jag
Full Member
![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star.png) ![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star.png)
Caption: IRAQI PHOTO'S -- (arrow to gun port) LOOK HERE -- SMILE -- WAIT FOR -- FLASH
Posts: 245
|
Post by jag on Aug 18, 2011 9:38:09 GMT -6
What was the biggest mistake (worst error) made at the LBH? This one can get controversial because it is opinion driven. All I'd ask is that people try respect other peoples opinions on this. No one has to agree or even disagree with another's opinion here. But I think it would be interesting to know what everyone thinks it was.
My own opinion is reflected in Benteen's statements to the court.
pg 381
General Crook had fought those Indians 7 days before we did, and he saw enough of them to let them alone. he had a larger force than we had. He remained from the 17th of June to the 15th of August waiting for reinforcements and did not think it prudent to go after those Indians, I know there was a large force and knew it at the time...
Q. Were those facts which you now state known at that time? A. Not about General Crook's fight. We could see the trail.
pg 380
We were on the main trail of the Indians, there were plenty of them on that trail, we had passed through immense villages the preceding days, and it was scarcely worth while hunting up any more. We knew there were 8 or 10000 Indians on the trail we were on.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Aug 18, 2011 10:05:26 GMT -6
JAG: If everyone gets into the spirit of this and it is done correctly this may very well be the most important thread on this board. Clair has something similar going on the other board. It should in my view be more of a listing without rebuttal. That list would be very interesting. That said
I would say showing up but you have already beaten me to that particular gem.
Failing to maximinze combat power into one cohesive and thus very powerful whole, rather than fritter away his assets, with a scheme of maneuver more suited to a division than a rather small regiment.
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on Aug 18, 2011 10:07:43 GMT -6
There being a difference between concerns for preventing the Last Stand and merely not losing the battle, there is still connective tissue. Which is:
Insufficient scouting and insufficient processing of the intel that they actually had. Atop everything, though, was the self imposed myth that the Indians would run. It's like the cliche: it's not what they didn't know that hurt them so much as the stuff they knew for sure that simply wasn't true.
|
|
|
Post by zekesgirl on Aug 18, 2011 11:13:53 GMT -6
Clinging to the belief that the Indians would run when confronted.
|
|
|
Post by rosebud on Aug 18, 2011 11:44:55 GMT -6
Sending Benteen to the Left. Indian scouts could have found out everything Custer needed to know. Herendeen was in this same area only 2 years earlier. He knows how to get to the LBH river to see if the Indians are headed South.
Rosebud
|
|
|
Post by whitesharkseeker on Aug 27, 2011 11:13:47 GMT -6
Splitting his command. Reno had no business making his suicidal charge into the massive indian village (not his fault), Banteen on a free-lance mission. Simple as that.
-Eric
|
|
|
Post by fred on Aug 27, 2011 11:21:13 GMT -6
Strategically, Dark Cloud is right on the money; I would agree wholeheartedly.
Tactically, Custer's allowing his maneuver battalions to fall out of mutual support with no contingency for follow-up. Even had he not committed this error, I doubt anyway if he would have won... simply because he failed the strategic test, above. Tactics are irrelevant in the face of bad strategy. The 20th century alone is rife with examples.
Best wishes, Fred.
|
|
|
Post by rosebud on Aug 27, 2011 12:08:02 GMT -6
1..Strategically, Dark Cloud is right on the money; I would agree wholeheartedly.
2...Tactically, Custer's allowing his maneuver battalions to fall out of mutual support with no contingency for follow-up. Even had he not committed this error, I doubt anyway if he would have won... simply because he failed the strategic test, above. Fred
1...This will take more time, giving the chance of another result the same as Crook on the Rosebud.
2...Even if you are right. We will not know what their definition of a victory was. If we consider that, ...scatter Indians and burn the village as a victory..... then we can make judgments that give us the best option for that outcome.
If we eliminate scatter and burn as the goal, then we need to make adjustments as to the needed movement to achieve the altered goal.
To me, " scatter and burn" is not the objective. Custer's movements "SEEM".. to eliminate that as a goal for that day.
What you want Custer to accomplish, will dictate your view of the worst error.
Rosebud
|
|
|
Post by fred on Aug 27, 2011 12:33:05 GMT -6
Rosebud,
If I read your post correctly, I do not really agree with you.
We know what the objectives of the campaign were: return the Indians to the reservation and eliminate the threat of future "winter-roaming." In other words, reservation life... probably very much as we know it today.
That does not mean necessarily scorch, burn, main, kill, though that may have been what was in Custer's mind. I tend to doubt it based on my reading of what he did and where he attempted to go. That he intended to drive through the so-called refugees, I have no doubt, but I also do not believe he would have embarked on a campaign of butchery.
From a strictly military point of view-- which is what this was-- Dark Cloud's strategic concepts are spot-on, and I feel the same way about my tactical perceptions. The bottom line is that this was a military operation with a clearly defined objective. The concepts elucidated are accurate in my opinion.
Best wishes, Fred.
|
|
jag
Full Member
![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star.png) ![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star.png)
Caption: IRAQI PHOTO'S -- (arrow to gun port) LOOK HERE -- SMILE -- WAIT FOR -- FLASH
Posts: 245
|
Post by jag on Aug 27, 2011 13:03:47 GMT -6
To reiterate.
"What was the biggest mistake (worst error) made at the LBH? This one can get controversial because it is opinion driven. All I'd ask is that people try respect other peoples opinions on this. No one has to agree or even disagree with another's opinion here. But I think it would be interesting to know what everyone thinks it was."
I don't particularly think that question so difficult to answer without going into what Custer did right. Everyone see's this thing differently.
I'm quite sure we could all vote for our favorite person to pat on the back here. Or draw blood in the quest to make our own point more valid than another. Fact is no one knows for sure what his biggest mistake was. And only he knew that the moment his men were being cut to pieces before his eyes. It might have been something so simple and overlooked, even today, that had that small error not been made, we wouldn't have the need to discuss this battle the way we do.
|
|
|
Post by rosebud on Aug 27, 2011 14:42:05 GMT -6
The bottom line is that this was a military operation with a clearly defined objective. Fred
That is a bunch of bull. I can show you the use of the word ..punish... You show me anything regarding them escorting them back to the Rez.
Even Terry wanted Custer to take the Gatling guns. I don't think they use Gatling guns for tea party's and escort services. I don't agree with your sugar coated version.
Benteen's orders.......Pitch into them .....not, talk to them and see if they would like us to escort them home.
Reno's orders.......Cross the river and attack the village.
Yes, Fred; It is a clearly defined objective......PUNISH the Indians and let it be known what they will get the next time they decide to leave the Rez.
Worked well......Only needed one more reminder so they knew how serious things could get........Wounded Knee. That about did it for 100 years.
|
|
|
Post by rosebud on Aug 27, 2011 14:54:13 GMT -6
Jag: How are we to know what the worst error was, when we have know idea of what his plans were?
So I will have to change my answer and say the worst error was not letting every one know what the plans were for that day.
Looks like it was every man for them self. First one to get to the Indians gets the glory.
|
|
|
Post by fred on Aug 27, 2011 17:15:09 GMT -6
That is a bunch of bull. I can show you the use of the word ..punish... You show me anything regarding them escorting them back to the Rez. On November 3, 1875, at a secret White House meeting, President U. S. Grant and a few selected cabinet members and army generals made a decision to launch a war against the Sioux. Lieutenant General Philip H. Sheridan, commanding general of the Military Division of the Missouri—headquartered in Chicago—was assigned to command the military operation. An ultimatum date of January 31, 1876, was set for the “winter roamers”—the non-agency or reservation Indians—of the Sioux, Cheyenne, and Arapaho tribes to have returned or reported to the various agencies. Failure to meet that deadline would constitute open hostility and those recalcitrants would be compelled by force or whatever other means necessary to comply. No legitimate evidence has ever surfaced indicating the military was ordered to unilaterally or intentionally destroy the Sioux and Cheyenne nations. Rather, there is significant dialogue pointing to the return—albeit forced, if necessary—of the winter roamers, to reservations established for the various tribes. “If the Indians proved recalcitrants [sic], and could be induced to proceed peacefully back to the reservation, as they had been ordered, [Terry] would permit no violence against them….” [Willert, LBH Diary] Your grasp of military facility seems to be rather lacking. Why wouldn't you take the Gatling guns if you could? And I would hardly considered my version "sugar coated." Maybe you should take some reading lessons again. I have re-read my posts. Nowhere do I say anything that would construe something other than "punishing" the Indians if needed. I think, over the years and on two different boards, that my views of this thing are pretty clear. But I'll state them again: return the Indians to the reservations by whatever means necessary. To me, that's clear, and it does not include wiping them out... unless necessary. If you want to cite Wounded Knee, then please cite the campaigns during the remainder of 1876 and 1877. Guess where the Indians went. You need to calm down, Rosebud. You really need to do some more research. Maybe then you wouldn't get so angry. Best wishes, Fred.
|
|
|
Post by rosebud on Aug 27, 2011 18:04:41 GMT -6
Heck, I'm not angry at all. I don't need to get angry do disagree with you.
As long as you agree that they were there to punish the Indians, then we are on the same page. I have re-read my posts. Nowhere do I say anything that would construe something other than "punishing" the Indians if needed. Where I might get confused by your posts are the last two words"if needed" Once Terry, Gibbon, Crook head out, the " if needed" is no longer needed.......Thats the reason they left. They have already decided it "IS NEEDED"
And I do agree with ......sufficant punishment to drive the point home. Sufficient will be decided by Custer....Gibbon.....Crook or whoever is in charge when they hit the Indians..
In this case it is the Indians who deliver the punishment.
|
|
|
Post by AZ Ranger on Aug 27, 2011 21:31:08 GMT -6
Underestimating the potential threat(s) that is my opinion of the worst error. It covers every decision made by Custer. It makes it easier for me to understand decisions that we now think are errors and why would he did that at the time.
No need for anything except get someone there before they fled.
|
|