I'm surprised that no one posted a thread about Custer's last stand.

Those men deserve our remembrance as well as those who died in later wars.

A terrible waste of good men.
I have walked that battlefield, at times the hair stood up on the back of my neck. If I believed in re-incarnation, I would suspect I was there.

There were at least 4 Medals of Honor awarded to the survivors of the Reno battle. Lots of scary tales from that battle.

__________________
Eccentric old coot

Custer had it coming. Insolence and egotism only go so far.

I was always taken by this quote I saw in a museum from Sitting Bull. I think it is a a good lesson on warfare and life.

Attached Images

IMG_2523.jpg (64.5 KB, 279 views)

__________________
Possum—The other white meat!

Reports from burial details made up of Gen Terry's men would tend to indicate that Sittin' Bull was full of bull.

Mutilation of Custer and his men was withheld to protect the widows, Libby Custer in particular.

__________________
Eccentric old coot

Custer finally caught the enemy after chasing them for ten years and they always ran away before. Battle of Rosebud just previous a few days before and fought to a standstill caused the opposing force to think the army was re-supplied to continue the attack.
No doubt there were some brave men who fought to the end.
Seems like lack of of communication was a partial factor, either intentionally or disregarded.

I'm thinking mainly of the men who had to follow his orders.

That is the sad part of the story.

__________________
Mike
S&WCA #3065

Real men are far and few between these days. He was also a civil war hero. What's your pedigree?

An interesting side note was the complete massacre of a detail sent to find Custer a week or 2 before. A young lieutenant and a detail of men were sent out to locate Custer at his assigned position and give him orders. When the company arrived, Custer had already left and on the return trip the soldiers were killed to the man in Kansas. It is called the Kidder Massacre in honor of the lieutenant Lyman Kidder who was leading the party of soldiers.

Umm.... that actually happened in 1867, nine years earlier .

On a side note, I think the term "massacre" is used much too inflationary whenever a battle (or in case of the LBH, part of a battle) ended with no survivors.

All those battles of the Indian wars, be it the "Grattan Massacre" of 1854, the "Fetterman Massacre" of 1866, or the "Custer Massacre", involved well-armed units who, usually through poor decision-making and other circumstances, found themselves in a situation without support and were wiped out when unit cohesion, vital for survival in the age of the single-shot weapon, collapsed.

But these were still battles, fights between armed men, not true massacres, like the Whitman massacre of 1847, where the Cayuse killed a group of missionaries, or the Sand Creek massacre of 1864, where the Colorado militia wiped out a Cheyenne village.

You are correct about the date. It has been years since I read the book. I am at point in my life when I can clearly remember something whether it really happened or not. I read too much and retain little. And a note on the Sand Creek massacre, there were survivors including Black Kettle.

You're right. That just came to mind as an example, just like Whitman, for a more appropriate occasion to use the term "massacre", as those both involved the intentional killing of unarmed non-combatants.

Since we are talking Indian battles, there is one that few have ever heard about. It is the Milk Creek fight in northern Colorado. Answering a call for help from Nathan Meeker, troops were summoned from fort Steele in Wyoming. About 10 miles before they got to Meeker, the Utes ambushed the troop. The Utes were above the surrounded trooper who were caught out in the open. The Utes were pouring fire down upon the troopers who lay behind their dead mounts. Unable to get water in the hot sun, the battle lasted several days IIRC. At night volunteers were sent out for help. I think every movie about the Calvary being pinned down and no help coming was written about this fight that few have ever heard of. When relief arrived the dead were buried and the troop left. The land is private and the soldiers are still buried there. All attempts to relocate them have failed as the land owner thinks they are just fine where they lay. Now take the facts with some skepticism as it have been years since I read about this battle as well.

Custer may well have had it coming. I don't have much sympathy for him The troopers under his command had little choice in the matter.

If any of you are ever here in Bismarck, ND., take a few hours to visit restored Fort Abraham Lincoln on the banks of the Missouri River . The 7th Cavalry departed this fort on its ill-fated journey to the Powder River, to the west, in SE Montana. The Park Service and various Historical Societies, as Well as the local Sioux and Mandan Native American communities have done a fantastic job of restoration of the fort and grounds, and provide guided tours, museums, fully restored George and Libby Custer residence, the restored native ( and friendly to the "white-man") Mandan Slope Indian village and much more. All very well worth your time. And if you are a real history buff, you can travel about 370 history-filled miles out west to the actual battle field, which is also a very well done restoration and historical visit

__________________
John

Quite interesting, yesterday, June 25 was also a Sunday !
Regards, Ray

Negitivity..........and ZERO added value.

Custer's men were exhausted, horses were hungry and staggering. Custer was desperate to redeem his reputation. He made some real blunders on the Greasy Grass that day.


Libby spent the rest of her life trying to make a hero out of him.

__________________
Eccentric old coot

Poor LTC Custer. I can't think of a single American serviceman killed in action who is so regularly belittled (often by those who have never worn their country's uniform).

__________________
“What you got, ain’t new.”

I had a highly probable Custer unit Springfield carbine in for appraisal last year. Frankly handling it somewhat gave me the creeps. I was actually relieved to return it to its owner and get it out of my place.
Jim

When I want to remember those who gave, I think about Iwo Jima, 7000 Marines dead and thousands crippled. Thousands of children left fatherless. Thousands of wives left to raise children by themselves. Blood all over the place.

There is an old German saying, "Viel Feind', viel Ehr'", meaning "lots of enemies, lots of honor".

We Americans are a bit peculiar about "heroic" military leaders: we love to worship them, but on the other hand we also have a thing for revisionist versions of history that tear them down.

In Custer, these two tendencies slammed into each other with a vengeance.

Take the spectacular nature of the event itself, a routine round-up of some wayward tribes for return to the rez turning into a most humiliating disaster. Now on one side there is Libby Custer, devoting her quite lengthy remaining lifetime (she died in 1933) to defending and polishing her dear husband's heroic image. On the other side there are, starting immediately after the battle, many officers and politicians who need explanations and a scapegoat, preferably a dead one. Very public events such as the trial of Major Reno in 1879 did their part.

Add to that the fact that for over a century after the battle, nobody knew what really happened with the Custer battalion in the final hours. As we all know, we absolutely love historical mysteries; just mention JFK. Basically, historians and an enormous number of amateur "historians" produced 120 years of books and articles, reinforced by Hollywood, that created a largely distorted public image of the fight, because the evidence wasn't available.

Since the comprehensive archaeological excavations after the fires in the 1980s, a lot has changed. You'll have to read up on this yourself.

The picture of Custer's likely decision-making that emerges is quite complex. Mistakes were made, opportunities were missed, and not just by Custer. But as events unfolded, generic vilifications of Custer are unhistoric and pointless.

Everyone is down on Custer. He only made one small tactical error.

__________________
CSM, U S Army(Ret) 1963-1990

The studies after the fire were fascinating, and illuminating.

Paths of the various troopers and Indians indicated by cartridge cases tell quite a tale. Carbines dropped by fallen troopers early in the fight, picked up by warriors and used against the troops on the hill are interesting. The number of rounds fired by the Indians and the troopers also very telling about the single shot Trapdoors carried by the trooper vs the Henry repeaters used by the Indians.

__________________
Eccentric old coot

Are you talking about the grass fire in 1983? It revealed many artifact trails and I think the remains of two troopers that they had no idea of their final resting spot.

Artifact trails indicate that what the Indians said happened was probably what happened.

Randy

PS. Never mentioned is what the Indian dead toll was.....

A terrible waste of badly lead, poorly trained, indifferently supplied and equipped men.

He's belittled for the same reasons that people in the know belittle the Japanese at Nomonhan and on New Guinea.

If you fight with such little regard for the essential elements of enemy information, crushing defeat is usually the result. Supreme arrogance only drives in the final nail.

So, does anyone KNOW the Indian dead total? I'm sure it was nowhere near what the Zulus lost at Rorke's Drift.

Prior to attacking Rorke's Drift, the Zulu had wiped out over 1,000 British troops at Isandhlwana in a debacle that begs comparison to the Custer disaster.

The absence of any European-style concept of record-keeping on the part of the Indians makes that impossible. In addition, the various tribal groups camped together in the valley of the LBH had only joined temporarily, small groups were constantly coming and going, and no "chief" probably had any idea who all actually was present when Custer showed up.

The general consensus is that Indian casualty numbers were likely quite low, based on Indian testimony and comparable battles. Due to the individualistic tactics of the Plains warriors (basically, forget the photogenic horseback mass charges invented by Hollywood), fatalities in Indian battles generally were low by 19th century standards unless one side disintegrated and was annihilated.

For example, General Crook's fight against the same Lakota and Cheyenne warriors who killed Custer, on the Rosebud the week before, involved over a 1000 soldiers and Indian scouts vs. up to 2000 warriors and lasted most of the day, and fatality estimates, which vary, average in the 20's for each side.

We all have it coming, kid.

1879. If I recall correctly, the Utes got bored after 5 days and went home. The Army invaded the reservation in clear violation of treaty terms and lost 13 men killed after the Indian agent ordered the Ute's horses killed for going buffalo hunting on the southern plains of Wyoming. Eleven soldiers were awarded the Medal of Honor. For this, the only engagement ever between the Utes and the US, they lost virtually the entire western slope of Colorado and were marched out of the state in 1881 at gun point with settlers in wagons literally right behind the army.

__________________
Some collect art; I shoot it!

The Zulu were in a way the opposite of our Plains Indians. While an Indian warrior followed no one he didn't want to follow and decided for himself when to go into battle, where and how long to fight, and when to take a break and have lunch, the Zulu fought in disciplined units, using formations, organized tactics like the "buffalo horns", and employing quite modern concepts like strategic reserves, all based on the tight tribal social organization and the authority of the chiefs.

That allowed disciplined mass attacks pressed home in the face of significant casualties, like at Rorke's Drift, where the Zulu lost hundreds of dead.

Compare that to an Indian "chief". At the LBH, Crazy Horse might have said, let's try sneaking up this gully; and many warriors would be willing to follow him due to his reputation. But others may have just as likely said, nah, looks too iffy, we'll head around the hill here and check out the other side, and that would be okay, too. And yet another might say, I need a potty break, and head for the village. This may sound a bit silly, but if you spend some time reading Indian sources, that's really what it was like.

Now that we are debating Custer's last stand, what does the forum know and think about the theory of a sole survivor? I am not a conspiracy nut and truly believe Oswald, Ray and Sirhan acted alone. George Bush was not complicit in the twin towers tragedy. But there is enough evidence to give serious thought to there being one trooper that escaped. If you have not heard this before, I assume the net is full of research.

Probably because by the time other military units got to the battle site, the Indians had packed up and left. Given the time and opportunity to remove them, Indians very seldom left their dead and wounded behind.

The Indians possibly took their time about leaving. Keep in mind, Terry's reinforcements didn't even get there until a couple of days later.

Well, there's this guy.

Then there's Frank Finkel, whose claims seem to have a measure of credibility.

And of course, we can't forget Jack Crabb, whose exploits were celebrated in the novel Little Big Man, by Thomas Berger, and in the film of the same name.





Oh, and a horse named Commanche survived the battle, too.

This is an extremely complex subject. Many myths about the battle were started shortly after it happened and some still get repeated today. There has been an earlier thread on this last year.

The Little Bighorn...

Some good information here.

One thing that might have saved Custer and his men would have been gatling guns.

Custer declined to take the gatling guns along on his expedition because he felt they were cumbersome and would slow him down.

Custer was determined to get to the Indians before Crook and Terry. He saw this as his last chance for glory. In fact, Terry had ordered Custer to wait on him and Crook, but then qualified his order by saying something like, "...unless you believe you have reason to act on your own." I can't remember the actual quote and don't feel like looking it up right now. But in other words, with that qualification of his order, he was basically telling Custer to do as he pleased if he found the Indians.

Custer did do as he pleased, of course, with disastrous results.

Custer was likely both good and bad. He was a national hero for about 70 years after his death and then went into decline. Whether he was good or bad makes for interesting discussions. I have visited Last Stand Hill and walked Reno's first and second positions - didn't hear the strains of "Gary Owen" although it was in fact creepy. My recommendation for those that are interested: Son of the Morning Star by Evan Connell.

I know about Custer but on June 25 1875 my Grandfather was born in Penn. So he was exactly one year old when Custer bit the dust.

Don't think Lt. Gen. Lord Chelmsford or Custer every read or understood
"The Art of War" by Sun Tzu !

__________________
Only difference Fool/Mule-ears

In all fairness, would have been a bit of a challenge. The translation by Giles from 1910 is generally considered to be the first decent English version .

There was a French text from the 1700's, which Napoleon supposedly carried surrepticiously with him, although especially his later campaigns don't show much evidence of Sun Tzu's thinking .

Mr. Custer by Larry Verne - YouTube


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

Yeah, something about "know yourself and your enemy"...

Watchdog mentioned the Gatling guns and how the might have changed the tide of the battle. I am of the opinion that the only way the could have helped is the fact they are so heavy and cumbersome that they would have slowed Custer and the battle may not have taken place. As to their use in defense of Custer I can see little of any change in the outcome. The Indians did not walk in rows upright to Custer. They hid in the grass and crawled up ravines on their bellies and from below, a type of attack that would render the Gatling near useless. They came from many directions as well so the chances of hitting even one Indian per magazine would have been highly unlikely. Had this been the Civil War where most battles started with a long line of men marching towards you, then the Gatling would be influential in the outcome but not the way the Custer battle played out IMO.

I agree. One of the most striking facts that became obvious from the archaeological findings is that Custer never seems to have realized that he was in need of defending anything, and his battalion along the ridge from Calhoun Hill to Custer Hill and beyond never established the cohesive defensive position so beloved of movie directors, which Gatling guns or howitzers might have helped defend.

You do know Little Big Man was fiction right?

__________________
Retired Career Security Guard

Two of the best books I have ever read on the subject were “The Custer Reader” and “A Terrible Glory” .

In “The Custer Reader” the author examines the writings of Custer’s contemporaries as well as how the popular view of Custer has changed over the years and examines the theory that Benteen deliberately abandoned Custer to his fate and includes the immediate account of the battle and the account given at the court of inquiry and points out how the number of Indians grew between the two tellings and speculates that it’s possible Benteen was trying to cover up his deliberate abandonment of Custer.

TCR also examines the idea that Custer was trying for one big victory to set up a Presidential run. The author contends that Custer was quite content to be a soldier but found himself stuck in a peace time Army with very little chance for advancement (Example Charles Varnum was a Second Lieutenant at the Battle of Little Bighorn and had only been promoted to Captain by Wounded Knee.) . The Book Speculates that it’s far more likely that Custer was trying to distinguish himself in an effort to gain promotion to Brigadier General.

"A Terrible Glory" points out that prior to LBH the Indians had never stood and fought and that they had routinely been beaten by numerically inferior U.S. forces with superior firepower. It also points out that Custer did not disobey orders but that his orders were very general and left him plenty of room to react to the changing situation.

Donavan also points out that while Custer’s battalion commanders might have been good fighters , they were ****** officers who were trying to advance their careers in the same slow moving peace time Army. It also draws the conclusion that the survivors placed all the blame on Custer who wasn’t around to defend himself in an effort to save their careers.

I think anyone with a serious interest in LBH would benefit from reading either or both of these books.

The Custer Reader by Paul Andrew Hutton ? Reviews, Discussion, Bookclubs, Lists

A Terrible Glory: Custer and the Little Bighorn - the Last Great Battle of the American West by James Donovan ? Reviews, Discussion, Bookclubs, Lists

__________________
Retired Career Security Guard

The Indians fired from cover and ducked back down. They also fired 13 rounds to 1 fired by the troopers.. anybody standing on the skyline trying to manipulate those Gatling guns would have been picked off instantly.

Custer's troops literally died in a hail of bullets and high arching arrows.

__________________
Eccentric old coot

"Lions led by donkeys..."