The Mohican Board! [Bumppo's Redux!]

The Mohican Board! [Bumppo's Redux!]

Username:	Password:
Save Password
Forgot your Password?

All Forums

AGAINST ALL ODDS MESSAGE BOARD - Mohicans Version

Battle of the Little Bighorn - 1876

Responsibility at Little Bighorn

Note: You must be registered in order to post a reply.
To register, click here. Registration is FREE!

Screensize:

UserName:

Password:

Format Mode:

Format:

Videos:

Message Icon:

Message:

Smilies




		$computer woes {CW:_(}$

[quote][i]Originally posted by Bill R[/i]
[br]I knew what you meant Rich!  No problems!  I was just trying to say that I only participate on two or three boards due to time, so I am rather selective on what those boards are.  AND, believe it or not, infernos are not sought after.  I am opinionated, hold some of them strongly, but actually do not SEEK infernos!  They take way too much out of me and drain me...I enjoy a good debate, but sometimes debates turn into more, and that truly does emotionally drain me and is not sought after!

I know your view on Custer.  I just differ.  After over 100 years of Hollywood, partisan propaganda from all sides, revisionist history swinging back and forth, etc it is hard to know exactly WHAT the real story is.......so I base a lot of my assumptions on observed human nature and life experiences.  Some officers truly love to serve and do so for the sake of the service and the country.  Others are careerists or driven solely by ambition.  He falls somewhere in between, but he had an enormous ego and some evident love of the power and trappings......which would lead me to believe those attributes became dominant.

Even with all the diverse opinions of the man, nobody has ever accused him of cowardice or lack of bravery.  If anything, he was brave to the point of recklessness.  In itself, many would view that as a virtue.  So would I, up to the point of dragging his troops along in the wake of his recklessness to their doom.  It's easy to order a "hey diddle diddle right up the middle" ballsy attack.  At least he did so at the head of his troops.  The best officers accomplish their mission at least cost to the resources under their command respecting the lives of those their are entrusted with....not at any cost in lives driven by a belief that you personally are invulnerable and charmed caring less that those under you are not so charmed.

We had a saying that expressed it better.  Mission first, people always.  When the troops KNOW you care about their lives and value them, THEN they love you and trust you to spend them wisely.  I'm not sure Custer was loved as much as he was respected and feared. He built up unit pride quite well.  The troops were motivated by that, and by the age old glue of the bond of soldiers in harms way fighting for each other in the last extremis.  It's very hard to explain to those who have not been there, and I'm not saying that unkindly, it's just that you can't really appreciate the dynamics until you have served in the military in a unit with pride, and alongside troops in combat.  Unit pride was high going into Iraq.  Unit pride suffers now because they are no longer sure there is a game plan which spends their lives wisely and the only thing holding it together is the soldier's sense of duty and love for their brethren.  The last thing they want to do is let their buddies down.
You can absolutely despise your leader, but still fight like tigers for your buddies.  I envision the same dynamics playing on that bloody field overlooking Big Horn.
[/quote]

Upload an Image File From Your PC For Insertion in Your Post

- HTML is OFF | Forum Code is ON

Check here to include your profile signature.
Check here to subscribe to this topic.

T O P I C R E V I E W
richfed	Posted - November 11 2002 : 07:11:41 AM *Who do you feel was most* resposible for the Seventh Cavalry's defeat at the Battle of Little Bighorn?**
25 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First)
joseph wiggs	Posted - January 06 2007 : 4:01:53 PM Another interesting thought is that despite their energetic efforts to annihilate the Indian warriors, several Officers (as Custer) appeared to harbor a health respect which bordered on admiration. For example: "The best horseman in the world, he can, on his fleet little pony (the speed of which is a matter of wonder to the White man) pass over incredible distance in the shortest time." and: "You can not point to one single treaty made with the Indians which has not, at some time or another, been violated by the Whites."
Monadnock Guide	Posted - December 16 2006 : 5:34:17 PM An very interesting thread, - and I think Sachem quoting Custer makes a lot of sense. One might not "like" their adversary, but can still admire their qualities.
joseph wiggs	Posted - December 15 2006 : 8:44:33 PM Non-facts are the essence of all that is delightfully fascinating to the human psyche. It embellishes reality to a point of an excruciating titillating of Ecstasy where wild dreams and unfulfilled fantasies run rampant. Non-facts are also the seeds of insanity that create an environment of fear and hate that eventually evolves from loathsome seedlings into the maturation of hate, war, and man's Inhumanity to Man. Where do all the non-facts come from? The same place that all the soldiers have gone; "a long time passing."
SgtMunro	Posted - July 17 2006 : 4:14:18 PM I agree Sachem, although I do admit to never previously knowing of his opinion of the western natives as a people, I do know for a fact that he respected them greatly for their martial skill. I am sure that the natives felt the same way about the Americans, that being if they could not have our love and admiration, then our fear and respect for them would suffice. No matter what Custer may have felt about them, he most certainly would have never thought them to be stupid... Cunning and pragmatic, maybe, but never stupid. *YMH&OS,* The Sarge
richfed	Posted - July 17 2006 : 07:18:09 AM One more time: If I were an Indian, I often think I would greatly prefer to cast my lot among those of my people adhered to the free open plains rather than submit to the confined limits of a reservation, there to be the recipient of the blessed benefits of civilization, with its vices thrown in without stint or measure ... George Armstrong Custer from My Life on the Plains Where do all the non-facts come from?
SgtMunro	Posted - July 17 2006 : 07:15:35 AM quote: blueotter noted: He had high regard for their horsemanship, but he thought their culture was beneath human dignity. The men of the Lakota tribe spent a lot of time in camp doing seemingly unproductive projects: storytelling, painting, gambling. This is counter to the society that Custer was born to. "...Storytelling, painting, gambling..." Those could very well describe the activities found going on in any Victorian-Era officers' mess But all kidding aside, he may have not cared for their culture, but he did respect their military prowess. *Yours,* The Sarge
blueotter	Posted - July 17 2006 : 06:13:06 AM He had high regard for their horsemanship, but he thought their culture was beneath human dignity. The men of the Lakota tribe spent a lot of time in camp doing seemingly unproductive projects: storytelling, painting, gambling. This is counter to the society that Custer was born to. And by the time of the Greasy Grass, Custer's bout with syphilis was pretty well into his brain, causing him to act in ways that his former self might regret. He had no chance to regret, however! My favorite bumper sticker: CUSTER HAD IT COMING
SgtMunro	Posted - July 16 2006 : 7:10:07 PM quote: oxUncasLuvrxo said: He thought that the indians were a stupid, inferior people with no idea of military tactics that could possibly jepordize the Seventh Cavalry. I do not think that a man who once rated western natives as 'The finest light horse soldiers in the world', would think his native opponent as stupid. He was hoping to catch them in camp, and with their guard down, and thus he is only guilty of underestimating their readiness and resolve. *YMH&OS,* The Sarge
oxUncasLuvrxo	Posted - July 08 2006 : 10:01:46 PM I think the entire US Army policy in general. I mean, if they hadn't been campaigning to push the indians off their land and put them on reservations all those years, then that massacre never would have happened. It was the indians' land anyway. But Custer was too cocky for his own good though. He never could have imagined the indians could have all grouped up in such huge numbers like that, thinking that this battle would be like every other battle. (Especially like the Washita River massacre). He thought that the indians were a stupid, inferior people with no idea of military tactics that could possibly jepordize the Seventh Cavalry.
maiinkan	Posted - February 08 2006 : 5:51:28 PM Following Custer thru the Civil War you learn he had no qualms about spending men to further his career. I feel sorry for the men who died because of his ego. Maiinkan
qasimoto	Posted - February 04 2006 : 8:51:47 PM Sorry, I see that [this] is awfully much later than your post, but: One has to doubt that Gatlings, sabres of any kind, or even M-16's or AK47's would have helped Custer. If one assumes that onlyy ~20% of the Indians could fight, he was still outnumbered 12:1--and some of those Indians had repeating rifles. I've seen in other posts "bows and arrows", but I think that as late as 1876 most Indians had firearms. I have a cap-fire trade gun much older than that, and there were a lot of guns being traded for a long time. I don't know about Reno or Benteen, other than that the former, I think, was in big trouble with his own problems besieged on, thank God, a hilltop. Some of his men, with more guts than I've ever had, were able to sneak down to a creek at the base of the hill to get water for the command and sneak back up. Re wings, I doubt there was any time whatsoever for formation, orders, tactics, or any of that. And the troopers were not mounted, they had gone to ground and were using their horses for barricades. One horse, I've read, survived. I doubt the whole affair lasted ten minutes. Crook, Gibbon, Terry--I don't know. Amazing to me that Crook never sent word out to the others re his battle and the size of the group he'd faced. Maybe he knew something about Indians being spread out in any possible path of a courier or even multiple couriers (happened at at least Lake George earlier), but that's just a guess. I think American Army officers of the time were not terribly astute, esp. in the west. Hard to use a sabre when you're facing twelve guns and your chamber is empty, and there was no possibility of forming up for a mounted charge when your command is 20%--no, now it's 50%--no, now it's 70%--dead. It was apparently a complete overrun in nothing flat, with no quarter given. And if anyone had survived, it's possible he'd have soon fervently wished he hadn't. Qasimoto quote: Originally posted by SgtMunro Sachem, I would have to agree with both you and Bill's evaluations of the engagement. In answer to your questions: 1) Would the Gatling Guns have helped? As I have said before, I believe it would have forced a change in tactics. 2) Was Reno the right man? I believe he would have been, if he didn't let his ego/emotions supercede mission needs. 3) What would have happened if Benteen...? Well, I think it goes back to the Reno question. 4) What if Custer kept his wings together...? Goes back to my original post concerning Custer. 5) What if Crook sent a messenger...? This was answered by Bill, when he stated that it was a lack of intellegence. 6) The other questions concerning the actions of Gibbon/Terry, well that would make a great companion string. I think another question has to be asked, what about the M-1860 Light Cavalry Sabres in store at the post armory? A disciplined, uniform charge with the "cold steel", would have had a greater effect against the Native Forces, then a form of 'mounted skirmishing' with revolvers and carbines. What are your thoughts, guys? Your Most Humble Servant,
Fitzhugh Williams	Posted - February 03 2006 : 11:30:33 AM I saw a show on one of the history channels last night on Custer and the battle. They approached it from an archaeological and forensic standpoint and came up with much the same conclusions. Apparently skirmish lines were formed, which quickly disintegrated, then they tried to cluster together, mostly by instinct. The Indians did not let the troopers use the greater range of their guns, and made use of the terrain and available cover. He was simply outnumbered and out gunned. It reminds me a lot of Isandlwana. In his "great" victories in the Civil War, he generally outnumbered the Confederates by a lot.
qasimoto	Posted - February 03 2006 : 01:17:00 AM Though I have no particular interest in the matter and any or all the following may be hearsay, things I have read over the years re Custer's battle have included: GA Custer was no genius, and, I have read more than once, graduated at the very bottom of his West Point class. Not a surprise, given his stupendous idiocy at Little Big Horn. Too bad so many had to die with him. I have read, at least once, that he was a Civil War hero because he always charged, and his charges were luckily always successful or at least not entirely fatal to him or his commands. It was of interest to me that that's all he ever did. Whatever else he failed to learn at West Point, he at least did learn "Charge!". He did, rightly, leave the Gatling guns behind. They'd be of little use to cavalry, and wouldn't have helped in that situation anyway--they were just overrun and swarmed from every direction, while a Gatling is as unwieldy as a cannon and of use chiefly against a more concentrated enemy. Nor would have repeating rifles, the numerical disparity was just too large. I doubt that even M-16's or AK47's would have saved the day, that must have been a pretty short battle time-wise. It's my understanding that he charged a large Sioux and Cheyenne encampment of ~14,000 downhill in command of 260 +/-, without having first secured or even scouted the high ground (crest of the hill down which he was charging) behind him. While he was charging, he observed an inordinately large amount of fire coming from something of a tree or brush line at the base of the hill--enough fire to make him uncharacteristically abort the charge and turn his command around with the apparent intention of gaining the high ground for, I assume, a defensive position. Unfortunately, at just that time he observed a group of Indian warriers appear at the brow of the hill. His comments, I believe, were not recorded but can be imagined. [Whatever he saw, it apparently instantly spooked him. It can be assumed that very many of the Indians were mounted, else Custer would probably have taken his command at a gallop to one side or the other to try to regain Reno's or Benteen's commands.--added later] Caught between the two hostile groups who pressed very quickly, his entire command went to ground in small groups, surrounded by their horses. They apparently didn't even have time to form up in one group. Custer's men were all armed with single-shot rifles, albeit good ones--I've handled and dry-fired one--, while at least some of the Indians were armed with lever-action repeating rifles obtained earlier from traders. Some of the troopers tried to surrender, but were cut down in the act. All of the troopers' bodies were mutilated except Custer's, who was recognized as a famous and respectable leader from his yellow hair. Hey, I'm just parroting what I've read here and there over the years. But if it was obviously crap, I wouldn't have bothered remembering it. One of my fellow parishioners, a half Dakota gal who claimed to have been raised in the old Sioux (Lakota, more accurately; they never did like being called "Little Snake" in French) ways by her grandfather at a Dakota reservation gave an old rosary to our pastor. She claimed it had been taken from a trooper's body at the Custer battle site. She also claimed the battle did not take place at Little Big Horn, but at a nearby place known to Indians as "Greasy Grass". But, all the bodies were found a few days later on the hillside. I don't know how reliable anything she said was, she might have purchased the rosary at a local "antique" shop for 37 cents or some such. Or, maybe not. With her, you never really knew. What else? The only escapees were supposedly a few Indian scouts and one trooper who was earlier assigned to stay put somewhere holding the reins of a horse (with, of course, horse attached). Saw him being interviewed on TV long, long ago, and he was indeed quite old; whether he spoke tr
Dark Woods	Posted - January 11 2006 : 11:42:55 PM My vote was for "other", though it was close between that and "Hostile Indians Leaders". The "other" that I hold most responsible were the ordinary warriors who fought so efficiently and well. The Indian leaders did their part, but the best plans are completely dependent upon the "grunts" doing what they need to do (including improvising when appropriate).
joseph wiggs	Posted - January 23 2005 : 8:09:13 PM Yes you certainly may, I guess everyone wonders what he or she would do in a tight situation. Face the odds, retreat with dignity, or flee in dismal disgrace. That is the essence of all wars. The Big Horn, the Alamo, and the 18th Century as well. I dearly enjoy my experience on the other board although some of the posters can tend to be devious and prone to personal insults. The important thing is that I am ready to learn and, sincerely, appreciate the opportunity! Thanks for welcoming me.
Wilderness Woman	Posted - January 23 2005 : 09:53:55 AM Gawrsh. Thanks guys. Joseph, I see that you are a poster on Rich's other message board. Glad you are a cross-over! You will learn a lot from our resident Alamo expert and all-around-fine-young-man, Wade, on the people and events in the fall of the Alamo. Something about Georgie? Well... handsome, dashing, brave(yeah, I know... substitute "foolish" here for a more accurate, modern description), charismatic... those would all go a long way for many women. Now then, Joseph. Can we tweak your interest in the 18th century?
richfed	Posted - January 23 2005 : 08:11:26 AM Yes she is, Wiggs! As for Libby ... there must have been something about Georgie!
joseph wiggs	Posted - January 22 2005 : 9:47:41 PM Let you and I constitute a beginning. There are so many mis-conceptions regarding this battle that we may discuss. Following, politics, and religion no other subject can create such an eruption. Was Custer an Idiot, did Benteen fail him, was Reno a drunk? Why did Libbie adore this man to the day she died. Why did some troopers feel he was an "iron butt" devoid of human sensitivity while others worshipped him? More importantly, thank you for answering a pleading "echo", you are a fine person and I appreciate you.
Wilderness Woman	Posted - January 22 2005 : 10:54:18 AM Sorry, Joseph! As you can see, this thread does not get a lot of activity. Unfortunately, this is a subject that I know very little about, so I don't participate.
joseph wiggs	Posted - January 21 2005 : 8:21:21 PM Hello, Hello, Hello. The sound of a greeting echoing in an empty chamber.
joseph wiggs	Posted - January 12 2005 : 7:52:49 PM This is my first opportunity to thread on this forum and, I appreciate the chance to address the poll question. Every military leader,I feel, that takes his command into battle is ultimately responsible for the outcome. Orders are issued(good ones or not so good ones), they are acted upon, (sometimes favorably and sometimes not so favorably) these actions culminate into a conclusion; win, loss, or draw. However, prior to judging the actions of an historic figure it behooves us to analyze the cultural,societal, and governmental mores that heavily influence the thoughts, beliefs, and perspectives of the individual in question. Only then may we obtain a fair conjecture of where responsibility may lay. Custer and every grunt, N.C.O, and officer in his command were fatally addicted to the opine that the Indians would "go on the jump" at their approach. These men harbored no apprehension regarding a pitch battle wherin they could possibly lose. They only feared that the quarry would, somehow, escape leaving them without a glorious victory. Today, in our contemporaneous wisdom, to divide your forces without knowing the exact disposition of your foe is tantamount to establishing a legacy of idiocy. In 1876, however, this tactic was standard policy when dealing with,"the greatest light calvary in the world." In summation, Custer was out gunned and out manned by a determined enemy who refused to quit. Perhaps the prevalent mentality of that era, that mere aboriginals did not possess the civility, morals, and courage of their white counterparts is the real culprit in this tragic affair.
Candle Snuffer	Posted - November 22 2004 : 12:05:04 AM I too have been to the, Little Bighorn Battlefield. It's a rather somber, eerie sort of place. The dead are still restless I guess? Since the battle people have been trying to make sense of it. They still are to this day? Speculation is a wonderful thing. The many different views that come along about what Custer did, or should have, or should not have done is endless. I will not speculate on the battle or the man, (Custer). He lost the battle. The indians won the battle. In doing so, the indians sealed their fate. What were they to do? They came under attack and they fought back for the lives of their people, and their home. That's history...
42ndOfficer	Posted - November 18 2004 : 06:04:49 AM Yeah,that sounds like something Allen Eckert would write. "Bringing History To Life"
richfed	Posted - November 18 2004 : 05:30:52 AM Yes, I have read that ... not a bad book, but the segment on Custer & Crazy Horse "meeting" on the battlefield and staring into each other's eyes is good literature, but bad history. A bit far-fetched.
blueotter	Posted - November 18 2004 : 04:22:35 AM I did some homework and have discovered the title of the book I talked about previously: Crazy Horse and Custer : The Parallel Lives of Two American Warriors by STEPHEN E. AMBROSE It's amazing what Google can do!

DISCLAIMER
Tune, 40, used by permission - composed by Ron Clarke

Custom Search

The Mohican Board! [Bumppo's Redux!]

Current Mohicanland page raised in 0.22 seconds