What is your take on George Armstrong Custer?

J

jphendren

Member
Joined
Sep 6, 2005
Messages
157
Reaction score
3
Location
North Las Vegas, Nevada
I found this clip on YouTube:

YouTube - Little Big Horn full version

If you read through the comments under the video, the general feeling of the commenters is that Custer was an idiot, who knowingly went into the battle, knowing full well that he could be slaughtered, for glory. I am not an expert on this battle, nor any other of the "Indian Wars," but some of these comments seem like bullhocky to me.

There is a lot of U.S., and white race hating going on here, which really gets my blood boiling.

Anyways, read this comment:

"custer fought against the south in the civil war which was a whole different story.The rebels were intelligent white men who knew miltary tactics and courage.These indians were just a mob of savages.

How little you know! The "mob of savages" had superior weaponry. Custer's muskets and revolvers were no match for the "savages' repeating rifles."

While I am no historian, I'm pretty sure that the Lakota did not develop those weapons, the origins of the lever rifle are attributed to Benjamin Tyler Henry if I am not mistaken.

What are your thoughts on this battle?

Jared
 
Register to hide this ad
IMHO....

The little Big Horn was a considerable cluster...

He and the US Army as a whole was unprepared for the type of war the
natives were going to wage.
As is the case in most conflicts after a disaster we tend to adapt and overcome..

Sadly the 7th cav suffered from the cumalitive effects of underestimating a foe and over estimating your own abilities.

Read the art of war..
 
He exhibited the same arrogance that Capt Fetterman did when he bragged before being wiped out.

He didn't believe his scouts when they told him "If you go down there you will all die."

He divided his forces. He was out gunned. The Indians fired 13 rounds to one for every military round fired.

As stated above, when he dismounted his troops, he gave up the only advantage he had. However, his troops and horses were completely exhausted and probably couldn't have mounted an adequate charge to overcome the best light cavalry in the world.

He was in deep doo-doo from the outset.

When he dismounted his troops he was simply overwhelmed by superior weapons and firepower.
 
According to Stephen Ambrose'1975 book "Crazy Horse and Custer", Custer made four critical mistakes: (paraphrasing a bit):
1. He refused to accept Terry's offer of four troops of the 2nd Cav. If Reno had had two more troops with him, he might have had sufficient momentum to make a successful chafrge when he first came upon the Sioux camp. Had Custer had two more troops with him, he might have made it up the hill.
2. Custer badly underestimated his enemy, not so much in terms of numbers as in terms of fighting capability, where he was disastrously wrong.
3. He assumed that his men could do what he could do; to put it another way, he attacked too soon. He should have spent June 25 resting, then attacked the next day, when Gibbon could have, on urgent request, reinforced him. All Indian accounts agree that Custer's men and horses, like Reno's, were so exhausted that their legs trembled. It was a hot day, which further cut the trooper's efficiency. He committed his command when he did not know his enemie's position, strength, or location. He also lost the element of surprise. His enemies knew more about his force than he knew about them.
4. When he lost the initiative, he failed to gain the high ground and dig in, although here one should perhaps blame Custer less and praise Crazy Horse more.

I've read a lot about Custer and the Little Big Horn and have been there. It is difficult, and maybe impossible, to make a sound judgment of Custer in this day and age. We are making judgements in our context, and not in the context of the world he lived in at the time. From documented testimony of the time, there is no dispute that he was a brave man. But several of his subordinates truly did not like him and thought he kept a favored clique. It was also pretty clear that he would abandon his men if need be to win a battle and gain added fame. But if you read about any of the other military leaders of the later 18th century, many (not all) demonstrated the same mixture of faults, skill, and good traits.
 
Tactical, strategic, psychoemotional, battlefield and spiritual blunders merging into one big error of judgment.
 
"superior weapons and firepower"

The 7th Cavalry carried 7.5" Colt's SAA's, and from what I have read, Trapdoor Springfield rifles in .45-70. I wonder why they were not armed with the most advanced rifle, which would have been the 1873 Winchester?

Is it known if he knew that there were more than a 1,000 indians, or did he know and though he could defeat them anyway?

Jared
 
That clip on youtube portrays Custer as an clownish, incompetent lunatic. He was far from it. Those who wish to believe it aren't fit the clean his boots. He made a mistake, and it sure was a big one, but that happens in war. It shouldn't take away from his accomplishments serving this country. That's my final word.
 
What Jag312 said. Custer was not stupid or crazy, and I don't believe for a minute he intended to die at Little Big Horn. He was unprepared and overconfident, and that is usually disastrous in war.
 
The Indians say that Custer died at the river in the very earliest part of his engagement. His subordinates tried to save the day but were simply over run.
 
Guys, say what you will about Custer (and Lord knows there's a lot to say), but it's a mistake to look at his actions without considering the context in which he operated.

Until the Battle of the Rosebud, which happened just prior to the Little Bighorn and which Custer didn't know about, the Sioux had always bolted when the Army appeared. The commanders' aim was to fix the "Injuns" in place and then destroy them; naturally, the Sioux weren't having any of it--the warriors would delay the soldiers while the rest of the camp got away, then take off themselves. Campaigns turned into long, frustrating tail-chases for the Army, and they seldom came to grips with the Sioux. Thus, when Custer came upon the huge encampment on the Greasy Grass, he wasn't thinking of survival--he was thinking of keeping the Indians from getting away. Sort of ironic, really.

Also, the Sioux had never before gathered in such huge numbers. Nor would they do so again. Nothing in Custer's experience, nor that of any other Army officer at the time, would have led him to expect to meet literally thousands of warriors in one place.

Custer ran into a set of unprecedented circumstances. His own shortcomings may have hastened his end, but given what was known (and assumed) at the time, it's unlikely that the outcome would have been different had any other officer been in charge.

JMHO, FWIW.

Hope this helps, and Semper Fi.

Ron H.
 
HE WAS A NARCISSIST !!!!! THAT is what got ALL of them into trouble!

HE had NARCISSISTIC PERSONALITY DISORDER. It's really that simple.

It wasn't about "firepower" or "positioning" or "underestimating"........or "misinformation"............................
it was all about "him". Ever met any of those people? "It's all about me"?
If you've ever had to work with one (or serve under one) or been/are married to one, then you'll KNOW what that means. In the mean time you can google NPD and all the criteria that need to be met to be "classified".
 
Iggy said:
The Indians say that Custer died at the river in the very earliest part of his engagement. His subordinates tried to save the day but were simply over run.
Click to expand...
I have heard the same as Iggy...he was shot at the river and his brother Tom drug him up to the "last stand"..I used to live not far from there...it is worth the stop to view the battlefield and how it progressed if you are ever in the area. IMO though Custer did have a big ego but I think that came out of his time spent during the Civil War. Just at the wrong place at the wrong time and did not listen to his advisers...again, just my opinion.
 
I havent watched the video yet. My past studys of him has given me these opinions. First he was over confident from past sucess`s. 2nd, he was very ambitious and had presidental asperations. He no doubt thought a big win would win the presidency for him. 3rd, no question about it, he underestimated the indians and no doubt their numbers. 4th, he wanted to beat out terry and reno to the punch. He was scared they would get away! He also left the gatling gun as he was worried it would slow him down.
I dont know the correct phsyco words, but he sure was one. Kind of reminds me of our potus. All in love with himself, contempt for all others, ambitious, and spurred on by past success.
 
i take the video stupid. be side of the racial remarks the 7 CAV was armed with 1873 colt and springfield trapdoor in 45-50. if i remember right.
he was out gun the tribes there was arm with every thing from french pin guns to firearms equal to OR BETTER the trooper own.
G.A Custer order when too wait for the south column of troop , i for got the genenal named, before attach the indian camp. the south column was late. because they got defeated at the little rosebud by crazy horse. THE KING OF THE RUNNING AMBUSH.
if i remeber right their was a third column. but i not sure about that.
 
Last edited:
What are the odds that Custer would have been fragged if he had served in Viet Nam ? I went to grade school with some of the descendants of the Sioux warriors that defeated Custer. The skill and intelligence of the Sioux should not be discounted as one of the main factors in their victory although it appears pretty clear that it would have been helpful to the cavalry if Custer had had a brain.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Back
Top