Don't think Lt. Gen. Lord Chelmsford or Custer every read or understood
"The Art of War" by Sun Tzu !
"The Art of War" by Sun Tzu !
June 25, 1876: Custer Massacre
- Thread starter Texas Star
- Start date
Absalom
SWCA Member, Absent Comrade
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
.
Hawker800
Member
cmort666
Member
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.
Absalom
SWCA Member, Absent Comrade
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?
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 crappy 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
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 crappy 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
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.
Custer's troops literally died in a hail of bullets and high arching arrows.
cmort666
Member
"Lions led by donkeys..."
the ringo kid
Member
- Joined
- May 12, 2013
- Messages
- 20,895
- Reaction score
- 22,823
Ive read the Indian dead may have reached about 80......
Watchdog
Member
- Joined
- Apr 6, 2013
- Messages
- 12,510
- Reaction score
- 32,349
Yep, sure do. It's on my bookshelf. I also know the film isn't a documentary.
Maybe you missed the part (see above quote) where I refer to the book as a novel?
BLACKHAWKNJ
Member
- Joined
- Oct 25, 2006
- Messages
- 6,187
- Reaction score
- 6,625
Custer fought a very poor battle, practically no reconnaissance, badly misunderestimated the enemy, both in numbers and fighting spirit, divided his forces in face of the enemy, his units not mutually supporting, poor choice of terrain. A good example of how NOT to do it.
Blackhawknj Speak truth. Injuns say last long knives run to deep ravine.
The last of Smith's troop fled towards the river and wound up in the Deep Ravine. It was like shooting fish in a barrel there. That's where fight ended.
The last of Smith's troop fled towards the river and wound up in the Deep Ravine. It was like shooting fish in a barrel there. That's where fight ended.
Last edited:
mrchuck
Member
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.
WOW! One of the best posts that I have ever read on this website!!!
As a 2nd LT in 1960 at Ft Benning, GA.,,, we studied the tactics of both sides.
Custer looked for fame and because of this, he personally killed his own soldiers.
Hawker800
Member
The American Indians were just trying to survive. They were also a good example of what results when you don't get immigration under control.
BLACKHAWKNJ
Member
- Joined
- Oct 25, 2006
- Messages
- 6,187
- Reaction score
- 6,625
I don't think we like revisionism so much as we like objectivity. Is it "revisionism" to say that Lee fought Malvern Hill and Gettysburg very poorly ?
Jeb Stuart often outthought his opponents-the Ride Around McClellan, the Second Bull Run Campaign, e.g. But when he was bad-the Gettysburg Campaign-he was BAAAD! At least Custer led his men into battle. As opposed
to Hood at Franklin.
Jeb Stuart often outthought his opponents-the Ride Around McClellan, the Second Bull Run Campaign, e.g. But when he was bad-the Gettysburg Campaign-he was BAAAD! At least Custer led his men into battle. As opposed
to Hood at Franklin.
One point to keep in mind regardless....remember who was defending their homeland.
V1 Rotate
Member
Love reading about Custer, but one of you guys with deep perspective should start a thread about Rorke's Drift and Isandhlwana. I read "The Washing of the Spears" about those battles and was amazed at Zulu capability. They maneuvered and controlled regiment sized units on the battlefield, and moved on a dead run. There's a reason Africans now dominate the long distance running events. If I remember correctly, a Zulu regiment thought nothing of moving 50-60 miles a day. A European unit in that campaign might move across ground, with wagons, 10-12 miles.
Bill S
Bill S
