|
Post by Paul Sylvain on Apr 10, 2011 5:36:33 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Allen Wiener on Apr 10, 2011 9:34:40 GMT -5
I guess what I meant was recon rather than intel, but he also did not know about the pasting Crook had taken; that the Indians had shown a lot more aggressiveness. He was hurrying; he feared he'd been spotted and that the Indians would scatter. He made too many assumptions. I wonder, had he known about Crook, if he would not have adopted a strategy more like what you're suggesting.
|
|
|
Post by Chuck T on Apr 10, 2011 13:55:09 GMT -5
Maybe, but I doubt it. Recently read some short pieces about Custer at the Yellowstone in 1873. Some of the same issues arise. On 11 August he would not listen to those that told him old Sitting Bull is over on the other side of the hill. As a result he woke up that morning with an engraved invitation to a lead flying festival.
|
|
|
Post by loucapitano on Apr 19, 2011 10:34:52 GMT -5
Thanks guys, your discussion really ads to the mystique of the Little Big Horn. Perhaps we put so much emphasis on Custers final action of an otherwise noteable military career. The fiction author Douglas C. Jones opined that during the Civil War, many generals blundered into battles that cost thousands more lives than the 264 at the LBH. As director John Ford said, "when history becomes legend, print the legend," It appears that the first civilian recounting of the battle was made in the Bismark (ND) Tribune on July 6th by their correspondent who rode with General Terry and who recorded the last word of correspondent Mark Kellogg before he rode off with Custer's command. Those last words were pregnant with dramatic irony, certainly enough to create the legend of Custer and the 7th. "We leave the Rosebud tomorrow and by the time this reaches you we will have met and fought the red devils, with what result remains to be seen. I go with Custer and will be at the death." I guess we have to be careful not to view Custer through our 21st century lenses. In 1876, he may have been victim to tactical misjudgement, but there could be no doubt of his bravery and gallantry in the eyes of a country celebrating its 100th anniversary. I hope the debate goes on for another century. Lou ("To hell, or to glory, it depends on one's point of view." Errol Flynn - 1941 TDWTBO)
|
|
|
Post by Chuck T on Apr 19, 2011 12:31:11 GMT -5
Lou: Bravery and gallantry are poor substitues for sound tactical judgment. Undoing the legend, and finding the truth of history is a noble endevor, despite John Ford, and/or his screenplay writers.
|
|
|
Post by loucapitano on Apr 21, 2011 16:42:23 GMT -5
No arguement Chuck. I just happen to have a passion for the drama of history, along with the need to uncover the unvarnished truth, when it can be uncovered. The point I was trying to make is that history is always filtered through the person(s) telling the story. We keep trying to peel away the layers until we reach the facts. Unfortunately, even today with all our sophisticated media, it's virtually impossible to get the straight story about any event, even when it's recorded on TV. To me, this last chapter of the Custer Myth began the moment he was almost not permitted to command the 7th. Studying events unfolding as viewed through the eyes of the participants and survivors is fascinating and watching the the legends rise and fall is also part of historical research. While I love to know "what happened," I also like to study the effects of what happened on people and society in general. In that respect, the LBH had profound effects on the whole country, Indians included, and deserves the attention it gets to this day. "We've shown them our backs, now let's show them our faces." Another Errol Flynn quote...
|
|
|
Post by Chuck T on Apr 21, 2011 20:41:18 GMT -5
I watched the only real dumb Errol Flynn movie that I ever have seen last night - Virginia City. If you have never seen it imagine Humphry Bogart as a Mexican bandito. That says it all.
What I would love to strip away from the Custer Myth is the Libby Effect, she and all her closed mouthed fellow travelers. The Libby Effect made Custer from a two bit leftover from the Civil War who no one would know today, into a national treasure.
The Army Song has a line "Valley Forge (Washington), Custer's ranks, San Juan Hill (Teddy), and Patton's tanks" Imagine Custer being in the same line with George Washington, Teddy Roosevelt, and George (not my favorite but a heck of a lot better than Custer) Patton. Shameful.
|
|
|
Post by loucapitano on Apr 22, 2011 17:07:15 GMT -5
You're right, the "Libbie" effect permeated much critical investigation about her "beau sabreur" until her death in the 1930s. Since then, Custer history has covered the gamut from hero to villain. It's remarkable how much has been uncovered about Custer and the other participants in the LBH. I'm especially impressed by the archeological digs that have added so much to the understanding of the actual movements of people on that day.
Custer emerged from the Civil War the perfect hero for the media of the day. He was as young as most of the soldiers, he participated in several crucial Union victories, he rode out to take the white flag of parley from Lee's messenger and apparently swiped the little table the Lee and Grant sat at during the surrender. He received the loudest cheers when his "red cravat" division passed review during the Washington DC victory parade and even managed to arrange a show of horsemanship for the adoring crowds. He was not a whole lot different than other generals throughout history who couldn't thrive in a peacetime army. Like Patton, you either loved him or hated him and in death he became immortalized (much to the chagrin of many people to this day.)
I think the toughest thing about being an amateur armchair military historian like me is dealing with the personal flaws and humanity of the people who made history. From Hannible to Caesar to Napoleon. Historically they did great things, but it was all through military victory that left untold thousands of corpses in their wake. It's a personal paradox that I find these figures more interesting that Louis Pasteur or Jonas Salk. As you said, Shameful.
|
|
|
Post by Chuck T on Apr 22, 2011 21:59:55 GMT -5
Lou: Looking at the personal flaws as well as the notable accomplishment, or in some instance failures, means that you are a real historian. I know many a man, and a few women, who cannot get past the glitz, cannot see the person. That is how myth perpetuates itself.
Go to West Point sometime, out in the graveyard and see where Custer lies. Libby is at his feet, litterally. She worshiped the man. It was more than a love a woman has for a man. I have heard all the Son of the Morning Star stories. I don't give much credence to them. He may have been worldly, but that is none of my business. What I do know is that there was something very special there, particularly on her part.
Now all that is very nice, and if I was more of a romantic, I would say touching. The trouble is that all this affection has clouded the truth. It could not be my husband's fault, I loved him. Well love or no, George Custer was in command, and he failed in his responsabilities. He was derilict in his duties.
Never forget one primary thing about the Little Big Horn fight. It was Custer's battle to loose and he accomplished his mission. He could have won it by fighting. Moreover he could have won it by not fighting at all. He handed a victory to the hostiles. The successful commander wins the battle before it is fought. The successful commander fights the battle on his own terms. The successful commander refuses combat unless he hold the aces. The successful commander never bluffs with a busted flush, not more than once anyway.
|
|
|
Post by Jim Boylston on Apr 22, 2011 22:04:27 GMT -5
Lou, that's a paradox for a lot of us, I'm sure. Conflict, however, makes for good storytelling and that's probably the hook.
Jim
|
|
|
Post by Herb on Apr 23, 2011 10:47:13 GMT -5
Other than the personal flamboyance, there is little resemblance between Custer and Patton. Whether you like Patton, or not, the man was a professional, and a serious student of his profession. These were attributes that were totally foreign to Custer.
One other key difference, while both men are known as risk takers, with the noted exception of the Hammelburg raid, Patton's risks were calculated, and he consistently developed contingency plans to mitigate those risks (eg the open Loire flank). Custer on other hand trusted to his famed luck, and did not hesitate to desert his men when his "luck" deserted him.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Sylvain on Apr 23, 2011 16:54:29 GMT -5
Custer luck simply ran out at LBH. Most failures are usually the culmination of several bad decisions, accidents, and so on, and not just from one thing. Custer erred on several fronts, each contributing in some way to the final outcome.
|
|
|
Post by Chuck T on Apr 23, 2011 21:43:04 GMT -5
Paul: I think it was a lot more than luck running out. It bedevils me though because I cannot put my finger on it. It would be easy to point to one thing if that one thing was so glaring that one could not miss it. He conducted himself correctly up to some point, but no matter how hard I try I cannot put my finger on that point where redemption becomes impossible. Most put it at splitting the command. But even then it is recoverable. Some place it at MTCF, but even then he could have recovered. Some say it was his actions on Battle Ridge. I don't think that was it either. Somewhere it was lost, and perhaps it will always be lost to history.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Sylvain on Apr 24, 2011 9:51:44 GMT -5
I think we're saying the same thing, just in different ways. You can chip away at structure, and it will continue to stand .... up to a point. But as some point, one piece too many is removed and it all comes tumbling down. That's kind of my analogy about LBH. Splitting the command and all the rest chipped away at his strength, until (as you say) at some point things weakened to where the offensive could no longer be sustained, and his immediate command was crushed. At one point is a good question.
|
|
|
Post by loucapitano on Apr 25, 2011 17:25:59 GMT -5
Paul, I think, like Chuck T, we're all bedeviled. I wonder if there's some way to create a survey of where we can vote our opinion of at what point the accumulated events at the LBH finally toppled the structure. Was Custer doomed the moment he split his command or did it happen later? Could Reno and Benteen have done more or where they lucky to just survive? etc. It's just a thought but it would be interesting to see what pattern of opinions emerge.
Herb, my comparison of Custer to Patton was solely based on cultural popularity (and the number of movies made about each one.) But Patton fought in two World Wars, developed armored battle tactics, and certainly contributed hugely to Allied victory. There was certainly no historical romance in his life. Plus he died before any of his personal and/or political opinions got to be scrutinized in light of the totally unique Cold War. Yet as much as I admire and respect his ability, I only have 3 books on Patton and more than a dozen on Custer. (Of course, I have more books on the Alamo than Custer and Patton combined.)
My most recent interest is Eisenhower from West Point to President. I hope he gets his due, he certainly seems under-appreciated. Plus, I was born on his birthday, so he's always been a hero to me.
Chuck T - It sounds like you're a serious student of the "Art of War" written centuries ago in China. There's no doubt Custer violated many of it's principles, especially the one on concentration of force. By the way, I've been to West Point many times for Football Games and my son's acceptance. The entire cemetary and Custer's tomb is quite moving, as are many of the comments visitors attach to his monument. It's only 50 miles from my home on Long Island. Hope everyone had a Happy Easter and Passover.
|
|