walsh
Full Member
Posts: 108
|
Post by walsh on Apr 19, 2012 20:19:05 GMT -6
So, I know this won't be a well accepted thread on a Custer fan forum but I have some new stuff I was thinking about. I was thinking that Custer might of wanted to go down in a blaze of glory fighting the "savages" so he could be remembered forever by Americans. He would be seen as a god to the white settlers of the west who sacrificed himself for their safety.
Lets take a look at what Custer did to ensure the 7th Cavalry's doom.
1. Splitting the regiment 5 times
-pack train(one company plus 6 enlisted from each company) -Benteen Battalion(takes 3 companies out of the fight-about 120 men) -Reno Battalion (there's no way 3 companies could charge a village with 2,000 warriors. He must of known the charge would fail. -Keogh Battalion(another 3 companies about 120 men) -Yates Battalion(2 companies 80 men?) These 5 different groups were far apart from supporting distance and would each be killed individually in Custer's mind.
2. Giving vague orders to his subordinates
(Benteen come quick bring packs big village)
3. Knowing he was badly outnumbered and still fighting anyway. He could have retreated and suffered military shames but chose to attack despite being outnumbered at least 2 to 1 (in warriors) overall but probably 4 or 5 to 1.
4. Exhausted his men marching from June 21st to 25th so they wouldn't be able to effectively fight the day of the battle.
5. Left behind the sabers (he didn't want his men having any chance if they ran out of ammunition) obviously?
Custer would finally be set up for a desperate "last stand" on a hill with F company and die a tragic hero.
When I think of more I will add.
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on Apr 19, 2012 21:42:27 GMT -6
I don't think Custer wanted to die in any fashion, and I don't think he'd kill hundreds of his own to do so. That said, you're correct in one and two, although the latter was debatable and common in the west, it seems.
The message does not say 'come quick.' It says 'be quick.' Again, for those who think there is no difference, the following:
Get ready for school and be quick.
Get ready for school and come quick.
The first requires no further contact, the second does.
The men were not trained sufficiently to fight from the saddle with any weapon, much less sabers. In aggregate, they were not good horsemen. He thought the Indians would run almost regardless of the odds.
|
|
|
Post by Margaret on Apr 20, 2012 4:40:49 GMT -6
When I think of more I will add....I've already done all this Walsh, you're too late! ...they'll be putting us on 'ignore' if we continue in this vein, but suffice to say that, I've always believed he was a man who would have preferred to die in battle than any other way - not to grow old or work from a desk - time was running out - and he got an opportunity here he didn't expect - from after Ford B. I believe Custer brought his personal feelings to bear on the outcome and it became no longer the military exercise it set out to be. Obviously this does not sit well with most people and I understand and accept that and apologise most sincerely to anyone who may be offended at such suggestions - there is no proof. It is reported by those that knew him that he did not fear death - and perhaps he felt that no one else should or need to either.... but to die in battle was the ultimate and wonderful Glory - not a terrible one. ....you carry on, if you wish
|
|
|
Post by fred on Apr 20, 2012 5:47:19 GMT -6
... I know this won't be a well accepted thread on a Custer fan forum but I have some new stuff I was thinking about. I was thinking that Custer might of wanted to go down in a blaze of glory fighting the "savages" so he could be remembered forever by Americans. He would be seen as a god to the white settlers of the west who sacrificed himself for their safety. Walsh, Please allow me to address your paragraph above without coming across as a preacher. I, for one, do not consider this a "Custer fan" board. I would like to think of it more as a non-partisan, non-biased board, unadorned-- for the most part-- with the idiocy we find with our "neighbors." I would also like to believe you will not be "attacked" here because of your views and opinions. Outlandishness, of course, is fair game, but a passionate interest, well supported and well presented should be-- and here, I believe it is-- respected. Next... I do not agree with your premise, though I do most certainly agree with your reasons. Best wishes, Fred.
|
|
|
Post by fred on Apr 20, 2012 5:53:16 GMT -6
The message does not say 'come quick.' It says 'be quick.' Again, for those who think there is no difference, the following: Get ready for school and be quick. Get ready for school and come quick. The first requires no further contact, the second does. Very few people understand this and I consider it one of the most important observations ever made on these boards. best wishes, Fred.
|
|
|
Post by fred on Apr 20, 2012 7:10:13 GMT -6
I believe Custer brought his personal feelings to bear on the outcome and it became no longer the military exercise it set out to be. Obviously this does not sit well with most people and I understand... I tend to agree here and I believe most military men would, as well. He ignored almost every bit of advice he got and stuck his own reading of everything onto the whole event. Best wishes, Fred.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Apr 20, 2012 9:04:56 GMT -6
Walsh: I also respectfully disagree with your premise that Custer intended "Suicide by Hostile". I also think Helford is correct in saying that Custer did not fear death, and somewhere within him he would have much prefered a death in the glorious throws of battle (as he would see it). I think though being a fairly young man he would given his options just as soon wait a while before being enveloped in the arms of glorious death.
I am mostly in agreement with the other things you have stated save the "come and be" business, which as DC and Fred point out are the two most important words associated with the battle.
What I would like to comment on, perhaps to the point of nausia, is vague orders. If come and be are the two important words, vague orders are the tip of the spear in understanding. Clear concise orders, no matter if verbal or written are essential to a subordinates and the historians understanding of intent. For instance you or on one side of a hill, your commander somewhere on the other side, radios you "I am in contact, come on" with nothing further. Do you go rushing over the top of the hill? Do you work your way around the side? Would there be some other way that will not get you killed and aid your commander in his efforts? The order was vague. All it said is come on I need you. It does not go on to say why he needs you or how you can best assist him. So with that vague order it is a 50/50 proposition that whatever you do will be a monumental screw up. Clear concise orders Who, What, When, Where, and if necessary Why and How.
|
|
|
Post by fred on Apr 20, 2012 12:06:01 GMT -6
Chuck,
I am not sure I have interpreted your post correctly. I agree with you-- emphatically-- on orders and the necessity to be clear.
The problem with "come" and "be" is in the age we vs. they live[d] in. The specificity of words had greater impact back then they they do today, and the only time I have seen otherwise is in the legal parsing of meanings. That is why I attach so much importance to what DC said.
That and the fact it sticks the poker in the ear of the idiots who constantly condemn Benteen for malingering.
Best wishes, Fred.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Apr 20, 2012 12:28:05 GMT -6
Fred: This is another one of those rare occasions when I am in complete agreement with not only every word DC said, but how he more than adequately explained, what I consider to be, a most important fact and concept.
What those folks over yonder wish to believe is up to them and all the king's horses and men can't prevent that particular Humpy Dumpy from falling on its kisser. That said if the Super Chief ran over them at Cheyenne Wells, they would be the first to say it was not the Santa Fe, but rather the New York Central, because the Clown from Queens once had a New York Central Lionel choo choo, and he just knows there cannot be another railroad in this great and good country of ours.
|
|
|
Post by benteen on Apr 20, 2012 15:56:57 GMT -6
helford/Walsh,
I don't believe I have ever seen any ones post or theory being ignored, as long as there is logic to it. Your theory does have logic. in fact it made me come up with a brainstorm. What is your opinion on just the opposite of his wanting to die. What I mean is, do you think that Custer felt he couldn't be killed.
Remember during the CW he had almost a dozen horses shot out from under him and he didn't get a scratch. He believed in "Custer Luck" During his skirmishes in the West, again, not a scratch. Do you think it possible that he felt at the LBH he couldn't be killed and that was a part of his decision making. Of course he knew some of his men could be killed, but I don't believe he ever concerned himself with that.
Be Well Dan
|
|
|
Post by Margaret on Apr 21, 2012 7:03:54 GMT -6
...I find that quite an interesting question. I would suggest that I don't think he felt he would ever likely be killed by Indians, who he didn't seem to rate that highly in combat abilities. I expect he felt invincible in their company - as friend or foe.
...I don't accept that he sought to be massacred when he set out from Ft. Lincoln or anywhere along the way, except after Ford B. Up to that point he was out on a killing spree as they all were, and he had to hurry to do it, but events changed unexpectedly and it is my own belief that he was the kind of person to take advantage of that in any way he could if he saw it would elevate his standing in the world around him, especially to his wife, and those he sought approval from, even if that meant posthumously and in spectacular fashion in a battle that was worthy enough to take his life.
He couldn't win, he couldn't leave and he couldn't shoot himself, I think thoughts flashed through his mind that this was something extraordinary going on here and that they would all be killed, all 650, and that his wife and his public persona, would profit from it.
This was to be his place in history and I think he lived long enough to realise it and to orchestrate it along the way with the various manoeuverings that he made. I think he harboured a death wish but only in a battle of such magnitude that he found developing before him. He was not, in my opinion, what people term as being a 'rounded' personality, therefore I offer unconventional thoughts on his demise.
The reason I came to these conclusions is that professional writers of the battle, seem perplexed at Custer's actions post Ford B, as if saying ''who on earth would do any of this?'', given the situation he was in he seemed to only make things more untenable, militarily it seems unfathomable and we know quite a lot about the movements. I still need the research of who was doing what to whom, and where, to fill in the detail, but I no longer feel I need the reasons behind it.
An unorthodox view and I would never expect it to be taken seriously, and if I want a supremely researched, level headed alternative, I will go with Mr Wagner's [this, in time, will supercede John Gray], which might beg the question, do I really believe this myself?...well, yes but I wouldn't want to push it.
I'd like to hear what Mr Walsh has to say.
|
|
|
Post by wild on Apr 21, 2012 9:30:57 GMT -6
Was George Custer trying to get massacred? A "stand" would be intentional as in the Alamo,Rourke's Drift,a massacre is unprofessionional at best. If the Custer production team had intended a stand then it bombed.No curtain calls,no standing ovation just a fly infested greasy stain.
One other bitty point discussed ad nauseum but because we have new friends here---The "be quick" message.The pharseology mattered not at all.What mattered was that military protocol obliged Benteen to report his command to Custer. Regards .
|
|
|
Post by fred on Apr 21, 2012 9:46:56 GMT -6
The pharseology mattered not at all. What mattered was that military protocol obliged Benteen to report his command to Custer. Wild, I do not believe it was a matter of phraseology, per se. I think the meaning and the usage of many words was quite different in the late 19th century, very much the way the force and use of so many words has changed in our life time. I understand the difference between "be" and "come" and I believe that difference was more pronounced back then than what we recognize today. Today the difference is meaningless; back then it may not have been; it may have been much more clear-cut. Best wishes, Fred.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Apr 21, 2012 10:25:08 GMT -6
Richard: come, be, if, and, or but matters not as long as the order is clear. I suppose people have argued this since that day, but for the life of me I can get no clarity out of that thing. I have seen the original, many years ago, too many, but the one thing I remember is it made no sense to me at age 14 and none now. It is evident that Custer wanted him to move forward. It is evident that he expected him to move rapidly, then one must look at the "bring packs" and say - rapidly with packs they seem mutually exclusive. Now one must eventually ponder what would have happened if the bring packs were left out of the note? Would things have been different?
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on Apr 21, 2012 10:46:07 GMT -6
It's an 'order' because it was signed by the adjutant and came from Custer and all, but when I read it the thing strikes me more as an exhortation than anything. "FYI Hooray! Got the village, it's a big one, hustle up with train as fast as able, see you then. Great, eh?" Unsaid: 'you know what to do, guy. Love it when a plan comes together.'
Nothing remotely frightening, much less indicative of what was to come. He had no clue at that time Martin was sent back.
|
|