|
Post by Melani on May 12, 2010 8:32:41 GMT -6
Gen. Kuster, I think they meant they'd had enough for the day.
Wolfie, to say you have a "crush" on Custer means you like him a lot--I get the sense from your post that that is not actually what you mean. ;D
|
|
|
Post by benteen on May 12, 2010 12:16:52 GMT -6
Gen K Reno was at fault,Benteen at fault,etc .Over the years I have seen every possible excuse for Custer,some have merit some laughable.I don't hide the fact that I think he was tactically clueless and am still looking for something he did right at the LBH. However, Gen Custer went AWOL from his command to see Libby, for which he was suspended for a year. When two of his soldiers did the same thing he killed them,no trial, he just simply had them shot. At the Washita he left behind Major Elliot to be killed, and judging from his actions and orders, was going to do the exact same thing to Reno. In at least one of my books the author makes mention of the fact that Gen Terry told Custer to "Make sure to take your wounded with you"This, to me, is the greatest insult a commander could say to an officer.The very thought of leaving some men behind when you had the ability to help them, would be so detestable to an officer that it wouldn't enter his or hers mind.Apparently, though, this was no big deal to Custer. This individual didn't care any more about his men then he did a can of paint. This Gen K, not his tactical skills or lack of them is why I look at Custer as a self centered, glory hound,who cared nothing about anybody or anything but himself. Argue tactics,sure,look forward to it,but the way some people hold this man up as almost an iconic figure to be revered is beyond me. Perhaps some may feel I put too much of an onus on an officers responsibility to the lives and safety of his men, but to me and Im sure to you also, is the mark of a good officer , something I believe Custer was not.
|
|
|
Post by Gen. Kuster on May 12, 2010 21:06:47 GMT -6
Gen K Reno was at fault,Benteen at fault,etc .Over the years I have seen every possible excuse for Custer,some have merit some laughable.I don't hide the fact that I think he was tactically clueless and am still looking for something he did right at the LBH. However, Gen Custer went AWOL from his command to see Libby, for which he was suspended for a year. When two of his soldiers did the same thing he killed them,no trial, he just simply had them shot. At the Washita he left behind Major Elliot to be killed, and judging from his actions and orders, was going to do the exact same thing to Reno. In at least one of my books the author makes mention of the fact that Gen Terry told Custer to "Make sure to take your wounded with you"This, to me, is the greatest insult a commander could say to an officer.The very thought of leaving some men behind when you had the ability to help them, would be so detestable to an officer that it wouldn't enter his or hers mind.Apparently, though, this was no big deal to Custer. This individual didn't care any more about his men then he did a can of paint. This Gen K, not his tactical skills or lack of them is why I look at Custer as a self centered, glory hound,who cared nothing about anybody or anything but himself. Argue tactics,sure,look forward to it,but the way some people hold this man up as almost an iconic figure to be revered is beyond me. Perhaps some may feel I put too much of an onus on an officers responsibility to the lives and safety of his men, but to me and Im sure to you also, is the mark of a good officer , something I believe Custer was not. There might be some validity to what you are saying, but I can't possibility respond to it all without writing a book in the process. I agree with you that an Officer must take care of the men and women that serve under him. I learned that lesson the hard way. You are nothing without them, and they do most, if not all of the grunt work. The topic of Gen. Custer's leadership, or lack therof, deserves attention and should be debated. In the most simplest sense, he was able to get Reno to undertake a very dangerous mission, so he was successful there. Be it appears he misread Colonel Benteen, so he failed in that regard. I am very puzzled by that. It would seem obvious that Colonel Benteen was both very capable as a soldier yet very capable of being obstinate. In defense of Gen. Custer, we have to remember that his mission that day was extremely difficult: 1) Despite his best efforts, his command was detected long before the attack. 2) The orders he was given included a provision that he should guard against the Indians escaping. 3) He was fighting Indians who were confident after fighting Gen Crook. 4) His command was outnumbered at least 3 to 1. 5) The terrain was not conducive to cavalry ops. Concerning why the 7th did not fight well, the fault could be spread around. However, mainly, it falls upon Custer's shoulders since he was making the key decisions. Things started unraveling when the 7th was detected; the odds of success dropped big time after that. Then the provision that he should guard against an escape further limited his options. The rough terrain compounded the situation and limited his options even further. Finally, he was facing a huge camp that had thousands of Indians. Holly Molly!!!! Considering these circumstances, should he have attacked? That is the first big question in this battle. When faced with these conditions, I think any General would have had a hard time conducting a successful attack (i.e., an attack that inflicts heavy damage on the enemy). Now, I think we also have to insert a provision that all army officers were expected to conduct themselves with a certain code of conduct when facing an enemy. In this case, if Custer had decided to withdraw and wait for Gen. Terry, would that have been looked upon favorably? I have my doubts that it would. Plus, if he withdrew, how would the Indians have reacted? Seems to me they would have done the prudent thing and moved the village and maybe separated into individual tribes. Thus, it was an extremely difficult situation, but I believe there was still a chance of success. Custer evidently did too.
|
|
|
Post by Melani on May 12, 2010 22:22:42 GMT -6
benteen, I gotta say, I think Elliot and his men were probably dead before anyone noticed they were missing. Elliot left his position without orders, yelling, "Here goes for a brevet or a coffin!" and got the latter. Custer did look for him, but missed the bodies and then had to withdraw when threatened by a great big bunch more Indians. I think Benteen's dislike of Custer affected his perception of this incident.
Gen. K, I think he probably should not have attacked. My feeling is that the Indians knew there were soldiers around, but were taken by surprise by the actual attack. I don't know whether or not Custer could have successfully hidden the regiment for a day, but it's certain that attacking the way he did was a really bad idea. And even if he had waited a day, Terry didn't make it until a day after that. So he wouldn't have had the reinforcements yet anyway. Of course,the extra time might have given him a better chance for recon, and then he might have planned differently--or at all, depending on your point of view.
|
|
|
Post by Gen. Kuster on May 13, 2010 13:23:27 GMT -6
Ditto what Mel said about Elliott. He went off on his own, and Gen. Custer did send a search party after him that could not locate him. Then, Gen. Custer's position was so tenuous due to hundreds if not thousands of Indians forming on the bluffs, that he had to leave or risk losing the entire command. And Elliott apparently knew he was risking his life, so the consequences should fall on his own shoulders and not on anyone else.
|
|
|
Post by Gen. Kuster on May 13, 2010 13:26:06 GMT -6
By the way, I will be in Oklahoma next Thursday and will visit the Washita battle site to take pictures.
|
|