What is your take on George Armstrong Custer?

When I was 14 I started doing Indian War Military Living History. I still portray a 1876 Infantry Soldier once and awhile to this day. When I was 16 I got a job as a Interpreter(Tour Guide)at Fort Abraham Lincoln State Park, Custer's last Post. I was a 7th Cavalry Private in the year 1875 and we did some first person interpretation in the replica buildings at the Cavalry Post. We got the Custer lovers and the Custer haters!(Much like the men who served under him in both Wars!) The tours of the building for the most part where done as if the year was 1875 and it was hard to get ever one to get on board with this.

At the end of the tour when we dropped caricature I would get this question a lot. I was honest with my answer. Custer was a brash Cavalry Officer. At West Point he was a bad student of the academics but a great student of Cavalry Tactics which is why he did so well in the Civil War. When the Plains Indian Wars came along he was up the creek as just about all the Military Officers of the time were. He did adapt to Indian War fare which many historians type as Gorilla Warfare. Bottom line is he could not fight the Plains Indian on his terms or the way he knew how too. He did have respect for them as people but when it came to fighting them he thought he had the upper hand. He was arrogant and this is what got him and many men of the 7th killed.

When it comes to weapons of the Battle of Little Bighorn both side had good weapons. The 7th was out numbered. The force and anger of the Plains Indians was no match.
 
Last edited:
When I served in the Army, we were taught to know our enemy. Custer greatly underestimated his enemy and it cost him and his troops their lives.
 
“First; he was over confident from past successes. 2nd; he was very ambitious and had presidential ambitions”. Quote: feralmerril

The ego and ambition undoubtedly led to seeing things the way you want them to be rather than the way that they are.
He was very successful and lucky during the civil war, Politics (the need for successful commanders) had a part in his promotion to Brevet Brigadier General at a very young age. When you read about his post war conduct it is hard to escape the notion that the man was very full of himself.

All the other points above about the unique situation he faced are undoubtedly true, but still we have a commander who looked at the situation and saw what he wanted to see. In life things are the way they are, seldom the way we wish they were.
 
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.
Click to expand...
That was always my impression of him. But to be fair, since not one person ever met him personally the only thing we have to judge him by is what we have heard from others. So how well do you trust the opinions of those "others"?
 
Custer's defeat was a textbook failure to adhere to basic military principles:

Concentration of force
Unity of command
Enemy intelligence
Violence of action
Firepower

Custer divided his already inadequate force.
Custer divided his force into elements with conflicting imperatives.
Custer lacked essential elements of enemy intelligence. He attacked into an intelligence void.
Custer's divided and inadequate force lacked the combat power to immobilize and destroy the enemy. It lacked the combat power to merely survive.
Custer's force had the firepower to successfully engage a smaller force at close range. Custer's force had the firepower to successfully engage a larger force at long range. Custer's force lacked the firepower to engage a vastly superior force at close range, especially one equipped with substantial numbers of weapons with superior firepower.

The Japanese committed the same fatal errors on a vastly greater scale, over a longer period during the Battle of Nomonhan in 1939, and with identical results.
 
Last edited:
Custer had a Spanish Toledo sword he captured during the Civil War. It was inscribed "Draw me not without cause, sheath me not without Honor". He was known for being "in front" of this troupes leading and encouraging, not behind them, Soldiers called him "Strong Arm".
 
I saw a documentary a few years back about the archaeological work that was done at the battlefield after a brush fire in 1983. It was fascinating to see how they were able to track the movements of individuals by using forensic ballistics to match fired casings to individual firearms, and thus be able to track where the gun's user moved around during the battle.

I look forward to visiting the battlefield one day.

This is a link on the research:

AmeriSurv.com - Verdict at the Little Bighorn
 
Custer was an egomaniac who had no problems chasing glory, regardless of who he killed or got killed. What was he doing in Sioux territory anyway? Seems like he was there illegally, that he heard there was gold up there. Remember, he left his Gatling guns behind because they slowed him down. Also remember that he was a General in the Civil War. I bet his social status was the only thing that kept him from being busted a lot more than he was. Just looking at the Little Big Horn as Custer vs Red Cloud, I'd say the good guy won. But, then, I'm just an ignorant Southerner, with a little Indian blood in me.
 
General Sturgis, who lost his son Lt. Sturgis at the Little Big Horn, said Custer was Brave but "lacked judgement". I think it's a good summation. All his other faults produced this "lack of judgement".
 
I watched a show the other night on the History channel about the history(duh) of the machine gun... while discussing the Gatling gun, they said that Custer had been issued five of them, but chose to leave the 800lb each weapons behind when he went out that time... would it have made a difference, or would the army just ended up having to deal with a tribe that was armed with machine guns later on? Makes you kinda go Hmmm...
 
Custer made some bad decisions at the little big horn. I do not think however he was a fool or clown like he is made out to be today. I am not a expert on military strategy, but at least one general (Patton) was highly impressed with Custers ability as a leader.
 
Hi:
I have often wondered about the decision to leave the Gatling Guns as the Gatlings would slow the Seventh? The British carried Cannons and Gatlings on Mules with their Cavalry.
Jimmy
 
jphendren said:
"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
Click to expand...

There are reasons why the Winchester 1873 was not chosen as a military rifle. Though it was a quick handeling repeaters and may have been beneficial to the 7th Cav in this one battle, it was not the superior military rifle using typical tactics of the day. Even in 44-40, it's pistol ammo was too underpowered and short ranged.
 
I have read that the 45-70s they had heated up after a few rounds and the fired shells stuck in the chambers. I belive some of the shells they recovered showed evidence of being pried out with knives.
Sounds like custer was focused on being a hero, and at the start of the battle was worried he would be outshined. He probley thought this would be the very last indian battle and it would be his last chance at being a hero again. This would make him president! This would absolve him for heat he took hanging deserters. This would outshine him for running back to illinois on a unauthorised leave. He probley thought most the indians would run in fear when they opened up on them, and certainly they could easily kill the few that stood. Take care of them, then run down and kill all the slow ones that they could all the way back to the reservation. Remember he even took a young nephew to witness the last indian battle. Seems I recall he also took a reporter too? Aint sure about that one.
 
His intel - that the village was populated only by old men, women, and children - was wrong. He was hellbent on destroying it before the warriors returned. Oops.

His firepower - normally superior - was sub-par. His Springfields had no ram rods for clearing empty cases or cleaning - they were left behind to save weight. 2-3 rounds, and they were unserviceable. His Gatlings were elsewhere.

Forensic studies in 1983 showed the use of a few Henry rifles - the same ones circling the area, probably for good shots. It was a turkey shoot. The attack on a thought to be undefended village did him in - taking the low ground for his 'stand' sealed his fate. Oops.

Stainz
 
The 7th had Spencer repeating carbines during some early operations, these had been superceded by the trapdoor carbines. The carbines would sometimes jam and malfunction and were - if I remember - loaded with ammo that was less powerful than that used in rifles. Some of the officers had personally owned revolvers. Webleys and other British guns were actually popular at the time.

Anyway, the Turks used a mix of Winchesters and single shot rifles to defeat the Russians at Plevna, however most military authorities at the time didn't feel that the carbine was a good compromise. Aside from the usual parsimony that plagued the US Army for a great many years (fears of the unwashed wasting expensive ammo, which resurfaced with the switch from full auto to three round burst with the move from M16A1 to A2...), the simple fact was that once you emptied your carbine at short range, it took a while to reload. Trained men meanwhile could keep up a decent rate of fire with single shot weapons. Usually if whites held their discipline, it was difficult for Indians to defeat any substantial number of troops.

Fetterman was unlucky, though there were other command problems and quite likely botched orders at Fort Kearny that contributed. Custer wasn't exactly helped by the performance of Reno and Benteen.

Michigan's state OCS classes are still held at Fort Custer, named after THAT Custer, down near Battle Creek.
 
The way I read it years ago the trapdoors were a conversion of the muzzle loading springfields. After the civil war they were converted to the trapdoors for a couple bucks. I read the chooseing of them was strickly a cost factor.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Back
Top