|
Post by Beth on Jul 13, 2015 22:00:28 GMT -6
Mac,
Why the Keogh battalion overstayed their welcome on battle ridge is the key to understanding why the GAC wing got massacred.
Not why GAC got defeated, which we have explored elsewhere, but why he got killed as part of a needless massacre.
There was no hostile force blocking his east, and little to his north.
WO
[/font][/p][/quote] The warriors would have quickly moved to block these exits I would think. When do you see no impediment to an escape? Cheers[/quote] The first thing that popped into my head was that he couldn't run fast enough but that's not PC or fair. He got killed because he went back and took everyone with him--whether it was to die fighting, to ride to the rescue of someone--I don't know.perhaps his brother-in-law
|
|
|
Post by Yan Taylor on Jul 14, 2015 3:07:29 GMT -6
Montroes you can certainly pick em! ha! ha! ha!
Ian.
|
|
|
Post by mac on Jul 14, 2015 6:46:28 GMT -6
I do not think Custer was a plan kind of person. I think he was a think on your feet and react to the situation kind of guy. Good if you are in combat but not good if you are going to be planning how that combat will take place. This is why he performs well when supervised and sent to accomplish a task. At LBH he was not supervised and was simply trying to get to the action and then think in the saddle. This is why he cannot share plans as they are never fully and carefully consructed by him. The plan was to get there and surprise them; after that he would do what he does best and out manouvre them. Supremely confidant of his ability to do that and to out fight them as he does so. That is why there is no backward step, there is no plan B as there was never truly a plan A. Custer's genius is in action not planning. Send him in the first wave to the beach but do not let him plan D Day. Look to his personal life, are his actions planned and thoughtful or impulsive, reactive and self serving? Cheers
|
|
|
Post by Beth on Jul 14, 2015 10:47:39 GMT -6
I do not think Custer was a plan kind of person. I think he was a think on your feet and react to the situation kind of guy. Good if you are in combat but not good if you are going to be planning how that combat will take place. This is why he performs well when supervised and sent to accomplish a task. At LBH he was not supervised and was simply trying to get to the action and then think in the saddle. This is why he cannot share plans as they are never fully and carefully consructed by him. The plan was to get there and surprise them; after that he would do what he does best and out manouvre them. Supremely confidant of his ability to do that and to out fight them as he does so. That is why there is no backward step, there is no plan B as there was never truly a plan A. Custer's genius is in action not planning. Send him in the first wave to the beach but do not let him plan D Day. Look to his personal life, are his actions planned and thoughtful or impulsive, reactive and self serving? Cheers Mac, I think you pretty much hit the nail on the head. The problem is that a 'think on your feet' type of guy can't communicate to his plans (at that time) to anyone who is not in his immediate voice range especially in a rapidly changing environment. Benteen, Reno and perhaps Keogh are left behind without having a clue what is their commander's plan is or for at least two of them where he is on the battle field. As for his personal life, I'm not sure. I can think of incidents that are self serving but show planning--like asking Libby to meet a visiting General at the train station and make a good impression on him. Also he seems to have been planning for a career after the military. On the other hand there seems to be incidents that are pure impulse--like his poor investments. I wonder how much of the mess he got into with the Belknap affair was caused by impulsive statements instead of actual facts. At the very least, he didn't think about his long term career. While looking up some information on the Belknap affair (like how to spell Belknap) I found this article. Custer article It was an interesting read even if I found it needed a couple fact checks. Beth
|
|
|
Post by welshofficer on Jul 14, 2015 12:16:19 GMT -6
Beth,
That's a very interesting read. Thanks for the link.
WO
|
|
|
Post by dave on Jul 14, 2015 12:26:31 GMT -6
Beth Good article. The incident where asked his wife to meet the general sounds pretty normal to me. Based on my experiences with faculty members striving for tenure often worked as team with spouses to impress faculty members who made the decisions to award or not. I can only expect the military still works that way today with spouses part of the package deal. I suspect that a spouse can have a huge impact on promotions and important assignments. Regards Dave
|
|
|
Post by tubman13 on Jul 14, 2015 14:07:26 GMT -6
Dave, The wife of an up and coming officer is very important to that young career officer. I have a friend, actually a friend of my 3 children, a 46 year old Navy Captain, his wife, takes care of children, base social obligations, social calendar, admirals wives, running of the household and lastly maybe the Captain, when he is lucky. Those are his words. He is a joint base commander in England. He will probably end his career at the Pentagon. He may very well end his career without a star as he has spent his career as an intelligence type, he has never commanded a ship. He will not go wanting for a post retirement career.
His work may have impacted some of Will's business, I know he has worked with Will's Navy cousins.
A military wife is as much a professional, in many ways, as is her husband. They can help make a career and family life. They can also hurt it. I am sure there are officers on this board who have seen this go both ways.
It can work the same with the wives of top NCO's as well. Years ago I spent some time around a Command Sergeant Major Warren Richardson,2nd USA he ran the command, she ran everything else.
Regards, Tom
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Jul 14, 2015 15:52:28 GMT -6
Very fair evaluation. The key is the spouse being the greatest supporter, without being overtly political or wearing the rank.
|
|
|
Post by mac on Jul 14, 2015 16:19:59 GMT -6
I do not think Custer was a plan kind of person. I think he was a think on your feet and react to the situation kind of guy. Good if you are in combat but not good if you are going to be planning how that combat will take place. This is why he performs well when supervised and sent to accomplish a task. At LBH he was not supervised and was simply trying to get to the action and then think in the saddle. This is why he cannot share plans as they are never fully and carefully consructed by him. The plan was to get there and surprise them; after that he would do what he does best and out manouvre them. Supremely confidant of his ability to do that and to out fight them as he does so. That is why there is no backward step, there is no plan B as there was never truly a plan A. Custer's genius is in action not planning. Send him in the first wave to the beach but do not let him plan D Day. Look to his personal life, are his actions planned and thoughtful or impulsive, reactive and self serving? Cheers Mac, I think you pretty much hit the nail on the head. The problem is that a 'think on your feet' type of guy can't communicate to his plans (at that time) to anyone who is not in his immediate voice range especially in a rapidly changing environment. Benteen, Reno and perhaps Keogh are left behind without having a clue what is their commander's plan is or for at least two of them where he is on the battle field. As for his personal life, I'm not sure. I can think of incidents that are self serving but show planning--like asking Libby to meet a visiting General at the train station and make a good impression on him. Also he seems to have been planning for a career after the military. On the other hand there seems to be incidents that are pure impulse--like his poor investments. I wonder how much of the mess he got into with the Belknap affair was caused by impulsive statements instead of actual facts. At the very least, he didn't think about his long term career. While looking up some information on the Belknap affair (like how to spell Belknap) I found this article. Custer article It was an interesting read even if I found it needed a couple fact checks. Beth Thanks Beth, great link. The highlight is my point. Cheers
|
|
|
Post by welshofficer on Jul 15, 2015 5:37:23 GMT -6
I do not think Custer was a plan kind of person. I think he was a think on your feet and react to the situation kind of guy. Good if you are in combat but not good if you are going to be planning how that combat will take place. This is why he performs well when supervised and sent to accomplish a task. At LBH he was not supervised and was simply trying to get to the action and then think in the saddle. This is why he cannot share plans as they are never fully and carefully consructed by him. The plan was to get there and surprise them; after that he would do what he does best and out manouvre them. Supremely confidant of his ability to do that and to out fight them as he does so. That is why there is no backward step, there is no plan B as there was never truly a plan A. Custer's genius is in action not planning. Send him in the first wave to the beach but do not let him plan D Day. Look to his personal life, are his actions planned and thoughtful or impulsive, reactive and self serving? Cheers Mac,
Is that not the crux of the matter...?
WO
|
|
|
Post by Beth on Jul 15, 2015 13:50:39 GMT -6
I think it is.
I think for all of Custer's bravado--he might have been deep down very insecure. He needed to surround himself with admirers and it was extremely important to him that he was liked. That might have been the biggest stress between himself, Benteen and perhaps Reno. I don't think there was anything Custer could do to earn their approval and the results were a lot of distrust and misunderstandings.
I am sure that Custer was always aware in his mind that he had a more humble background--father a blacksmith. Ironic when you consider that he served in the military under Lincoln, Johnson and Grant who were all self made men.
Beth
|
|
|
Post by Colt45 on Jul 15, 2015 15:02:39 GMT -6
Tom/Colt, Out of interest, which of the available plausible explanations would you lean towards? (1) GAC gave Keogh stupid orders to hold pointless terrain leading to disaster? (2) Keogh stupidly complied with such stupid orders leading to disaster? (3) Keogh had an unfit for purpose battalion, in that command and control disastrously collapsed when e.g. Keogh got wounded? (4) Keogh had an unfit for purpose battalion, in that e.g. Harrington disastrously attacked without Keogh's orders? (5) Keogh disastrously disobeyed orders or lost tactical sense in failing to move northwards long after reinforcement was no longer a viable option having lost confidence in the move away from supporting Reno as promised (and away from Benteen)? WO Justin, I tend to think 2,3, and 5 are possible. If could very well be keogh was told to wait in the Calhoun Hill area so Benteen could see him and know where to reunite. If he couldn't see the uselessness of that action as the Indians built up in Deep Coulee and began to inflict casualties, then the stupid factor comes into play. I give Keogh the benefit of the doubt in regards to his order because it seems to pass the smell test that Custer would have told him to wait there while he Custer went off to see if ford D was a viable option. But as a battalion commander, it was up to Keogh to assess the situation and if staying put was no longer an option, then getting the hell out while he could was the prudent thing to do, which he didn't. So I guess you could say stupid orders from Custer, which Keogh followed well beyond the time he should have, so add stupid to Keogh's list as well. Sorry it took so long to respond. I have been without internet access for the last few days.
|
|
|
Post by fred on Jul 15, 2015 15:29:27 GMT -6
Tom/Colt, Out of interest, which of the available plausible explanations would you lean towards? (1) GAC gave Keogh stupid orders to hold pointless terrain leading to disaster? (2) Keogh stupidly complied with such stupid orders leading to disaster? (3) Keogh had an unfit for purpose battalion, in that command and control disastrously collapsed when e.g. Keogh got wounded? (4) Keogh had an unfit for purpose battalion, in that e.g. Harrington disastrously attacked without Keogh's orders? (5) Keogh disastrously disobeyed orders or lost tactical sense in failing to move northwards long after reinforcement was no longer a viable option having lost confidence in the move away from supporting Reno as promised (and away from Benteen)? I tend to think 2,3, and 5 are possible. If could very well be keogh was told to wait in the Calhoun Hill area so Benteen could see him and know where to reunite. If he couldn't see the uselessness of that action as the Indians built up in Deep Coulee and began to inflict casualties, then the stupid factor comes into play. I give Keogh the benefit of the doubt in regards to his order because it seems to pass the smell test that Custer would have told him to wait there while he Custer went off to see if ford D was a viable option. But as a battalion commander, it was up to Keogh to assess the situation and if staying put was no longer an option, then getting the hell out while he could was the prudent thing to do, which he didn't. So I guess you could say stupid orders from Custer, which Keogh followed well beyond the time he should have, so add stupid to Keogh's list as well. This, to me, is one of the more interesting conundrums of the whole battle. In fact, if any of you belong to the LBHA, you will be reading more about it very shortly when the latest Research Review is put out. One thing everyone should consider is the situation, as it existed, when Custer and Keogh joined on Calhoun Hill. Circumstances then were vastly different than they would be 15 or 20 minutes later. To me, the question should not be so much about "stupid" orders, one way or the other, but about whether these fellows should have had a more accurate assessment of their surroundings... and was that even possible? Best wishes, Fred.
|
|
|
Post by welshofficer on Jul 15, 2015 16:23:25 GMT -6
Fred,
For me, the regimental defeat was guaranteed by the failure to backtrack from Ford B.
But the right-wing massacre was only triggered by Keogh's failure to timeously vacate his position along Battle Ridge.
So that begs the unanswerable question; why did Keogh not timeously vacate...?
And there are a number of options; orders (compliance or disobedience), wounding of key personnel, failure to grasp situation etc etc
WO
|
|
|
Post by Colt45 on Jul 15, 2015 20:30:33 GMT -6
Looking at the direction of travel from ford B, one has to assume that first action for Keogh's battalion would have been in company L's area, Henryville and Deep Coulee. If that is true, then given where Keogh was found, one could conclude that Keogh was not wounded early in the battle, but later after the Indians from Deep Ravine began coming over Battle Ridge, or through the gap in the ridge.
If Keogh was wounded early in the fight, then we would have to assume the assault on his battalion at Calhoun Hill and the gap was very close to simultaneous, given where he was found in relation to the sector battle space. I have problems with a simultaneous attack sequence because it doesn't explain C company's move off the hill toward Greasy Grass ridge. If the entire wing was being hit from several points at the same time, why would C try to push them back? Their natural reaction would be to fall back and either defend in place or try to escape to the north and east.
I tend to subscribe to the belief that Keogh was initially in the area of Calhoun Hill, but moved toward the gap as pressure from that area was applied. Maybe he ordered C company to charge before he moved into I company's area, maybe not. But if this scenario is correct, then why didn't he see the futility of remaining dismounted in that area, with L company so far from their mounts, and why send C company to charge? Perhaps the charge was Harrington's initiative, while Keogh had moved over to I company to try and control events near the gap. We have no way to know his precise movements from the time his wing arrived at their final locations, or what orders he received or gave, and that means we have to use their marker locations to try and deduce what occurred, and that means we are going to make a lot of mistakes.
If he was hit early, that could explain why C, I, and L appeared to be fighting as 3 separate companies instead of as a single unit under a single commander.
|
|