing the battle? We might as well shut this site down right? My question in which Crazy responded sarcastically is a valid one. I think everyone believes that Custer met with certain things he unexpected, and I think most if not all of us want to understand what those things were. That’s why we are here. Regarding my prejudices - - I am human like everyone else and have certain prejudices, some of which I am sure that I am not aware of. However, regarding LBH, I am guided mostly by over 25 years of military training and experience. Plus, I have read Custer's own writings too, and I agree with you that this is the best source to understand him. However, I have the military background to put his thoughts in perspective. Was Custer perfect? No man is. But based on all that I have read, I believe he was an incredibly competent soldier and leader, so LBH is a huge mystery to me why it unfolded the way it did.
|
|
|
Post by crzhrs on May 11, 2010 9:32:46 GMT -6
<My question in which Crazy responded sarcastically is a valid one. I think everyone believes that Custer met with certain things he unexpected, and I think most if not all of us want to understand what those things were. >
What exactly did he not expect? Most of his scouts told him there were more Indians than any of them had ever encountered. They had an idea of where they village was. They had an idea that it was the "hostile" village that everyone wanted to find. I don't think there were any surprises the 7th encountered except one . . . the Indians' mood, their ability, and their resolve not to run any more.
My response was not sarcastic but in fact, true.
|
|
|
Post by Melani on May 11, 2010 11:28:45 GMT -6
I think there were certainly too many Indians to divide the regiment as he did, and then have the different battalions all fail to act with coordination. If he had been able to follow his original plan of waiting overnight and hitting them at dawn, with coordinated timing, he might have had a much better chance.
|
|
|
Post by Gen. Kuster on May 11, 2010 11:47:42 GMT -6
<My question in which Crazy responded sarcastically is a valid one. I think everyone believes that Custer met with certain things he unexpected, and I think most if not all of us want to understand what those things were. > What exactly did he not expect? Most of his scouts told him there were more Indians than any of them had ever encountered. They had an idea of where they village was. They had an idea that it was the "hostile" village that everyone wanted to find. I don't think there were any surprises the 7th encountered except one . . . the Indians' mood, their ability, and their resolve not to run any more. My response was not sarcastic but in fact, true. C'mon, If I take your original post above literally (ah, too many Indians), and I have no reason not too, you are talking about just total numbers....not their mood, ability, and resolve like you just said. So I guess now you are changing your original statement?
|
|
|
Post by Gen. Kuster on May 11, 2010 12:21:00 GMT -6
What exactly did he not expect? The terrain making it hard to ford the river was probably unexpected and frustrating….Benteen's tardiness appears unexpected....perhaps Custer unexpectedly being shot (but not fatally) at the river which explains why the command did not retreat and also explains the rapid disintegration of his command…..the Springfield Carbines getting jammed…..perhaps there was an ambush or two…..Perhaps the Indians expected a possible attack at or near MTC so they purposefully drew Custer in….perhaps Indians cleverly rushed to the far northern edge and started making their way east to head Custer’s possible escape route near the present cemetery (the traditional Crazy Horse route I believe). I believe that actually happened and was brilliant because it was unexpected. The point is that for a soldier of Custer’s caliber to fail like he did, I believe there are other significant factors besides how well the Indians fought. I don’t think it was simply a matter of the Indians following his command and eventually surrounding him. That is too simple. Some unexpected things happened in my opinion. Back to the terrain…I believe that Custer intended to ford the river not far from the Timber on the Indian’s left flank, but seeing that it was too steep, he had to go farther downriver. A crossing near the timber would have given Reno excellent support. Then, the affect of Benteen arriving 20 minutes later (either following Reno’s path or Custer’s) would have seemed like the arrival of another larger command of soldiers (and with additional ammo that would be needed). It is my theory that Custer wanted to fight hard based on the belief that the Indians would eventually give in (like Reno did). Then he would have taken some NCs just to make sure. Thus, the goal was not to go in and capture NCs right away like some believe; It was “shock and awe” that he was trying to achieve just like any good cavalry officer. The affect of Benteen charging in during the middle of the fray would have been pretty incredible. Thus, I believe a huge factor that was unexpected was the terrain.
|
|
|
Post by crzhrs on May 11, 2010 12:31:50 GMT -6
I agree . . . terrain was a factor . . . the Indians didn't just camp willy nilly. The had steep, rugged ground with a river to cross on one side and a wide open flat plain on the other. Both afforded them ample time to make "adjustments"
On the other hand . . . contingency plans should always be a factor in any western style military unit. Failure to have a back-up plan was fatal.
After 134 years and all the analyzing and debate maybe in the end it was "too simple": Too many Indians.
|
|
|
Post by Gen. Kuster on May 11, 2010 12:53:30 GMT -6
Another point that I want to make is that officers are not expected to give literal orders. There is often not enough time to give detailed instructions. Plus, CO's like to allow for flexibility, so they typically give general guidance that leaves a lot of room for interpretation and flexibility (unless of course the situation calls for specific orders). Officers are judged not by how closely they follow orders - Monkees can do that. Rather, they are judged by their resourcefulness given the conditions and the resources they have at their disposal and how well they conform to and achieve the CO's overall goal. Excellent intuition is often a key element that officers need to develop in order to survive.
Does this require making "decisions on the fly?" YES. but it's not the same as making an entire battle strategy on the fly.
Officers are expected to take general guidance and "run with it" to the best of their ability and produce positive results. Thus, people who are too rigid, lack imagination and savvy, or lack good people skills need not apply.
Also, courage and extreme will power are needed to do certain things that most people aren't willing to do. Plus, of course, a high sense of duty and ethics.
Generally, the strategy or overall plan (at least the basics anyway) is known by the officers so they can make decisions that are within the parameter of the strategy.
I know all this was true when I served and I assume it was similar back in 1876.
Thus, my only gripe about how certain people interpret Custer’s orders (verbal or otherwise) is that they take things too literally. You have to think like an officer would.
|
|
|
Post by wolfgang911 on May 11, 2010 14:07:43 GMT -6
If the answer to all the little mysteries of this battle is that there were too many Indians so Custer was doomed to defeat, then why are we even here discussing the battle? We might as well shut this site down right? In a way this could be the conclusion as long as archeology does not give any new clues or as long as white cow bull's family does not give in finally the original ledger drawing of one of histories top of the bill shots (brilliant leader ;D= you cross + you die = your regiment perishes, signed GAC). But there are so many other related interesting subjects to LBH. For instance what it represented to the the NDN, why a victory tunrded into a nightmare, the prelude from gold (custer again) till the dawes allotments etc etc etc subjects which are a little overlooked on this GI Joe salloon.
|
|
|
Post by Melani on May 11, 2010 15:24:58 GMT -6
I've often wondered how the westward expansion could have been done better with regard to the Indians who already lived there, if you accept as inevitable the immigration of large numbers of whites from the East. Any thoughts?
|
|
|
Post by Gen. Kuster on May 11, 2010 16:46:30 GMT -6
I've often wondered how the westward expansion could have been done better with regard to the Indians who already lived there, if you accept as inevitable the immigration of large numbers of whites from the East. Any thoughts? This is a difficult question, but here are my thoughts based on rather limited knowledge of this issue: 1) There should have been a more lenient and flexible distribution of land to anyone who wanted it. NAs and the Hispanics down south should have been given much more land, and they should have been able to decide what parcels to take, with certain limitations. The Hispanics and Indians both had lived in the West for centuries, struggling, fighting, and dying for that land, so both groups should have been given much more land. 2) We should have had a better understanding on both sides that the land given out in #1 above was subject to eminent domain, and if the govt needed to use the land, they could take it back no questions asked in exchange for monetary compensation or land elsewhere of your choosing. 3) There should have been more educational programs for NAs, Hispanics etc., so that their brightest could have had the opportunity to become doctors, lawyers, engineers, or other professionals. They should have built some excellent K-12 private schools all throughout the West, and instead of just teaching the NAs how to be a tailor, they should have also taught the hard sciences to the individuals who could handle it. There should have been regular scholarships too to some of the best colleges in the country. Some of this was done, but I think it should have been more aggressive. 4) In general, I am a strong proponent of giving people from disadvantaged backgrounds (be it white, black, or any other race) an opportunity, not a handout, but an opportunity to do something with their life. That would have been the guiding principle.
|
|
|
Post by Gen. Kuster on May 11, 2010 21:02:06 GMT -6
I was just browsing some of the NA accounts like I do from time to time and found this quote attributed to "Runs the Enemy"
"The guns and ammunition that we gathered from the dead soldiers of Custer's command put us in better fighting condition than ever before, but the sentiment ran around among the Indians that we had killed enough, and we did not want to fight any more."
So maybe Custer's last Stand was a success after all if all the bloodshed took the will out of the Sioux to fight.....
|
|
|
Post by wolfgang911 on May 12, 2010 2:11:52 GMT -6
they (= the original group of sitting bull, crazy horse, big foot e.o.) did not wish to fight in the first place (except from some hors raiding here and there) : they wished to be left alone and hunt, avoided fighting the army wherever they could. those where SB's orders and the army had a hard time finding them. who would NOT fight, when moustached cavalry rides in your summercamp?
but indeed Custer had it all done : the reason I have a personal crush on the man is from his treacherous 1868 campaigns to his golddigging expeditions till his last stand, he was a great pain in the butt for the last roaming plains indians. he played a key role in bringing that culture to the edge of extinction. If that is what you call a victory, Custer was very succesfull even in his dead (and i'm on the NA side for considering he amply deserved his fate). Ironically Custer rather liked the NA lifestyle and had an eye for the beauty of their life, land and warfare (his writings are full of it). I bet if he could chose he would have like a continent full of em just to go on endless campaigns. There were not enough indians though in reserve to make up for all those ambitious officers around, Miles, Crook, Connor & GAC all needed wild indians to make carreer.
|
|