semperfi71
US Veteran
Thanks feralmerril,
I was fascinated by the Battle of the Bighorn/Greasy Grass and Custer for a long time. I was not exactly a fan or the man. But I found it hard to believe that an officer with an ego, who's first desire is to be successful in combat, would sacrifice his command in a "reported" but never proven desire to be president or just simply to become famous.
It made no sense to me that any officer would knowingly assault what modern day thinkers believe to be superior numbers. Some accounts [questionable] state the Indians had as much as 3,000 warriors. Most seem to settle on 2,000 to 1,500. Custer had 600 men. By certain standards of more modern warfare that was bad odds. But the Western Indian Wars were not "normal" warfare. Hence, to me, why the attack on such larger numbers? There had to be a reason. Reading other accounts of battles and skirmishes of the time period led me to the answer.
As noted above, Major Forsyth deliberately entered into the plains of Eastern Colorado with only 50 men. And he, and the rest of the Army had a good idea of the larger numbers of Cheyenne they might find. He was deliberately allowed to proceed. It was because they had superior firepower if they could entice the Indians to fight in the open. And they were successful at that although the fight did not occur as planned.
Colonel Mackenzie lad a smaller force of cavalry into the Palo Duro canyon, single file, down a narrow trail, knowing that if discovered the superior numbers of Comanche could catch them on the trail and raise hob. As his first men hit the base of the trail the Comanche attacked, but these men held them off until the remaining troops could gather at the base and then they counter-attacked. Again, the warriors fought a skirmishing retreat against lesser numbers, the soldiers prevailed and captured a certain number of non-combatants that was significant enough to cause the warriors to come into the reservation. And, Mackanzie destroyed the captured horse herd sealing the Comanche fate, reportedly as much as 5,000 horses.
Little Bighorn/Greasy Grass was the end of the mixed emotions back east about what to do about the "Indian Problem". The U.S. Army was beefed up and better trained and then turned loose all over the west to corral all of the Indians onto reservations. This was the era of General Nelson Miles, a no-nonsense, dedicated, and sharply focused man [some label unfeeling and hard-nosed]. He used large numbers of troops in well coordinated "pincer" movements to attack the Sioux, Cheyenne, Arapaho, and Nez Perce. Then he relieved General Crook and went after the Apache.
Interestingly history is often not so much as original reporting but repeating "facts" culled from someone else's work. Admittedly we all have to do that now because there are no living survivors. However quite often "history" becomes a series of repeated bad information or even outright fabrications.
A good example is the Tet Offensive in Vietnam. It was a huge tactical error for the Communists. When it was over a lot [some say the majority] of the Viet Cong were dead. Some say an intentional plan by Ho Chi Minh to eliminate the VC. And definitely a lot of NVA units were destroyed as well. It is usually a mistake in guerilla warfare for the insurgents to come out in the open and try to fight "man-on-man" against the superior forces and firepower of a wealthier assailant. Tet was a failure for the intended purpose.
It was a success in that it swayed a lot of weak-minded Americans to come out for a quick end to the war, which we where winning after Tet.
However many "historians" and the vaunted "History Channel" still report Tet as a success by the Communists. Again their original purpose failed. The secondary effect, breaking the spine of Americans at home was successful, although I don't think that was the intended outcome by the Communists.
So too, I began to think Custer has been unfairly maligned. I read a lot of Western history and by looking at the large expanse of "Indian Warfare" I think my beliefs on Bighorn/Greasy Grass can be proven.
Sadly, my readings have taken me into a lot of study of the American Indian cultures of the time period. It has always been a thought of mine as to what would have happened if they had evolved without the interference of the European cultures. I get the feeling that they were evolving in a form and fashion that no other set of cultures in history had evolved to.
The entire "story" of the American West and all of it participants and cultures is difficult to discern because myths were being written as the real history was being affected. A case in point was Kit Carson, as he was living his life in reality, his fictional "adventures" were being "written" about back east. Myth and reality are severely entertwined in Western American history. The truth is often very hard to find.
The cavalry was not always "gallant", the Indians were not always "noble", and the settlers were not always "innocent."
I was fascinated by the Battle of the Bighorn/Greasy Grass and Custer for a long time. I was not exactly a fan or the man. But I found it hard to believe that an officer with an ego, who's first desire is to be successful in combat, would sacrifice his command in a "reported" but never proven desire to be president or just simply to become famous.
It made no sense to me that any officer would knowingly assault what modern day thinkers believe to be superior numbers. Some accounts [questionable] state the Indians had as much as 3,000 warriors. Most seem to settle on 2,000 to 1,500. Custer had 600 men. By certain standards of more modern warfare that was bad odds. But the Western Indian Wars were not "normal" warfare. Hence, to me, why the attack on such larger numbers? There had to be a reason. Reading other accounts of battles and skirmishes of the time period led me to the answer.
As noted above, Major Forsyth deliberately entered into the plains of Eastern Colorado with only 50 men. And he, and the rest of the Army had a good idea of the larger numbers of Cheyenne they might find. He was deliberately allowed to proceed. It was because they had superior firepower if they could entice the Indians to fight in the open. And they were successful at that although the fight did not occur as planned.
Colonel Mackenzie lad a smaller force of cavalry into the Palo Duro canyon, single file, down a narrow trail, knowing that if discovered the superior numbers of Comanche could catch them on the trail and raise hob. As his first men hit the base of the trail the Comanche attacked, but these men held them off until the remaining troops could gather at the base and then they counter-attacked. Again, the warriors fought a skirmishing retreat against lesser numbers, the soldiers prevailed and captured a certain number of non-combatants that was significant enough to cause the warriors to come into the reservation. And, Mackanzie destroyed the captured horse herd sealing the Comanche fate, reportedly as much as 5,000 horses.
Little Bighorn/Greasy Grass was the end of the mixed emotions back east about what to do about the "Indian Problem". The U.S. Army was beefed up and better trained and then turned loose all over the west to corral all of the Indians onto reservations. This was the era of General Nelson Miles, a no-nonsense, dedicated, and sharply focused man [some label unfeeling and hard-nosed]. He used large numbers of troops in well coordinated "pincer" movements to attack the Sioux, Cheyenne, Arapaho, and Nez Perce. Then he relieved General Crook and went after the Apache.
Interestingly history is often not so much as original reporting but repeating "facts" culled from someone else's work. Admittedly we all have to do that now because there are no living survivors. However quite often "history" becomes a series of repeated bad information or even outright fabrications.
A good example is the Tet Offensive in Vietnam. It was a huge tactical error for the Communists. When it was over a lot [some say the majority] of the Viet Cong were dead. Some say an intentional plan by Ho Chi Minh to eliminate the VC. And definitely a lot of NVA units were destroyed as well. It is usually a mistake in guerilla warfare for the insurgents to come out in the open and try to fight "man-on-man" against the superior forces and firepower of a wealthier assailant. Tet was a failure for the intended purpose.
It was a success in that it swayed a lot of weak-minded Americans to come out for a quick end to the war, which we where winning after Tet.
However many "historians" and the vaunted "History Channel" still report Tet as a success by the Communists. Again their original purpose failed. The secondary effect, breaking the spine of Americans at home was successful, although I don't think that was the intended outcome by the Communists.
So too, I began to think Custer has been unfairly maligned. I read a lot of Western history and by looking at the large expanse of "Indian Warfare" I think my beliefs on Bighorn/Greasy Grass can be proven.
Sadly, my readings have taken me into a lot of study of the American Indian cultures of the time period. It has always been a thought of mine as to what would have happened if they had evolved without the interference of the European cultures. I get the feeling that they were evolving in a form and fashion that no other set of cultures in history had evolved to.
The entire "story" of the American West and all of it participants and cultures is difficult to discern because myths were being written as the real history was being affected. A case in point was Kit Carson, as he was living his life in reality, his fictional "adventures" were being "written" about back east. Myth and reality are severely entertwined in Western American history. The truth is often very hard to find.
The cavalry was not always "gallant", the Indians were not always "noble", and the settlers were not always "innocent."