Was Custer a Psycho ?

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

This is an interesting film which delves into the many myths. Its not a hatchet job by any means and takes some time to discuss his finer points.

But his actions over the years led to the debacle at the Big Horn. In particular his antics at the Washita massacree some years earlier.

Ive seen more detailed accounts of the battle but this will do. He made dumb decisions and men died.


I know that he has his fans but the truth seems plain.

Custer was a megalomaniac who bit off more than he could chew.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

General George A. Custer played a significant role in the Battle of Gettysburg, particularly on East Cavalry Field. On July 3, 1863, Custer's Michigan Cavalry Brigade engaged Confederate cavalry under General J.E.B. Stuart1. This engagement prevented Stuart's forces from attacking the Union rear, which could have caused significant disruption and potentially altered the outcome of the battle.

Custer's aggressive tactics and determination were crucial in repelling Stuart's forces, contributing to the Union Army's overall success at Gettysburg. His actions helped ensure that the Union forces maintained their defensive positions and ultimately thwarted General Robert E. Lee's plans2.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

General George A. Custer played a significant role in the Battle of Gettysburg, particularly on East Cavalry Field. On July 3, 1863, Custer's Michigan Cavalry Brigade engaged Confederate cavalry under General J.E.B. Stuart1. This engagement prevented Stuart's forces from attacking the Union rear, which could have caused significant disruption and potentially altered the outcome of the battle.

Custer's aggressive tactics and determination were crucial in repelling Stuart's forces, contributing to the Union Army's overall success at Gettysburg. His actions helped ensure that the Union forces maintained their defensive positions and ultimately thwarted General Robert E. Lee's plans2.

I dont doubt his courage. His judgement was suspect tthough.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

Oh, boy. This is severe distortion. You might read T. J. Stiles' Pulitzer Prize-winning book Custer's Trials.


His commanding officers disagreed with you. They viewed him as one of the best cavalry officers in the U.S. Army. He arguably saved the Union cause at the Battle of Gettysburg by preventing Stuart's cavalry force from getting into Meade's rear. General Sheridan personally lobbied to get Custer included in the 1876 movement against the Sioux.


Uh-huh, you don't know what you're talking about. FYI, Sitting Bull did not play a leading role at the Little Big Horn battle. He was too old to fight by that time. He stayed in the village and sent his nephews off to fight. Crazy Horse, Gall, and Two Moons were the main Indian leaders during the battle.

Sitting Bull was a vicious thug who terrorized other Indian tribes.

What are your sources for your tripe? Not the PBS documentary that you cite in the OP. I'm still trying to figure out how you could watch that documentary and then spew this propaganda.

Sitting Bull was a proper General. He didnt even have to leave his tent be cause he was only dealing with a fuckwit.

 

[mikegriffith1]

Sitting Bull was a proper General. He didnt even have to leave his tent because he was only dealing with a &^%^.

I dont doubt his courage. His judgement was suspect tthough.

You haven't read enough on Custer and the Little Big Horn to have any business talking about the subject in a public forum. Your OP cites a documentary that rejects your ignorant woke view of him.

And, just FYI, not that you care about facts on this issue, but Sitting Bull had nothing to do with the tactical decisions that the Indians made. Those were made by Gall, Crazy Horse, and Two Moons.

More information for you to try to process:

"Based on his background, education, training, and the information available at the time of his attack, Lieutenant Colonel George Armstrong Custer made good decisions as he lead the 7th Cavalry in its defeat at the Little Bighorn." (Major John Neumann, The Military Decision Making Process and the Battle of the Little Bighorn, p. vi)

"Eyewitness accounts from survivors of Reno's command claim that Reno quickly lost control of the situation and ordered a mount and dismount three times in rapid succession. Had he maintained control of the situation, not dismounted, and pressed the attack into the village, Custer's later 'last stand' may never have become a reality. Even his Indian adversaries recognized the opportunity that Reno had. In 1883 a Sioux woman, disgusted by the conduct of Reno's command, said that, 'He had the camp at his mercy, and he could have killed us all or driven us away.…' Instead, he panicked and withdrew." (Major Eric Eibe, Custer Revisited, p. 10)

"While Custer may have been seeking glory, he was no fool. He was a top-notch cavalry commander, and his tactics that day were consistent with the Army doctrine of his time. . . .

"The idea that Custer was a compulsive risk-taker and poor tactician is belied by his success in the Civil War. From 1863 to 1865, he led his brigade and division in 23 cavalry engagements, many of them major battles. He won most of them decisively; and while he suffered a few reversals, he never lost in a calamitous way. . . ." (David C. Gompert and Dr. Richard L. Kugler, “Custer and Cognition,” Joint Force Quarterly issue 41, 2006, p. 89)

Historian T. J. Stiles won a Pulitzer Prize for his 2015 book Custer’s Trials: A Life on the Frontier of a New America. In many places in his book, Stiles offers sharp criticisms of Custer regarding events before the Last Stand. The fact that Stiles is so critical of Custer when he feels criticism is warranted makes his chapter on the Last Stand all the more convincing and important. Below are parts of Stiles’ analysis of Benteen’s performance during the battle and his RCOI testimony.

Benteen’s RCOI Testimony Shows He Was Bitter and Held Pervasive Disdain for Custer

Did Benteen do all he could to support Custer? Could he have saved him? Did he follow his orders? Or did his personal hatred affect his actions?

Benteen did not answer directly, but he did take the stand in the court of inquiry. His testimony established one thing for certain: it is possible to sneer continuously for days at a time. He appeared in the full flower of his petty arrogance, steeped in an embittered subordinate’s nitpicking resentfulness and a pervasive disdain for Custer. (pp. 451-452)

Benteen Lied About Custer’s Statement Regarding Indians in the Valley

On the eighteenth day of the inquiry, February 1, 1879, Lee asked Benteen to describe the orders to break the regiment into battalions. Oddly, this deceptively soft-faced man began at a point in the events just after Custer returned from the Crow’s Nest, an observation point on a peak used by the Crows in their war with the Lakotas. “General Custer told us that he had just come down from the mountain, that he had been told by the scouts that they could see a village, ponies, tepees, and smoke. He gave it to us as his belief that they were mistaken, that there were no Indians there, that he had looked through his glass and could not see any and did not see any there.”

Benteen’s recollection was wrong. Custer had difficulty spotting the Lakotas, but he believed that Indians had sharper senses and did not doubt them. Benteen’s version made no sense. Everything Custer did thereafter proved that he believed the Lakotas were in the Little Bighorn valley; nothing indicated any doubts. Eager to cast Custer as a fool, Benteen twisted his words to make him solely responsible for his own death. (p. 452)

Benteen Disobeyed Custer’s Scout Orders

This recollection set a pattern. He derided Custer’s every order, coloring each one as foolhardy, as picayune, wrongheaded interference with Benteen’s affairs. Custer reasonably asked his company commanders to be sure each had detailed seven men to escort the pack train and that each trooper carried 100 rounds of carbine ammunition; Benteen depicted it as an absurdity that he executed for “formality’s sake.”

“Describe where it was that you separated from General Custer’s column,” Lee directed Benteen. “What orders did you receive…?”

“My orders were to proceed out into a line of bluffs about 4 or 5 miles away, to pitch into anything I came across, and to send back word to General Custer at once if I came across anything.” He said further messages directed him to search beyond the first and second lines of bluffs. “I forgot to give some instructions of General Custer’s which were that I was to send an officer and about six men in advance of my battalion and to ride rapidly.” In other words, Custer wanted Benteen to send out scouts so the captain could remain in communication with him. Typically, Benteen ignored the intent of the orders and rode ahead of his own scouts. (p. 452)

Benteen Disobeyed Custer’s “Come on . . . Be Quick" Order


Resentful of any imposition, he declined to take any responsibility beyond his official sphere, despite the importance of the order. “About a mile after that I met trumpeter [John] Martin who brought a written order.…It says: ‘Benteen. Come on. Big Village. Be Quick. Bring Packs. W. W. Cooke P. bring pacs.’ ”17

It was an unequivocal, positive command to join Custer, and an insistent demand for ammunition and supplies. The order was in keeping with Custer’s tactics that day; he divided his regiment for a reconnaissance in force, apparently intending to consolidate upon contact with the enemy. But Benteen moved without urgency, and declined to hurry along the pack train. He did not go in search of Custer, though his commander’s battalion left a clear trail toward the right bank of the river, along with the main Lakota trail that Benteen himself stressed was so critically important. (p. 453)

Benteen’s Four Excuses for Not Obeying Custer’s Written Order

In the witness chair, he made contradictory excuses for his refusal to follow Custer’s clear instructions. First he said that Martin (an Italian immigrant with imperfect English) told him the Indians were “skedaddling” and there was “less necessity” to bring up the pack train—implying that the trumpeter’s personal impression outweighed an emphatic written order. Then he excused himself by saying that he saw Reno’s retreat from the river bottom. “I thought the whole command was thrashed and that was not a good place to come. I saw the men who were up on the bluff and I immediately went there and was met by Maj. Reno.” He said he showed Reno the order. “I asked him if he knew where General Custer was. He said he did not.” (p. 453)

Lee asked Benteen if he had asked Reno for permission to go in search of Custer, or to his aid. He replied with his third excuse. “Not at all. I supposed General Custer was able to take care of himself.” Then came a fourth excuse, contradicting the third. “I think now there were between 8 and 9 thousand” hostile warriors, he claimed, a number wildly beyond all other estimates. “I wish to say before that order”—the one delivered by Martin—“that I believe that General Custer and his whole command were dead.”

Putting all four excuses together, Benteen claimed that he believed that Custer was perfectly safe and that he was dead; that the Lakotas were running away and that they had smashed the regiment. He never suggested the most likely explanation: that in his petty, self-absorbed spite against his commanding officer, he seized the first available pretense to avoid helping him or the hundreds of men with him. He even derided the movement from the bluff in search of Custer, initiated by Captain Weir, as “a fit of bravado without orders”….18 (pp. 453-454)

Benteen’s Performance on Reno Hill vs. His Abandonment of Custer

It is true that Benteen effectively took command from Reno of the troops cornered on the bluff, where he displayed true bravery and a sure hand. This portrait of a cool leader in a desperate siege colored the public’s impression of his testimony. Yet it is striking that Benteen, who loathed Custer for purportedly abandoning Maj. Joel Elliott and seventeen men at the Washita, should so lightly excuse his own abandonment of ten times as many troops. (p. 454)

 

[luiza]

Custer was a megalomaniac who bit off more than he could chew.

At least he didn't have dentures like you .
But I gather you can still manage grass and hay, Horsey Horse .

 

[marvin martian]

Do you know a fucking thing about the indians? Do you have any god damn idea how brutal they were? This romanticized version you see in tv and movies didnt exist. They burned men alive, murdered babies, raped and enslaved women. Torture, lots and lots of torture, usually at the hands of the women in the tribe. They tormented their captives with glee, day and night. These were some of the worst people on Earth at that time. If you met them and they had the upper hand, you were in for a horrific end.

I dont give two shits about murder tribes. They an all die for all i care. Cannibals too. Those tribes exist in the world still today. They can all die too.

Like all colonizers, Tommy Tainant still holds on to outdated, backwards beliefs about "noble savages". He's a throwback.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

You haven't read enough on Custer and the Little Big Horn to have any business talking about the subject in a public forum. Your OP cites a documentary that rejects your ignorant woke view of him.

And, just FYI, not that you care about facts on this issue, but Sitting Bull had nothing to do with the tactical decisions that the Indians made. Those were made by Gall, Crazy Horse, and Two Moons.

More information for you to try to process:

"Based on his background, education, training, and the information available at the time of his attack, Lieutenant Colonel George Armstrong Custer made good decisions as he lead the 7th Cavalry in its defeat at the Little Bighorn." (Major John Neumann, The Military Decision Making Process and the Battle of the Little Bighorn, p. vi)

"Eyewitness accounts from survivors of Reno's command claim that Reno quickly lost control of the situation and ordered a mount and dismount three times in rapid succession. Had he maintained control of the situation, not dismounted, and pressed the attack into the village, Custer's later 'last stand' may never have become a reality. Even his Indian adversaries recognized the opportunity that Reno had. In 1883 a Sioux woman, disgusted by the conduct of Reno's command, said that, 'He had the camp at his mercy, and he could have killed us all or driven us away.…' Instead, he panicked and withdrew." (Major Eric Eibe, Custer Revisited, p. 10)

"While Custer may have been seeking glory, he was no fool. He was a top-notch cavalry commander, and his tactics that day were consistent with the Army doctrine of his time. . . .

"The idea that Custer was a compulsive risk-taker and poor tactician is belied by his success in the Civil War. From 1863 to 1865, he led his brigade and division in 23 cavalry engagements, many of them major battles. He won most of them decisively; and while he suffered a few reversals, he never lost in a calamitous way. . . ." (David C. Gompert and Dr. Richard L. Kugler, “Custer and Cognition,” Joint Force Quarterly issue 41, 2006, p. 89)

Historian T. J. Stiles won a Pulitzer Prize for his 2015 book Custer’s Trials: A Life on the Frontier of a New America. In many places in his book, Stiles offers sharp criticisms of Custer regarding events before the Last Stand. The fact that Stiles is so critical of Custer when he feels criticism is warranted makes his chapter on the Last Stand all the more convincing and important. Below are parts of Stiles’ analysis of Benteen’s performance during the battle and his RCOI testimony.

Benteen’s RCOI Testimony Shows He Was Bitter and Held Pervasive Disdain for Custer

Did Benteen do all he could to support Custer? Could he have saved him? Did he follow his orders? Or did his personal hatred affect his actions?

Benteen did not answer directly, but he did take the stand in the court of inquiry. His testimony established one thing for certain: it is possible to sneer continuously for days at a time. He appeared in the full flower of his petty arrogance, steeped in an embittered subordinate’s nitpicking resentfulness and a pervasive disdain for Custer. (pp. 451-452)

Benteen Lied About Custer’s Statement Regarding Indians in the Valley

On the eighteenth day of the inquiry, February 1, 1879, Lee asked Benteen to describe the orders to break the regiment into battalions. Oddly, this deceptively soft-faced man began at a point in the events just after Custer returned from the Crow’s Nest, an observation point on a peak used by the Crows in their war with the Lakotas. “General Custer told us that he had just come down from the mountain, that he had been told by the scouts that they could see a village, ponies, tepees, and smoke. He gave it to us as his belief that they were mistaken, that there were no Indians there, that he had looked through his glass and could not see any and did not see any there.”

Benteen’s recollection was wrong. Custer had difficulty spotting the Lakotas, but he believed that Indians had sharper senses and did not doubt them. Benteen’s version made no sense. Everything Custer did thereafter proved that he believed the Lakotas were in the Little Bighorn valley; nothing indicated any doubts. Eager to cast Custer as a fool, Benteen twisted his words to make him solely responsible for his own death. (p. 452)

Benteen Disobeyed Custer’s Scout Orders

This recollection set a pattern. He derided Custer’s every order, coloring each one as foolhardy, as picayune, wrongheaded interference with Benteen’s affairs. Custer reasonably asked his company commanders to be sure each had detailed seven men to escort the pack train and that each trooper carried 100 rounds of carbine ammunition; Benteen depicted it as an absurdity that he executed for “formality’s sake.”

“Describe where it was that you separated from General Custer’s column,” Lee directed Benteen. “What orders did you receive…?”

“My orders were to proceed out into a line of bluffs about 4 or 5 miles away, to pitch into anything I came across, and to send back word to General Custer at once if I came across anything.” He said further messages directed him to search beyond the first and second lines of bluffs. “I forgot to give some instructions of General Custer’s which were that I was to send an officer and about six men in advance of my battalion and to ride rapidly.” In other words, Custer wanted Benteen to send out scouts so the captain could remain in communication with him. Typically, Benteen ignored the intent of the orders and rode ahead of his own scouts. (p. 452)

Benteen Disobeyed Custer’s “Come on . . . Be Quick" Order


Resentful of any imposition, he declined to take any responsibility beyond his official sphere, despite the importance of the order. “About a mile after that I met trumpeter [John] Martin who brought a written order.…It says: ‘Benteen. Come on. Big Village. Be Quick. Bring Packs. W. W. Cooke P. bring pacs.’ ”17

It was an unequivocal, positive command to join Custer, and an insistent demand for ammunition and supplies. The order was in keeping with Custer’s tactics that day; he divided his regiment for a reconnaissance in force, apparently intending to consolidate upon contact with the enemy. But Benteen moved without urgency, and declined to hurry along the pack train. He did not go in search of Custer, though his commander’s battalion left a clear trail toward the right bank of the river, along with the main Lakota trail that Benteen himself stressed was so critically important. (p. 453)

Benteen’s Four Excuses for Not Obeying Custer’s Written Order

In the witness chair, he made contradictory excuses for his refusal to follow Custer’s clear instructions. First he said that Martin (an Italian immigrant with imperfect English) told him the Indians were “skedaddling” and there was “less necessity” to bring up the pack train—implying that the trumpeter’s personal impression outweighed an emphatic written order. Then he excused himself by saying that he saw Reno’s retreat from the river bottom. “I thought the whole command was thrashed and that was not a good place to come. I saw the men who were up on the bluff and I immediately went there and was met by Maj. Reno.” He said he showed Reno the order. “I asked him if he knew where General Custer was. He said he did not.” (p. 453)

Lee asked Benteen if he had asked Reno for permission to go in search of Custer, or to his aid. He replied with his third excuse. “Not at all. I supposed General Custer was able to take care of himself.” Then came a fourth excuse, contradicting the third. “I think now there were between 8 and 9 thousand” hostile warriors, he claimed, a number wildly beyond all other estimates. “I wish to say before that order”—the one delivered by Martin—“that I believe that General Custer and his whole command were dead.”

Putting all four excuses together, Benteen claimed that he believed that Custer was perfectly safe and that he was dead; that the Lakotas were running away and that they had smashed the regiment. He never suggested the most likely explanation: that in his petty, self-absorbed spite against his commanding officer, he seized the first available pretense to avoid helping him or the hundreds of men with him. He even derided the movement from the bluff in search of Custer, initiated by Captain Weir, as “a fit of bravado without orders”….18 (pp. 453-454)

Benteen’s Performance on Reno Hill vs. His Abandonment of Custer

It is true that Benteen effectively took command from Reno of the troops cornered on the bluff, where he displayed true bravery and a sure hand. This portrait of a cool leader in a desperate siege colored the public’s impression of his testimony. Yet it is striking that Benteen, who loathed Custer for purportedly abandoning Maj. Joel Elliott and seventeen men at the Washita, should so lightly excuse his own abandonment of ten times as many troops. (p. 454)

So Reno was a bad man for not massacring helpless women and children. As custer did to build his dodgy reputation.?

Bottom line is he blundered about and got his men killed. A fucking loser.

 

[whitehall]

British general Gage might have been considered a psycho for ordering the mutilation of American Revolutionary War rebels but Brits never understood the American Civil War while they engaged in the slave trade. Custer was a fearless Civil War hero who underestimated the Native American enemy at the time.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

I dont doubt his courage. His judgement was suspect tthough.

Yes, in the 1876 campaign, it was much worse than suspect.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

Little beewhywho buddy describes himself with "You haven't read enough on Custer and the Little Big Horn to have any business talking about the subject in a public forum"

 

[odanny]

I believe his Michigan cavalry regiment had one of the highest casualty rates amongst similar sized regiments in the Union army during the Civil War.

Ole "Blood and Guts" General Patton was, arguably, the boldest American general in WWII, but his troops liked to say "Our blood, his guts", which undoubtedly was also true about Custer.

 

[mikegriffith1]

Ted Behncke and Gary Bloomfield's superb 2020 hardcover book Custer: From the Civil War’s Boy General to the Battle of the Little Bighorn was published in paperback and Kindle format last year. The book's chapter on Custer's Last Stand is solid and insightful, but the book also provides a fascinating biography of Custer from childhood up to the Little Big Horn fight.

Behncke is a retired U.S. Army Lieutenant Colonel. He commanded an infantry rifle company. He was also a training instructor and has a thorough knowledge of cavalry tactics and campaigns, including those from the Civil War and the Indian Wars. He was stationed at both Fort Riley and Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, and gained hands-on knowledge of the Custer residences, and the weapons and accoutrements used by cavalry soldiers in the 1800s.

Behncke even retraced the routes of the 7th Cavalry campaign against the Plains Indians. He also led fellow officers and non-comms on tours of the Little Big Horn battlefield and discussed the movements of both opposing forces. In addition, Behncke has written numerous military papers and book reviews, including articles in the prestigious Military Review: The Professional Journal of the U.S. Army.

Gary Bloomfield is a former Army journalist and the managing editor of the VFW magazine. He was the senior editor for the two-volume illustrated series on WWII titled Faces of Victory. He has written several other books on military history.

It should come as no surprise that Behncke and Bloomfield voice a great deal of sharp criticism of Reno and Benteen's conduct during the battle, and that they contend that Custer acted competently and soundly given the information he had at the time and given his reasonable expectations about what Reno and Benteen would do in response to his orders.

The book's insights into Custer's childhood and character alone make the book a must-read for any serious student of Custer. The book's extensive chapter on the Last Stand is superb and constitutes a fine addition to the scholarly consensus about the battle.

 

[davebb]

Custer was a megalomaniac who bit off more than he could chew.

Vid not available in the US. What it be?

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

Vid not available in the US. What it be?

It be he could not figure out the lay of the land and got stomped.

 

[mikegriffith1]

So Reno was a bad man for not massacring helpless women and children.

Does being unable to understand English come with being woke? Reno has come under such heavy criticism because he disobeyed orders, then inexplicably left the timber and got 1/4 of his men killed in the process, then stalled for at least an hour on Reno Hill when he knew that Custer was fighting for his life, and then lied through his teeth at his court of inquiry.

As custer did to build his dodgy reputation.?

I'm guessing you're referring to the Battle of the Washita. Let me know when you decide to actually do some credible research on Custer. T. J. Stiles discusses the Washita battle at length in his Pulitzer Prize-winning biography Custer's Trials.

Bottom line is he blundered about and got his men killed. A $%*&%^ loser.

Bottom line is you don't know what you're talking about. Bottom line is you have no business talking about the subject. No, he did not "blunder." He used standard, accepted Indian-fighting tactics and acted soundly based on everything he knew at the time, and, as dozens of scholars have noted, the battle would have ended very differently if Reno and Benteen and followed their orders.

Again, there's a reason that the vast majority of scholars who've written about the Last Stand over the last 20 years have defended Custer and excoriated Reno and Benteen.

Do you know who General Nathan Miles was? He was another famed Indian fighter and a contemporary of Custer's. When General Miles conducted an onsite investigation of the battle and interviewed Indian and 7th Cavalry participants, he concluded that Reno and Benteen had betrayed Custer, that Custer acted competently, that Custer could have won if Reno and Benteen had followed their orders, and that Congress should hold a formal investigation into the battle.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

This argument did not work at BYU, Mike, and nor does it work here.

Yes, Custer was a colossal blunderer who ran into the Crazy Horse and Sitting Bull Invitational.

 

[mikegriffith1]

This argument did not work at BYU, Mike, and nor does it work here.

Oh, how would you know? You have no clue what you're talking about on this issue. You only know what your fellow liberals have told you about Custer and the Last Stand. Did you even watch the PBS documentary? Huh?

I recall that you were one of the ones who was repeating embarrassing, debunked North Vietnamese/Jane Fonda talking points about the Vietnam War in my thread on the war. Over and over, your only answer to the scholarly evidence that I presented was to simply dismiss it.

Yes, Custer was a colossal blunderer who ran into the Crazy Horse and Sitting Bull Invitational.

The vast majority of scholars who've written about the Last Stand in the last 20 years--actually, all but two of them--disagree with you and agree with me. What do you suppose all those scholars know that you don't?

Oh, well, you'd have to break down and do some actual research before you could answer that question. I won't even bother asking you what you've read, because I can tell you know virtually nothing about the battle. If you have not read at least one of the five most recent scholarly books on Custer and the Little Big Horn, you really have no business commenting on the subject. Those books are as follows:

Death at the Little Bighorn: A New Look at Custer, His Tactics, and the Tragic Decisions Made at the Last Stand (2021), by Phillip Thomas Tucker.

The Fights on the Little Horn: Unveiling the Mysteries of Custer's Last Stand (2017), by Gordon Harper.

Custer’s Trials: A Life on the Frontier of a New America (2016), by T. J. Stiles (the book won the Pulitzer Prize).

The Last Stand: Custer, Sitting Bull, and the Battle of the Little Bighorn (2011), by Nathan Philbrick.

A Terrible Glory: Custer and the Little Bighorn (2009), by James Donovan.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

Oh, how would you know? You have no clue what you're talking about on this issue. You only know what your fellow liberals have told you about Custer and the Last Stand. Did you even watch the PBS documentary? Huh?

I recall that you were one of the ones who was repeating embarrassing, debunked North Vietnamese/Jane Fonda talking points about the Vietnam War in my thread on the war. Over and over, your only answer to the scholarly evidence that I presented was to simply dismiss it.


The vast majority of scholars who've written about the Last Stand in the last 20 years--actually, all but two of them--disagree with you and agree with me. What do you suppose all those scholars know that you don't?

Oh, well, you'd have to break down and do some actual research before you could answer that question. I won't even bother asking you what you've read, because I can tell you know virtually nothing about the battle. If you have not read at least one of the five most recent scholarly books on Custer and the Little Big Horn, you really have no business commenting on the subject. Those books are as follows:

Death at the Little Bighorn: A New Look at Custer, His Tactics, and the Tragic Decisions Made at the Last Stand (2021), by Phillip Thomas Tucker.

The Fights on the Little Horn: Unveiling the Mysteries of Custer's Last Stand (2017), by Gordon Harper.

Custer’s Trials: A Life on the Frontier of a New America (2016), by T. J. Stiles (the book won the Pulitzer Prize).

The Last Stand: Custer, Sitting Bull, and the Battle of the Little Bighorn (2011), by Nathan Philbrick.

A Terrible Glory: Custer and the Little Bighorn (2009), by James Donovan.

Triggered you, which is my intent.

No, LTC Custer, though trapped by the strategy of the higher command, perhaps, tactically failed on the Little Big Horn.

So have you, but go for it.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

Does being unable to understand English come with being woke? Reno has come under such heavy criticism because he disobeyed orders, then inexplicably left the timber and got 1/4 of his men killed in the process, then stalled for at least an hour on Reno Hill when he knew that Custer was fighting for his life, and then lied through his teeth at his court of inquiry.


I'm guessing you're referring to the Battle of the Washita. Let me know when you decide to actually do some credible research on Custer. T. J. Stiles discusses the Washita battle at length in his Pulitzer Prize-winning biography Custer's Trials.




Bottom line is you don't know what you're talking about. Bottom line is you have no business talking about the subject. No, he did not "blunder." He used standard, accepted Indian-fighting tactics and acted soundly based on everything he knew at the time, and, as dozens of scholars have noted, the battle would have ended very differently if Reno and Benteen and followed their orders.

Again, there's a reason that the vast majority of scholars who've written about the Last Stand over the last 20 years have defended Custer and excoriated Reno and Benteen.

Do you know who General Nathan Miles was? He was another famed Indian fighter and a contemporary of Custer's. When General Miles conducted an onsite investigation of the battle and interviewed Indian and 7th Cavalry participants, he concluded that Reno and Benteen had betrayed Custer, that Custer acted competently, that Custer could have won if Reno and Benteen had followed their orders, and that Congress should hold a formal investigation into the battle.

Why would I take the word of a fanboi like you.? He disobeyed his orders looking for glory. Then split his force in 3 before knowing what he was fighting and where they were.
He dumped his gatling gun as well if I remember rightly. So what did he get right ?