Custer's last stand

[harmonica]

How would a commander hold troops in reserve or have a plan for attacking two or more fronts if he does not split his forces? How could a flanking movement be conducted without splitting forces?

....flanking movements usually involve one unit '''holding'' the enemy, keeping the enemy down--in place while the other unit flanks
...also---the NA village was too large to flank!! = if Custer was thinking straight and LISTENING to his scouts, he would've known this
too many warriors to flank them
hahahhahahahahhahahahahahah
Reno was flanked---- and NAs were also getting behind him

 

[Camp]

How would a commander hold troops in reserve or have a plan for attacking two or more fronts if he does not split his forces? How could a flanking movement be conducted without splitting forces?

....flanking movements usually involve one unit '''holding'' the enemy, keeping the enemy down--in place while the other unit flanks
...also---the NA village was too large to flank!! = if Custer was thinking straight and LISTENING to his scouts, he would've known this
too many warriors to flank them
hahahhahahahahhahahahahahah
Reno was flanked---- and NAs were also getting behind him

Which means a commander would have to split his overall command for sending a portion of it for flanking or opening a second or third, etc, independent attack(s).

 

[harmonica]

How would a commander hold troops in reserve or have a plan for attacking two or more fronts if he does not split his forces? How could a flanking movement be conducted without splitting forces?

....flanking movements usually involve one unit '''holding'' the enemy, keeping the enemy down--in place while the other unit flanks
...also---the NA village was too large to flank!! = if Custer was thinking straight and LISTENING to his scouts, he would've known this
too many warriors to flank them
hahahhahahahahhahahahahahah
Reno was flanked---- and NAs were also getting behind him

Which means a commander would have to split his overall command for sending a portion of it for flanking or opening a second or third, etc, independent attack(s).

....you usually can't flank an enemy that is larger than you and one that is highly MOBILE
...in other words, if you are in command you can't be a dumbass

...AND for mikegriffith = the other HUGE difference between Washita and the Bighorn was at Washita the US was attacking at daybreak-when the village was sleeping....at the Bighorn, the village was wide awake----very hard to flank the highly mobile NAs

....as stated before--you usually '''fix''' the enemy so they are distracted/decoyed/can't MOVE while the other unit flanks ..if the enemy can MOVE, the flanking movement might not work
Custer did not and could not fix the NAs

 

[harmonica]

How would a commander hold troops in reserve or have a plan for attacking two or more fronts if he does not split his forces? How could a flanking movement be conducted without splitting forces?

....flanking movements usually involve one unit '''holding'' the enemy, keeping the enemy down--in place while the other unit flanks
...also---the NA village was too large to flank!! = if Custer was thinking straight and LISTENING to his scouts, he would've known this
too many warriors to flank them
hahahhahahahahhahahahahahah
Reno was flanked---- and NAs were also getting behind him

Which means a commander would have to split his overall command for sending a portion of it for flanking or opening a second or third, etc, independent attack(s).

....another military ''axiom'' is to react/act on what the enemy's capabilities are--NOT what you THINK they will do..perfect examples are the US at Pearl Harbor and the Japanese at Midway
..seems like Custer had victory disease from the pathetically easy '''victory'' at Washita
..he THINKS he can get NA hostages/''win''' at the Bighorn----but the enemy's capabilities are too great --obviously as the history shows

Victory disease occurs in military history when complacency or arrogance, brought on by a victory or a series of victories, makes an engagement end disastrously for a commander and his forces. A commander may disdain the enemy, and believe his own invincibility, leading his troops to disaster.

 

[Lincoln1976]

....you usually can't flank an enemy that is larger than you and one that is highly MOBILE
...in other words, if you are in command you can't be a dumbass

Absolutely correct! and that was the reason, Crazy Horse was able to turn Custer's strategy against him! There is no denying that....further, one has to acknowlege that Custer's Indian fighting experience was mostly comprised of his Washita raid, so a totally different case, yet he thought he could repeat that at the Little Big Horn

 

[Street Juice]

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.

You are right about the Sioux depredations against their neighbors--equal to anything one can find in Deuteronomy in terms of genocidal brutality. A young Sioux male was expected to kill a Pawnee, for example, as part of his passage into adulthood.

 

[harmonica]

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.

You are right about the Sioux depredations against their neighbors--equal to anything one can find in Deuteronomy in terms of genocidal brutality. A young Sioux male was expected to kill a Pawnee, for example, as part of his passage into adulthood.

yes
....the NAs TORTURED their captives--even the children participated --it was their culture --not policy

 

[Lincoln1976]

yes
....the NAs TORTURED their captives--even the children participated --it was their culture --not policy

careful...culture is and can't be a universal out of jail card...after all: it was the slave keeper culture which rightfully enflamed the nation....it was a cultural trait in India to burn the widows of a man on his funeral pyre...lot's of cultural characteristics have led to (rightfully) fought conflict and we wouldn't be, where we are as human and humane societies (the western world that is) if we hadn't fought those, who practice barbarism and savagery

The Nort American Indian is no exception...they were at stone age level and I don't say they were all monsters, but a lot of their customs would not allow to live as neighbors with them

 

[harmonica]

yes
....the NAs TORTURED their captives--even the children participated --it was their culture --not policy

careful...culture is and can't be a universal out of jail card...after all: it was the slave keeper culture which rightfully enflamed the nation....it was a cultural trait in India to burn the widows of a man on his funeral pyre...lot's of cultural characteristics have led to (rightfully) fought conflict and we wouldn't be, where we are as human and humane societies (the western world that is) if we hadn't fought those, who practice barbarism and savagery

The Nort American Indian is no exception...they were at stone age level and I don't say they were all monsters, but a lot of their customs would not allow to live as neighbors with them

fact ---NAs tortured their captives

 

[Lincoln1976]

fact ---NAs tortured their captives

yes, they did and I didn't dispute that....I was just a bit worried about your "it was their culture" remark..it sounded apologetic

 

[harmonica]

fact ---NAs tortured their captives

yes, they did and I didn't dispute that....I was just a bit worried about your "it was their culture" remark..it sounded apologetic

..they were no different from the whites when it came to genocide/displacing/decimating/etc
..'''amazing'' [ not ] a lot of people think they all gave out corn and flowers

 

[Lincoln1976]

..they were no different from the whites when it came to genocide/displacing/decimating/etc
..'''amazing'' [ not ] a lot of people think they all gave out corn and flowers

see? that's what I meant..if genocide would have been fully permitted by the government....how come we still have Indians around?
You can claim that there was a lot of bad blood and the reason is quite clear..attrocities were comitted by both sides, yet the US as any western nation, had certain humanitarian standards..WE are build on that...we are where we are because of them...simple as...
Yes, there was a lot of neglect towards the Indians, but just remember, that it was Custer's defeat which turned popular opinion at the East coast against the Indians..and we tend to forget that, that a lot of people were quite symphatetic with the cause of NAs.
The biggest problem for white settlment was the culture they faced...it wasn't called horse warrior culture for no reason...raiding was part of their normal behavior..the term "Indian summer" has nothing romantic in it back than..it was the anticipation of late summer Indian raids on settlements which really increased as a last chance opportunity to stock up on everything they need for the winter.

Hell, Indian societies were the only ones, which could practice polygamy whitout the bad side effects it normally has..because of the high death rate among men and that was a fact long before the first whites showed up...

The saying:" you live by the sword, you die by the sword" sums it up quite well

 

[Street Juice]

yes
....the NAs TORTURED their captives--even the children participated --it was their culture --not policy

careful...culture is and can't be a universal out of jail card...after all: it was the slave keeper culture which rightfully enflamed the nation....it was a cultural trait in India to burn the widows of a man on his funeral pyre...lot's of cultural characteristics have led to (rightfully) fought conflict and we wouldn't be, where we are as human and humane societies (the western world that is) if we hadn't fought those, who practice barbarism and savagery

The Nort American Indian is no exception...they were at stone age level and I don't say they were all monsters, but a lot of their customs would not allow to live as neighbors with them

fact ---NAs tortured their captives

The torture would sometimes last for days.

 

[mikegriffith1]

yes
....the NAs TORTURED their captives--even the children participated --it was their culture --not policy

careful...culture is and can't be a universal out of jail card...after all: it was the slave keeper culture which rightfully enflamed the nation....it was a cultural trait in India to burn the widows of a man on his funeral pyre...lot's of cultural characteristics have led to (rightfully) fought conflict and we wouldn't be, where we are as human and humane societies (the western world that is) if we hadn't fought those, who practice barbarism and savagery

The Nort American Indian is no exception...they were at stone age level and I don't say they were all monsters, but a lot of their customs would not allow to live as neighbors with them

fact ---NAs tortured their captives

The torture would sometimes last for days.

There is something to be said for this argument. Although most of our textbooks portray the American Indians as innocent victims of the brutal side of Manifest Destiny, they were far from innocent in many cases. This is not to deny that our conduct toward them was sometimes disgraceful and cruel. However, there is more to the story than just the big stains on our side of the ledger.

One problem was that the Indians would claim enormous tracts of land as "theirs," even though they only inhabited a fraction of the land. We would look at maps and say, "Uh, you can't claim this massive area as 'yours' when you only live on 2% of it. You can still hunt while also allowing whites to settle in the area. You don't need hundreds of square miles just for hunting."

Also, in some cases, Indian leaders who signed agreements with us did not/could not prevent some hotheads from their ranks from attacking white settlements. We would complain, and the leaders would say, usually in all honesty, that they were not aware of the attack and did not authorize it. So what were we supposed to do?

Again, this is not to excuse our sins. We should and could have handled things differently in some cases. Sometimes our military response was disproportionately harsh and violent. Sometimes we broke our word when there was huge profit to be made by doing so. But the Indians were not blameless, either.

 

[Lincoln1976]

There is something to be said for this argument. Although most of our textbooks portray the American Indians as innocent victims of the brutal side of Manifest Destiny, they were far from innocent in many cases. This is not to deny that our conduct toward them was sometimes disgraceful and cruel. However, there is more to the story than just the big stains on our side of the ledger.

One problem was that the Indians would claim enormous tracts of land as "theirs," even though they only inhabited a fraction of the land. We would look at maps and say, "Uh, you can't claim this massive area as 'yours' when you only live on 2% of it. You can still hunt while also allowing whites to settle in the area. You don't need hundreds of square miles just for hunting."

Also, in some cases, Indian leaders who signed agreements with us did not/could not prevent some hotheads from their ranks from attacking white settlements. We would complain, and the leaders would say, usually in all honesty, that they were not aware of the attack and did not authorize it. So what were we supposed to do?

Again, this is not to excuse our sins. We should and could have handled things differently in some cases. Sometimes our military response was disproportionately harsh and violent. Sometimes we broke our word when there was huge profit to be made by doing so. But the Indians were not blameless, either.

Ah, thet treaties...yup, the fact that every tribe was splintered into lots of factions where the warrior societies, lead by powerful warriors like Tall Bull had the say...civilian council chiefs had far less importance..how the fuck do you make treaties with 10,20 or more factions of one tribe that actually last?

Most of the friction between the prarie Indians and the US came after all from settlers CROSSING from the east coast to California...a simple matter of trespassing...and the unreliability of Indian treaties in regard to trail safety must have made a lasting impression.

As I've stated: when someone regards something as yours only for as long as you can defend it, you will have problems from start to finish

 

[mikegriffith1]

There is something to be said for this argument. Although most of our textbooks portray the American Indians as innocent victims of the brutal side of Manifest Destiny, they were far from innocent in many cases. This is not to deny that our conduct toward them was sometimes disgraceful and cruel. However, there is more to the story than just the big stains on our side of the ledger.

One problem was that the Indians would claim enormous tracts of land as "theirs," even though they only inhabited a fraction of the land. We would look at maps and say, "Uh, you can't claim this massive area as 'yours' when you only live on 2% of it. You can still hunt while also allowing whites to settle in the area. You don't need hundreds of square miles just for hunting."

Also, in some cases, Indian leaders who signed agreements with us did not/could not prevent some hotheads from their ranks from attacking white settlements. We would complain, and the leaders would say, usually in all honesty, that they were not aware of the attack and did not authorize it. So what were we supposed to do?

Again, this is not to excuse our sins. We should and could have handled things differently in some cases. Sometimes our military response was disproportionately harsh and violent. Sometimes we broke our word when there was huge profit to be made by doing so. But the Indians were not blameless, either.

Ah, thet treaties...yup, the fact that every tribe was splintered into lots of factions where the warrior societies, lead by powerful warriors like Tall Bull had the say...civilian council chiefs had far less importance..how do you make treaties with 10,20 or more factions of one tribe that actually last?

Most of the friction between the prarie Indians and the US came after all from settlers CROSSING from the east coast to California...a simple matter of trespassing...and the unreliability of Indian treaties in regard to trail safety must have made a lasting impression.

As I've stated: when someone regards something as yours only for as long as you can defend it, you will have problems from start to finish

Yes, and there is also the fact (rarely mentioned in our textbooks) that some Indian tribes did not mind U.S. rule and sided with the U.S. Army against the most vicious tribes, such as the Sioux, because they had been brutalized by those vicious tribes for decades.

 

[eagle1462010]

yes
....the NAs TORTURED their captives--even the children participated --it was their culture --not policy

careful...culture is and can't be a universal out of jail card...after all: it was the slave keeper culture which rightfully enflamed the nation....it was a cultural trait in India to burn the widows of a man on his funeral pyre...lot's of cultural characteristics have led to (rightfully) fought conflict and we wouldn't be, where we are as human and humane societies (the western world that is) if we hadn't fought those, who practice barbarism and savagery

The Nort American Indian is no exception...they were at stone age level and I don't say they were all monsters, but a lot of their customs would not allow to live as neighbors with them

fact ---NAs tortured their captives

The torture would sometimes last for days.

There is something to be said for this argument. Although most of our textbooks portray the American Indians as innocent victims of the brutal side of Manifest Destiny, they were far from innocent in many cases. This is not to deny that our conduct toward them was sometimes disgraceful and cruel. However, there is more to the story than just the big stains on our side of the ledger.

One problem was that the Indians would claim enormous tracts of land as "theirs," even though they only inhabited a fraction of the land. We would look at maps and say, "Uh, you can't claim this massive area as 'yours' when you only live on 2% of it. You can still hunt while also allowing whites to settle in the area. You don't need hundreds of square miles just for hunting."

Also, in some cases, Indian leaders who signed agreements with us did not/could not prevent some hotheads from their ranks from attacking white settlements. We would complain, and the leaders would say, usually in all honesty, that they were not aware of the attack and did not authorize it. So what were we supposed to do?

Again, this is not to excuse our sins. We should and could have handled things differently in some cases. Sometimes our military response was disproportionately harsh and violent. Sometimes we broke our word when there was huge profit to be made by doing so. But the Indians were not blameless, either.

Manifest Destiny is kinda routine in all growing countries and civilizations. A conquest for more land, resources and power. We took the United States by force from the Indians, the French, and the Mexicans. We did it by whooping their butts. Just as they took regions by force before that. The Indians fought and destroyed each other for land and power before we were ever here, and in some cases wiped out whole tribes in the process. Same as Mexico took the land by force as well. Those with the biggest guns and best armies got the land.

I stay with my earlier arguments that Custer was arrogant, violated orders by not waiting on reinforcements, and completely underestimated the ability of the Indians........especially Crazy Horse.....that led to his massacre.

In regards to Reno.............it has always been the common practice of the military to try and blame someone else for a military failure and disaster. To safe face they will FRAG anyone to say the strategy was sound. It wasn't. To split forces when greatly outnumbered was a serious tactical error. To blame Reno for not coming to die with him is just as stupid. Reno was pinned down and trapped. Had he somehow made it to Custer............well he'd be just as dead as Custer.

 

[whitehall]

Pop movies have mostly depicted General Custer as a deranged little egomaniac but in reality he was probably in the top ten of skilled courageous leaders on either side in the Civil War. The problem for Custer was typical of the time when American Indians were seen as ignorant savages. Custer misjudged the strategic ability of Western Indians and he was suckered into a trap and paid the price.

 

[Chillicothe]

Custer/Bighorn literature is immense.
In fact, I think there is a book on just the literature.
This relatively minor battle has been parsed, sliced, diced, and combed over ad infinitum.
It's the 'Lost Battalion' mystique writ large that captures most fans.

What I think I believe at this time (I missed the actual battle by, oh, a whole bunch of decades)...but what I think I believe is that Custer's decision to divide his command into 4 parts was rationale......the pack train was slow and would bog down the tip-of-the-spear guys; Benteen needed to go to the left to 'valley hunt' to ensure there weren't signficant hostile forces (ala' Washita) to the south or Custer's rear; and sending Reno to Ford A to confront and 'fix-in-place' the hostile village was not a novel tactic; and finally, Custer taking his 5 companies to the right to find a river ford to come at the left flank of the Indians fighting Reno was also a sound tactic.

Sure there were mistakes made. Cavalry battles are fluid, dynamic, fast paced. But I believe Custer's original fear was that the huge village would be able to flee into the hills to the west ...to disappear like smoke. He needed to fix-in-place so he could bring battle to them. And if he could bag a significant number of the women and children as hostages....he would have the lot of 'em held like a hound holding the stag's nose. Fixed in place until Terry came down from the north with the infantry.

And so we are back at the fluid, dynamic, fast thingy. Once Custer diverted to the right after Reno went to cross the river.....things began to move quickly. They saw the immense size of the village from the eastern bluffs......he sent Martini back to Benteen to quit his search to the left and re-join Custer with more ammo secured from the pack train between Benteen and Custer.

And so we come to Medicine Tail Coulee and finding a suitable ford to get across the river to flank those fighting Reno. Medicine Tail wasn't it. So he assigned Keogh or Yates or Calhoun (??) to skirmish out to protect his rear and be the bridge for when Benteen came up with his companies and the extra ammo. And Custer then proceeded with some of the companies to go north looking for that suitable ford to get him across the river to either bag the fleeing women or flank Reno's opponents.

And time ticked by. Reno got flanked on his left. Retreated to the timber. Got discombobulated. Fled across the river to the hilltop. And that freed the stag from the hound at his nose. The bulk of those native forces now charged downriver to where Custer was searching for a crossing. Time ticking.

And then the worst thing happened for Custer.
Reno got between him and Benteen.
That stopped Benteen. Benteen rode into the panicked demoralized depleted Reno command. He had to stop to assess and ended up the de facto guy in charge there. That stopped the supporting force from going north to Custer.

And now Custer is north looking for a ford. Out of supporting range of those arrayed near Medicine Tail. And those guys at Medicine Tail (Keogh? etc. ) are out of supporting range of Reno/Benteen. The command now really is piecemeal. And the strategy and the tactics all go to hell. Too many angry natives for such a piecemeal command.

And a bunch of dead white guys results.

IMHO

 

[rightwinger]

Cavalry is mobile and is not supposed to get trapped
Poor planning by Custer