Custer's last stand

[Lincoln1976]

I'd like to know your opinion about the battle of the greasy grass eg. Custer's last stand....I recently bought a book by Peter Panzeri (Little Big Horn 1876) and was quite intreagued by it, since it does give a very good and detailed insight into said battle.

I always knew about Major Reno's questionable command of his troops, yet the whole extend in which his incompetance (and cowardice) contributed to Custer's command's demise is quite astonishing.

Sure, one can blame Custer for hot headedly storming into the situation which than turned against him, yet it was Reno's retreat (and subsequent heavy losses) which allowed the Indians to break loose and concentrate their whole numbers on Custer...

So,what do you think?

 

[Ringel05]

I'd like to know your opinion about the battle of the greasy grass eg. Custer's last stand....I recently bought a book by Peter Panzeri (Little Big Horn 1876) and was quite intreagued by it, since it does give a very good and detailed insight into said battle.

I always knew about Major Reno's questionable command of his troops, yet the whole extend in which his incompetance (and cowardice) contributed to Custer's command's demise is quite astonishing.

Sure, one can blame Custer for hot headedly storming into the situation which than turned against him, yet it was Reno's retreat (and subsequent heavy losses) which allowed the Indians to break loose and concentrate their whole numbers on Custer...

So,what do you think?

Peter Panzeri is one of many who have written on the battle, drawing conclusions then proceeding to justify those conclusions. Is he correct? I doubt it based on writings by established historians who mostly disagree with Panzeri and show that Custer holds the sole blame for what happened. Don't let one book by one author make up your mind for you with a well constructed but potentially incorrect argument. As for me I think there's more than enough blame to go around for that one but the majority of it rests with Custer himself.

 

[Lincoln1976]

Peter Panzeri is one of many who have written on the battle, drawing conclusions then proceeding to justify those conclusions. Is he correct? I doubt it based on writings by established historians who mostly disagree with Panzeri and show that Custer holds the sole blame for what happened. Don't let one book by one author make up your mind for you with a well constructed but potentially incorrect argument. As for me I think there's more than enough blame to go around for that one but the majority of it rests with Custer himself.

I have to say though, that I held the (more general I guess) view on it, that it was mostly up to Custer....yet reports from Reno's conduct "mount up...dismount...remount" or his "any of you men who wish to live, make your escape - follow me!" shows a very panicked commander who did the one thing, you should not do: run away from the Indians in a wild goose chase

 

[captkaos]

I'd like to know your opinion about the battle of the greasy grass eg. Custer's last stand....I recently bought a book by Peter Panzeri (Little Big Horn 1876) and was quite intreagued by it, since it does give a very good and detailed insight into said battle.

I always knew about Major Reno's questionable command of his troops, yet the whole extend in which his incompetance (and cowardice) contributed to Custer's command's demise is quite astonishing.

Sure, one can blame Custer for hot headedly storming into the situation which than turned against him, yet it was Reno's retreat (and subsequent heavy losses) which allowed the Indians to break loose and concentrate their whole numbers on Custer...

So,what do you think?

Peter Panzeri is one of many who have written on the battle, drawing conclusions then proceeding to justify those conclusions. Is he correct? I doubt it based on writings by established historians who mostly disagree with Panzeri and show that Custer holds the sole blame for what happened. Don't let one book by one author make up your mind for you with a well constructed but potentially incorrect argument. As for me I think there's more than enough blame to go around for that one but the majority of it rests with Custer himself.

His arrogance and belief he had found a village full of women and children with a few hundred warriors was his downfall. He got cut off from Benteen and Reno by a superior force with modern firearms and paid the price. History demonizes the Indians! They were protecting their property and way of life and the US Government knowing what's best Annihilated a whole race of People for Power and Money. Think about that when you vote again!

 

[Lincoln1976]

His arrogance and belief he had found a village full of women and children with a few hundred warriors was his downfall. He got cut off from Benteen and Reno by a superior force with modern firearms and paid the price. History demonizes the Indians! They were protecting their property and way of life and the US Government knowing what's best Annihilated a whole race of People for Power and Money. Think about that when you vote again!

Hold your horses there, chief rainbow....I am not at all interested in how and hwy the conflict ensued and I certainly didn't demonize the Indians...

Custer didn't "get cut off"..he did a similar thing of what he did at the Washita raid: he split his force and commanded Reno to attack from the South while he would attack from the north, most likely to capture the fleeing non-combatants.
The question I am asking is that after looking at Reno's handling of the attack in the south with it's subsequent failure, Custer even more was doomed to fail...yes, he faced superior numbers, yet as long as the Indian forces were split, it didn't get too hot for Custer

 

[Ringel05]

Peter Panzeri is one of many who have written on the battle, drawing conclusions then proceeding to justify those conclusions. Is he correct? I doubt it based on writings by established historians who mostly disagree with Panzeri and show that Custer holds the sole blame for what happened. Don't let one book by one author make up your mind for you with a well constructed but potentially incorrect argument. As for me I think there's more than enough blame to go around for that one but the majority of it rests with Custer himself.

I have to say though, that I held the (more general I guess) view on it, that it was mostly up to Custer....yet reports from Reno's conduct "mount up...dismount...remount" or his "any of you men who wish to live, make your escape - follow me!" shows a very panicked commander who did the one thing, you should not do: run away from the Indians in a wild goose chase

Reno was in a tight spot, was about to be overwhelmed and recognized the danger, knew by then he was hopelessly outnumbered. If he had stood his ground he and all his men would have ended up like Custer. As it was they made it to Reno's Hill (as it is known today) and were joined by Benteen to form a defensive position against more suspected attacks. Reno did attempt to make contact with Custer but the detachment he sent to open the way was driven back by superior odds and superior firepower. Custer also decided not to wait for oncoming reinforcements as he wanted all the glory for himself.

 

[Ringel05]

His arrogance and belief he had found a village full of women and children with a few hundred warriors was his downfall. He got cut off from Benteen and Reno by a superior force with modern firearms and paid the price. History demonizes the Indians! They were protecting their property and way of life and the US Government knowing what's best Annihilated a whole race of People for Power and Money. Think about that when you vote again!

Hold your horses there, chief rainbow....I am not at all interested in how and hwy the conflict ensued and I certainly didn't demonize the Indians...

Custer didn't "get cut off"..he did a similar thing of what he did at the Washita raid: he split his force and commanded Reno to attack from the South while he would attack from the north, most likely to capture the fleeing non-combatants.
The question I am asking is that after looking at Reno's handling of the attack in the south with it's subsequent failure, Custer even more was doomed to fail...yes, he faced superior numbers, yet as long as the Indian forces were split, it didn't get too hot for Custer

It wouldn't have mattered, the Indian forces still had him completely out numbered and out gunned, the only thing that would have changed is a few more Indian warriors would have died before Custer and his small force were annihilated.

 

[Lincoln1976]

Reno was in a tight spot, was about to be overwhelmed and recognized the danger, knew by then he was hopelessly outnumbered. If he had stood his ground he and all his men would have ended up like Custer

hmm, that point is definetly valid, yet he lost most of his men while fleeing (total of 40 if I remember correctly)...what I can't understand is that he was concerned about being outflanked...gainst flat territory with Springfield carbines? I mean the range of those weapons would have made any flanking by Indian forces impossible, given the fact that they had no cover on that side...at least that is given as reason for him to relocate into to brushworks along the river bank

"Reno did attempt to make contact with Custer but the detachment he sent..."

Panzeri states that it was Cpt. Thomas B. Wier D company commander, very loyal to Custer but under the command of Benteen, not Reno, forced the movement of his company towards Custer (being driven back at Wier point as you've stated)

1 lt Edward S. Godfrey who commanded K company under Reno protested officially the name of Reno on the Reno-Benteen monument....and that man was no fool mind you, retiring a brigadir general and winning the Medal of Honour

 

[Ringel05]

Reno was in a tight spot, was about to be overwhelmed and recognized the danger, knew by then he was hopelessly outnumbered. If he had stood his ground he and all his men would have ended up like Custer

hmm, that point is definetly valid, yet he lost most of his men while fleeing (total of 40 if I remember correctly)...what I can't understand is that he was concerned about being outflanked...gainst flat territory with Springfield carbines? I mean the range of those weapons would have made any flanking by Indian forces impossible, given the fact that they had no cover on that side...at least that is given as reason for him to relocate into to brushworks along the river bank

"Reno did attempt to make contact with Custer but the detachment he sent..."

Panzeri states that it was Cpt. Thomas B. Wier D company commander, very loyal to Custer but under the command of Benteen, not Reno, forced the movement of his company towards Custer (being driven back at Wier point as you've stated)

1 lt Edward S. Godfrey who commanded K company under Reno protested officially the name of Reno on the Reno-Benteen monument....and that man was no fool mind you, retiring a brigadir general and winning the Medal of Honour

Well we can all second guess, even the people who were there, are you aware how inaccurate eyewitness accounts can be? Very inaccurate. As for the range and power of the Springfields they were still heavily outnumbered and the Indians were defending their women and children, that's always a huge motivating factor. Reno was in an untenable position as he saw it, doesn't make him a coward or incompetent, means he assessed the situation the best he could and made a decision just like all military commanders are trained to do.
As for who and more importantly why a movement was made to make contact with Custer is actually a moot point because if a way was open we have no idea if Reno would have taken it or not.

 

[DOTR]

I'd like to know your opinion about the battle of the greasy grass eg. Custer's last stand....I recently bought a book by Peter Panzeri (Little Big Horn 1876) and was quite intreagued by it, since it does give a very good and detailed insight into said battle.

I always knew about Major Reno's questionable command of his troops, yet the whole extend in which his incompetance (and cowardice) contributed to Custer's command's demise is quite astonishing.

Sure, one can blame Custer for hot headedly storming into the situation which than turned against him, yet it was Reno's retreat (and subsequent heavy losses) which allowed the Indians to break loose and concentrate their whole numbers on Custer...

So,what do you think?

Peter Panzeri is one of many who have written on the battle, drawing conclusions then proceeding to justify those conclusions. Is he correct? I doubt it based on writings by established historians who mostly disagree with Panzeri and show that Custer holds the sole blame for what happened. Don't let one book by one author make up your mind for you with a well constructed but potentially incorrect argument. As for me I think there's more than enough blame to go around for that one but the majority of it rests with Custer himself.

His arrogance and belief he had found a village full of women and children with a few hundred warriors was his downfall. He got cut off from Benteen and Reno by a superior force with modern firearms and paid the price. History demonizes the Indians! They were protecting their property and way of life and the US Government knowing what's best Annihilated a whole race of People for Power and Money. Think about that when you vote again!

Bad old United States!

By the way the Sioux were pushed west in 1700 or so by the Iroquois who were trying to exterminate them. So the Sioux exterminated the Wicosawan and took their lands and began work on exterminating the Pawnee.
Custer used Crow Indian scouts because the Sioux had been massacring and enslaving Crow Indians for years. Over 160 Crow fought the Sioux and Cheyanne at Rosebud alongside the US Army.
The Arikara assisted Custer as well. Their nation had been brutally annihilated by the Sioux in 1862 at Star Village. The Arikara remnant fled to Fishhook Village for American protection but by the end of 1862 the Sioux had burned them out there as well.
No wonder Custer had so many willing Indian allies.

 

[harmonica]

Reno was FAR outnumbered/''surrounded'' etc - not cowardice
it was Custer's fault for splitting his command
plain and simple
the scouts told him it was a HUGE Indian camp

 

[harmonica]

His arrogance and belief he had found a village full of women and children with a few hundred warriors was his downfall. He got cut off from Benteen and Reno by a superior force with modern firearms and paid the price. History demonizes the Indians! They were protecting their property and way of life and the US Government knowing what's best Annihilated a whole race of People for Power and Money. Think about that when you vote again!

Hold your horses there, chief rainbow....I am not at all interested in how and hwy the conflict ensued and I certainly didn't demonize the Indians...

Custer didn't "get cut off"..he did a similar thing of what he did at the Washita raid: he split his force and commanded Reno to attack from the South while he would attack from the north, most likely to capture the fleeing non-combatants.
The question I am asking is that after looking at Reno's handling of the attack in the south with it's subsequent failure, Custer even more was doomed to fail...yes, he faced superior numbers, yet as long as the Indian forces were split, it didn't get too hot for Custer

.....also, the horses and men were tired.....the original plan was to attack in the morning after resting the troops
...but, some Indians were trying to loot a dropped box of rations but hightailed it when the troopers saw them...so Custer thought surprise had been lost
..his scouts said it was a HUGE village
...just so happens I've been researching/etc the Custer battle about 2 weeks ago---again

 

[Camp]

Reno was in a tight spot, was about to be overwhelmed and recognized the danger, knew by then he was hopelessly outnumbered. If he had stood his ground he and all his men would have ended up like Custer

hmm, that point is definetly valid, yet he lost most of his men while fleeing (total of 40 if I remember correctly)...what I can't understand is that he was concerned about being outflanked...gainst flat territory with Springfield carbines? I mean the range of those weapons would have made any flanking by Indian forces impossible, given the fact that they had no cover on that side...at least that is given as reason for him to relocate into to brushworks along the river bank

"Reno did attempt to make contact with Custer but the detachment he sent..."

Panzeri states that it was Cpt. Thomas B. Wier D company commander, very loyal to Custer but under the command of Benteen, not Reno, forced the movement of his company towards Custer (being driven back at Wier point as you've stated)

1 lt Edward S. Godfrey who commanded K company under Reno protested officially the name of Reno on the Reno-Benteen monument....and that man was no fool mind you, retiring a brigadir general and winning the Medal of Honour

The battlefield was not flat. The area is comprised of steep grass-covered hills. When US Troops arrived and found the bodies, they marked the places where they found them and they are still marked today. It's very obvious that Custer was attempting to get to the top of Last Stand Hill, the top of the hill. They never got there. Sioux and Cheyenne got there first.

 

[harmonica]

Reno was in a tight spot, was about to be overwhelmed and recognized the danger, knew by then he was hopelessly outnumbered. If he had stood his ground he and all his men would have ended up like Custer

hmm, that point is definetly valid, yet he lost most of his men while fleeing (total of 40 if I remember correctly)...what I can't understand is that he was concerned about being outflanked...gainst flat territory with Springfield carbines? I mean the range of those weapons would have made any flanking by Indian forces impossible, given the fact that they had no cover on that side...at least that is given as reason for him to relocate into to brushworks along the river bank

"Reno did attempt to make contact with Custer but the detachment he sent..."

Panzeri states that it was Cpt. Thomas B. Wier D company commander, very loyal to Custer but under the command of Benteen, not Reno, forced the movement of his company towards Custer (being driven back at Wier point as you've stated)

1 lt Edward S. Godfrey who commanded K company under Reno protested officially the name of Reno on the Reno-Benteen monument....and that man was no fool mind you, retiring a brigadir general and winning the Medal of Honour

The battlefield was not flat. The area is comprised of steep grass-covered hills. When US Troops arrived and found the bodies, they marked the places where they found them and they are still marked today. It's very obvious that Custer was attempting to get to the top of Last Stand Hill, the top of the hill. They never got there. Sioux and Cheyenne got there first.

..also an advantage for the NAs
...think of it in realistic terms---they want to get to the top of the hill--some make it -- some don't ......some are injured and left behind ......

 

[Lincoln1976]

Bad old United States!

By the way the Sioux were pushed west in 1700 or so by the Iroquois who were trying to exterminate them. So the Sioux exterminated the Wicosawan and took their lands and began work on exterminating the Pawnee.
Custer used Crow Indian scouts because the Sioux had been massacring and enslaving Crow Indians for years. Over 160 Crow fought the Sioux and Cheyanne at Rosebud alongside the US Army.
The Arikara assisted Custer as well. Their nation had been brutally annihilated by the Sioux in 1862 at Star Village. The Arikara remnant fled to Fishhook Village for American protection but by the end of 1862 the Sioux had burned them out there as well.
No wonder Custer had so many willing Indian allies.

yeah,that is the aspect, people nowadays are completely ignorant about...the Sioux came from Canada (Yukon territory) so..were they invaders?
it's all a big fucking feel good bullshit lie about the "noble Indian"...stone age warrior societies tend to be bad neighbors and the raiding on white settlers was a real thing back than...

 

[Lincoln1976]

Well we can all second guess, even the people who were there, are you aware how inaccurate eyewitness accounts can be? Very inaccurate. As for the range and power of the Springfields they were still heavily outnumbered and the Indians were defending their women and children, that's always a huge motivating factor. Reno was in an untenable position as he saw it, doesn't make him a coward or incompetent, means he assessed the situation the best he could and made a decision just like all military commanders are trained to do.
As for who and more importantly why a movement was made to make contact with Custer is actually a moot point because if a way was open we have no idea if Reno would have taken it or not.

in a sense, that's what makes it so interesting...I like to shy away from the "Custer wanted all the glory" kinda thing as much as I woudln't condem Reno perse as a coward...
Reno was no Indian fighter, but certainly a very brave civil war officer, yet in a sense it makes him incompetent
Custer was certainly in a tight spot politically, needing to get a good outcome of the campaign...he was only re-instated by Grant because Sheridan demanded it...so a glorious campaign would have secured his stay in the army

EVERY officer in a comand position was either in allegiance with custer or hated his guts...very interesting way of going into battle

"they were still heavily outnumbered" look at the numbers of Reno's and Benteen combined command: they're not that high, are they? specially with Reno loosing half of his men....yet, they held out for a whole day and a night with the Indians giving up finally...if the numbers factor would have been that heavily counting, they should have been wiped out just like Custer

 

[Camp]

Reno was in a tight spot, was about to be overwhelmed and recognized the danger, knew by then he was hopelessly outnumbered. If he had stood his ground he and all his men would have ended up like Custer

hmm, that point is definetly valid, yet he lost most of his men while fleeing (total of 40 if I remember correctly)...what I can't understand is that he was concerned about being outflanked...gainst flat territory with Springfield carbines? I mean the range of those weapons would have made any flanking by Indian forces impossible, given the fact that they had no cover on that side...at least that is given as reason for him to relocate into to brushworks along the river bank

"Reno did attempt to make contact with Custer but the detachment he sent..."

Panzeri states that it was Cpt. Thomas B. Wier D company commander, very loyal to Custer but under the command of Benteen, not Reno, forced the movement of his company towards Custer (being driven back at Wier point as you've stated)

1 lt Edward S. Godfrey who commanded K company under Reno protested officially the name of Reno on the Reno-Benteen monument....and that man was no fool mind you, retiring a brigadir general and winning the Medal of Honour

The battlefield was not flat. The area is comprised of steep grass-covered hills. When US Troops arrived and found the bodies, they marked the places where they found them and they are still marked today. It's very obvious that Custer was attempting to get to the top of Last Stand Hill, the top of the hill. They never got there. Sioux and Cheyenne got there first.

..also an advantage for the NAs
...think of it in realistic terms---they want to get to the top of the hill--some make it -- some don't ......some are injured and left behind ......

OK, those markers I mentioned showing Custer's obvious attempt, they begin at the river and make a straight path up the hill, appearing as if soldiers were going down randomly as they went up the hill. Then, a short distance from the summit, the bulk of the body markers are found. So, the actual last stand was made just below the summit of the Last Stand Hill.

 

[harmonica]

Well we can all second guess, even the people who were there, are you aware how inaccurate eyewitness accounts can be? Very inaccurate. As for the range and power of the Springfields they were still heavily outnumbered and the Indians were defending their women and children, that's always a huge motivating factor. Reno was in an untenable position as he saw it, doesn't make him a coward or incompetent, means he assessed the situation the best he could and made a decision just like all military commanders are trained to do.
As for who and more importantly why a movement was made to make contact with Custer is actually a moot point because if a way was open we have no idea if Reno would have taken it or not.

in a sense, that's what makes it so interesting...I like to shy away from the "Custer wanted all the glory" kinda thing as much as I woudln't condem Reno perse as a coward...
Reno was no Indian fighter, but certainly a very brave civil war officer, yet in a sense it makes him incompetent
Custer was certainly in a tight spot politically, needing to get a good outcome of the campaign...he was only re-instated by Grant because Sheridan demanded it...so a glorious campaign would have secured his stay in the army

EVERY officer in a comand position was either in allegiance with custer or hated his guts...very interesting way of going into battle

"they were still heavily outnumbered" look at the numbers of Reno's and Benteen combined command: they're not that high, are they? specially with Reno loosing half of his men....yet, they held out for a whole day and a night with the Indians giving up finally...if the numbers factor would have been that heavily counting, they should have been wiped out just like Custer

....didn't they concentrate on Custer--giving Reno and Benteen time to dig fighting holes and get positioned? a good defensive perimeter
...whereas Custer did not have time to make a fighting position/dig in/etc
...the NAs had the advantage against Custer because it was a '''rout''/retreat

 

[Lincoln1976]

.....also, the horses and men were tired.....the original plan was to attack in the morning after resting the troops

As far as I know, Custer was spottet by hostile Indian scouts...you are right that they needed a rest, yet as far as Sheridan and Custer were concerned, the main problem for them would be denial by the Indian to give battle....just remember how badly the strafing campaign went, when they amassed 6000 infantry the following fall/winter...the Indian just melted into the landscape and Sheridan had to return to base when supplies ran low...the NAs knew that the US army couldn't stay in the field forever and Mules, vital for equippment tansport, can't eat prairie grass...they feed on grain alone and that puts a limit on how long you stay in the field.

It is understandable that Custer wanted to strike as swift as possible..yet he certainly didn't know about the village size until the very last approach

 

[Pilot1]

It would have been nice if Custer had taken the Gatling Guns like he was supposed to. Idiot.