|
Post by elkslayer on Apr 20, 2012 3:53:00 GMT -6
I am new to the whole Custer/LBH thing... I read all the time about Custer's arrogance and glory seeking being his downfall. Could someone honestly explain this to me? From the handful of books I have read, he stikes me as a man that wants to be the best and to be remembered....actually reminds me much of Patton.
Jim
|
|
|
Post by fred on Apr 20, 2012 6:42:56 GMT -6
I read all the time about Custer's arrogance and glory seeking being his downfall. Could someone honestly explain this to me? Jim, I cannot fully accept people's labeling him as "arrogant." I think he was a no-nonsense man of his times and his actions at the LBH were precipitated by the situation as he saw it. He made serious mistakes there, but not because he was arrogant. I think your reading of him is pretty good. "Arrogant" as a label we use all too quickly, and in many cases it is used to swat away personal insecurities. The same type of people who blame Custer for arrogance are exactly like those who excuse his mistakes as being precipitated by the actions of others, the same jerks who condemn men like Reno and Benteen. They all had their personality quirks. Best wishes, Fred.
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on Apr 23, 2012 9:51:46 GMT -6
Custer, in general, doesn't remind me at all of Patton. Patton, despite his image, did the book work and the training and the logistics and/or made sure he had the guys who did them. He was also fussy about uniforms and decorum in the field. Custer wasn't like that.
Patton would not be caught unprepared in any major sense.
They both were offensive minded and understood image and publicity and in a fifty-fifty call would attack. But, Patton was big on recon. There is a tendency to equate them as the opposite results of the same qualities, this to Custer's advantage. They were quite different in my mind.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Apr 23, 2012 10:13:23 GMT -6
DC: Agree in full. Custer thrived on mayhem, a barely or not controled mayhem. Eventually that always comes back to bite you.
Patton's actions and orders may seem to mirror Custer's until you look under the first layer and discover that eveything the man did was under control. Bold, adventurous perhaps, but never reckless. The one exception with Patton is Hammelberg. He let his emotions on a chance to free his son in law, get the better of sound judgment. Military operations to Patton were, like politics, the art of the possible.
|
|
|
Post by ulan on May 4, 2012 12:37:24 GMT -6
I read all the time about Custer's arrogance and glory seeking being his downfall. Jim I think yes. Custer was the problem why all his men had to die. He was too arrogant to respect the indians and donĀ“t thought they were able to fight the US army with some organization. He was to arrogant to share his plans or ideas to fight the indians with his officers. He obvisionly thought he is the only officer who can fight indians and so he kept everthing in his head instead of teamworking with his officers. The result of that kind of leading was if his head was out of sight then nobody know exactly what to do. I very well understand why officers under his command have problems with his behavoir. He was too arrogant to respect his own men. In his mind he thought probably that all men in his regiment had to work for him, but not for their nation. He was the man who works for the nation and his men were nothing. To me it seems he did everthing wrong at LBH. He made stupid moves and allowed the indians to beat his regiment from battalion to battalion although the indians were dominant by numbers. No doubt to me that he was a bad officer who not respect military basics. In the good situations bravery officers like him can get great victories, but at the long run they failed like Custer did.
|
|
|
Post by steve1956 on May 4, 2012 12:55:18 GMT -6
This is my own opinion...The basic problem was,lack of time as a junior regimental officer...look at the record,short time as a troop officer....Staff officer,,Brigade commander...Division commander. Like a spoilt kid,He'd never had anyone to say "NO!"...Not his fault,I think self-centred rather than arrogant is the phrase.
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on May 4, 2012 13:04:37 GMT -6
I tend to agree.
Still, Custer was no idiot or fool, and he had reason to have faith in his abilities and 'luck.' It was a day of 50-50 calls and this day they came a cropper for him. Happens. I don't think it dilutes what he'd done previous.
We don't know what he did, so we cannot conclude what he did was wrong or right. I tend to think that he was wounded, because what his guys did demonstrate, to me, an accelerating need to get to a place to organize in two different groupings, and they were not able to stop Indian advance, and they were met on Custer ridge, their last option for temporary relief.
I don't think any officer would have gone north over that land for any reason unless driven. It looks bad and dangerous to me and it must have looked a horror to them.
|
|
|
Post by ulan on May 4, 2012 13:29:45 GMT -6
If arrogance is not the right therm i would agree with "selfish". He probably was a hero for simple minds. A man who was able to double the efforts of his men in a fight. But on the other side he could cause panic on his men when he was heavy wounded or dead.
I too think that could be exactly the reason why his command was wiped out easely. They lose his head Custer and were unable to re-organize. That is the problem when a leader did not share anything.
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on May 4, 2012 13:40:51 GMT -6
True, and yet if a leader does not have a certain amount of arrogance he's always second guessing himself. Sometimes, I think, it's better to see a 50-50 idea through than stop and rethink and regroup. Sometimes, it's the worst, but if you have experience, that'll be your deciding factor.
The lack of training and, yes, general disrespect for the Indians was a major factor, but it was widely shared.
The Indians didn't have a lot of organization, and what there was can be coincidental, and it's then patted into digestible shape by white writers who have no clue how to explain tribal groupings and societies, so they try to make it comparable to the Army. That's wrong. The Indians fought that day for many reasons, but one was surely they could not get organized to break down such a huge village as they could a smaller one. They HAD to fight.
|
|
walsh
Full Member
Posts: 108
|
Post by walsh on May 4, 2012 15:19:22 GMT -6
I think anyone who became a General at age 23 would be arrogant. He obviously didn't spend enough time in the lower ranks like Captain. He would have been better suited as a company commander post civil war because he always lead from the front. Higher ranks should lead from the rear if I'm not mistaken so they do the tactical/strategic stuff without being directly in the line of fire.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on May 4, 2012 21:26:19 GMT -6
I came into this late having had an unusual number of social engagements these last few days.
Of all I have read, everyone has added something but no one has stated all. I believe Steve was the closest in his accessment. Custer did lack experience as a company officer. He served as a junior staff officer most of the time before he attains his first star. He missed the school of the soldier, the place where officers are made or broken - the company officer.
I was very lucky in having a very experienced Captain as my first company commander as an officer. I led his first rifle platoon. Captain Thompson had once been a twenty six year old First Sergeant, earned the hard way in Korea. When I knew him he was a thirty seven year old Captain. That does not happen today, and the experience this man had from basic rifleman to company commander I have never found anywhere else in my somewhat less than illustrious career. Thompson once came up beside me as we were trying to traverse a bad patch of woods crossed by intermittent streams, took out his map and showed me the overlay saying and I will never forget - These damned staff officers draw all these damned pretty lines on this f*****g tissue paper then the bastards sit back in their f*****g tent and never have to walk the f*****g ground with 70 pounds of gear on their back and a water mocassin in every f*****g creek bed. Damn them to hell. He then walked on and we continued the mission.
Unless you have spent a lot of time at the point of the spear, you don't know b from a bulls butt about what the average joe in the line company has to do to execute your plans. I don't care how good a general you are, I don't care how good a staff officer you are. I don't care if you were the prom queen at 23 unless you have spent the time in the school of the soldier you do not know fully the capabilities and limitations of the tool you push the start button on.
Thompson retired a Captain, and died much to young from cancer. I became a Lieutenant Colonel, but I was not one tenth the soldier that Captain Thompson was, maybe not one one hundredth, but he taught and I listened.
Damned Good Job Steve 1956.
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on May 4, 2012 21:32:43 GMT -6
You'll find the comments from peers about David Beatty and Custer are almost identical; their fates were not, but they both rose young through charisma and success and wealthy wives and didn't serve long enough under others to learn. Beatty excoriated his commander at Jutland but in due time the hammer fell on him, even during his lifetime. It's a handy comparison, because if he'd died in action his widow would have become like Lady Scott and La Custer. Almost too perfect a match in many ways.
Both he and Custer sensed their ignorance, but realized facing and correcting it was like admitting it in public. They both thought the charge and 'cran' were the secrets to their success. They were both very lucky. Very.
|
|
|
Post by ulan on May 5, 2012 2:39:52 GMT -6
What was it worth to have a well organzied troop against individual warriors when the general undermines his"advantage"? If we look at the battle losses of the indians then some could ask what was it worth to have an organized troop at all.
There are so many examples in the history were a small but good organized troop had beaten much bigger numbers of warriors. The result of a well organized troop is that they were able to reduce the big numbers of warriors and together with that they take away possible the fighting power and will of the enemies.
Seeing the small losses of the indians tells me they did not fought a well organized troop. I see more organization on the indians side when they attack frontal and also flanced the cavalry out. Crazy Horse move to the right flanc of Custers men was the same as a US general would go for with light cavalry on hand.
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on May 5, 2012 9:26:09 GMT -6
Crazy Horse had no command authority whatever, and no Indian did. They did not fight as an Army but as individual warriors, and I believe it a big mistake to start applying 'military' moves to the Sioux. Soldiers fight as a unit and may not be remotely in the same class individually.
At the Rosebud, each side thought it had won the battle according to their own criteria. The Indians had humiliated a large bunch of soldiers and counted much coup. So they left. The soldiers held the field and 'drove the enemy' off and had few deaths. Win-Win.
The problem was the 7th weren't very good with weapons or their mounts as a unit regardless. The Indians were not better shots but were firing into a barrel of concentrated targets and the soldiers couldn't hit anything.
|
|
|
Post by benteen on May 5, 2012 12:34:57 GMT -6
I agree with most everything that has been said both about Custers ego, the abilities of both the Cavalry and the warriors, and I would like to add another factor, that is the disposition of the combatants. The Indians were fighting to save their wives and children, the troopers werent. You may think your neighbor is a Casper Milque Toast, but try to hurt or in this case kill his family and you have a tiger on your hands. These troopers had 2500-3000 tigers on their hands.
Be Well Dan
|
|