New Custer Movie (1 Viewer)

[damian]

I am venturing out of my field here so I expect some incoming
We have similar arguments about Islandwana. Now there is a lot of evidence as to what happened up to about 12:30 on the morning of the 22 January 1879. This is well accepted. However when it comes to what happened during the final fatal hour is any-one's guess. A lot of interpretations are heavily influenced by bias. There is a pro-Durnford group there is an anti-Durnford group and there are a variety of other interest groups. A recent a book about the battle claimed to have worked out exactly how it all went down. However his book too comes across as extremely biased. Obviously the officers of the regiment were all fantastic military men who were decisive and experienced and if left to their own devices would have seen off the enemy.
Similarly with a number of famous events like the Flight with the Colors. There are very scanty eye witness reports as to what happened. Archeology in Zululand also appears to be a dead end as the battle field has been so picked over and lived on for over 100 years.
Now I would think that very similar conditions will affect research on Little Big Horn. Unfortunately we have to await the invention of a decent time machine to allow us to clear up all these mysteries. It is all part of the fun though of arm chair generalship.

 

[UKReb]

Exactly the same with the Alamo-Mexican reports/diaries (like the Sioux verbal versions of the LBH fight which were also originally discarded) stated that after the north wall fell most of the remaining defenders scrambled over the south wall to attempt an escape-now for all Texans that would be a sacrilege that their Alamo heroes would have run rather than make a last stand. But there are now a number of historians accepting that anywhere between 60-80 Texians in fact did run-afterall most of the 189 were just wouldbe farmers/settlers and hardly professional soldiers.

Personally I prefer the myth we have been weaned on as we all just love last stand heroes-like Durnford-Crockett and Custer even though they were most probably somewhat tainted heroes. But apart from a future HG Wells inventing that time machine we will never know for absolute certainty.

and after all this time guys- does it really matter?

Reb

 

[lancer]

An interesting point, the attempted escape of some 4 to 5 dozen of the defenders. Is it now not generally conceded that there were up to some 230+ defenders? Or is this just rehashing a double counting of some of the Texians? -- lancer

 

[maddadicus]

Did a web search and I believe that this was the book I read so many years ago..Reb, your Fox guy was part of this research crew..Michael

 

[UKReb]

An interesting point, the attempted escape of some 4 to 5 dozen of the defenders. Is it now not generally conceded that there were up to some 230+ defenders? Or is this just rehashing a double counting of some of the Texians? -- lancer

The original number of defenders was based on a note written by Albert Martin- an Alamo courier- on the back of one of Travis's missives which read
"When I left there were 150 men all determined to die for Texas"

Early historians took that figure and added the 32 known members of the Gonzales Ranging Party who arrived at the mission early in the morning of March 1st. Supporting this is Santa Anna's private secretary Ramon Martinez Caro's extensive report of the battle who lists the number of rebel bodies burnt at 183. This number remained sacrosanct for 100 years when a few other names were added bringing the total to 189 (I used this number in the Deguello dio).
The current list of defenders has it's origins in Amelia Williams PhD dissertation "The Siege and Fall of the Alamo" which was published in 1934 under the title "A Critical Study of the Siege of the Alamo and of the Personnel of the Defenders" which became the bible of who was there and subsequently referred to extensively by all Alamo authors for the next 70 years.

However, recent scholars of the Alamo are researching evidence that Williams underestimated the number of defenders by at least 50 or even more so that the final number could be as you quoted 230-250. Once again as with the Custer fight-no one really knows but I'm sure the issue will continue to be argued and discussed long after we are gone.
Apologies if the above reads a bit historically dusty but they are the origins of the numbers of Alamo defenders as far as I believe them to be.

Reb

 

[eborris]

The main problem with the very interesting ballistic and forensic findings is that although they can trace the progress of a particular weapon across the battlefield they can't tell who was using it. As we know, as soon as a soldier was killed his weapons were taken and used against his compatriots which tends to throw into question some of the particular positions mooted as being Indian or soldier.
Regarding the question of the "Last Stand" it would appear that after retiring from Medicine Tail Coulee Custer again split his command. Two troops, Calhoun and Keogh, formed a skirmish line which thin formation was quickly driven back and the remainder gathered on what is today known as Custer Hill. Here some 40 or so men made a break for it and were cut down in a gully further down the slope while the rest of the command were over run at the top.
There are still interesting points being made or discovered about this controversial action, one that is gaining some credence is that in fact there was one genuine survivor, a Sergeant Finkle or Finkel, who apparently never came forward for fear of being convicted of desertion.

Another problem with the archeological type digs that uncovered the shells was that it was performed some 120+ years after the battle itself. Due to the nature of the ground, the weather, the fact that the bodies were buried and unburied multiple times I would expect that some of those shell casings would have moved around some especially around what they call "Last Stand Hill". It would seem reasonable at least to me if there was a gully near Last Stand Hill that many of the shells could wash down into this gully, giving the impression that they fled there when infact they could have washed down there from rain, melting snow etc etc. However, as previously stated without H G Wells assistance we shall never know for certain.

 

[Spitfrnd]

Another problem with the archeological type digs that uncovered the shells was that it was performed some 120+ years after the battle itself. Due to the nature of the ground, the weather, the fact that the bodies were buried and unburied multiple times I would expect that some of those shell casings would have moved around some especially around what they call "Last Stand Hill". It would seem reasonable at least to me if there was a gully near Last Stand Hill that many of the shells could wash down into this gully, giving the impression that they fled there when infarct they could have washed down there from rain, melting snow etc etc. However, as previously stated without H G Wells assistance we shall never know for certain.

Now that is an interesting point. Of course gaging the probability and degree of migration from weather involves some data that is not readily available without detailed weather records, especially for the period immediately following the event. Probably in general terms, factors like the angles of the slopes, the vegetation, the wind and soil displacement, the frequency and abruptness of rainfall, all as measured from the passage of time since the event would need to be known which is unlikely I would think. So your time machine investigation may be the only viable alternative.

I am curious though, did not the author of that reconstruction discuss such factors?

 

[eborris]

Now that is an interesting point. Of course gaging the probability and degree of migration from weather involves some data that is not readily available without detailed weather records, especially for the period immediately following the event. Probably in general terms, factors like the angles of the slopes, the vegetation, the wind and soil displacement, the frequency and abruptness of rainfall, all as measured from the passage of time since the event would need to be known which is unlikely I would think. So your time machine investigation may be the only viable alternative.

I am curious though, did not the author of that reconstruction discuss such factors?

No, he did not. So, I guess we're really where we started at square one.

 

[trooper]

One positive result of the forensic evidence was that the Indian accounts, which up till then had largely been ignored or discredited, were re-examined and found to be more accurate than had been thought. Makes you wonder if the theory put forward in "Custer's Fall" that Custer himself was initially hit in the opening action at the creek by Medecine Tail Coulee was correct. If so it would go a long way to explain the overall confusion and lack of direction, but, as we all agree, no one will ever know for sure now.

 

[eborris]

I'm not sure it was confusion or just aggressively moving trying to find a path to attack, once those paths were refused and everyone was separated, then the confusion set in. Of course we'll never know Custer's plans for his portion of the troops either.

 

[trooper]

I think it was confusion. We know that Custer expected the Indians to run, his meagre experience of Indian fighting had always ended with long, fruitless pursuits. The last thing he anticipated was that they would not only stand, but come buzzing out to fight like ants from a disturbed nest. The only major action Custer had experienced was the Wa****a where he attacked a sleeping village and it is reasonable to assume that he thought it would be a similar action. The Indian response was quite unlike anything he had known before and he wouldn't have known how to react. The troops, exhausted by the series of forced marches and mounted on worn out horses, would have had a much more basic reaction.

 

[maddadicus]

Many of his troopers were recent imigrants and his entire command was under rostered and inexperienced..I feel from what I have read, that he fully expected Reno's 100 men to rout the village as he crossed the river from another direction. Maybe Reno should have been held back, till Custer was in position, because as it turned out, the coulees and revenes were not passable, pushing Custer further away from the Reno action, till the indians met him miles away. Reno was then left isolated ,outnumbered and near overwhelmed..The biggest mistake had to be sending Benteen on a wild goose chase, and not waiting to have the support of the pack train. Between those 2 commands, we are talking almost 1/2 of the 7th Cavalry available ( 300+ men ). Not sure why GAC thought he only needed 1/2 of his men to subdue a massive village with an unknown number of warriors..Seems to be a good question..Michael

 

[marco55]

This is a fasinating subject that could be discussed for years without resolution.As a matter of fact it has went on for years,133 to be exact.
Mark

 

[forlornhoper]

I wonder if the new movie ,will endeavor to explain that custers command was just a small part of an invasion army,sent by the U S GRANT administration as part of its genocidal policy towards the native american indians,whose sole wish was to maintain their way of life and independence.The reason for his defeat at the little big horn,was that CUSTER was a military incompetant of the highest calibre and should never have been in command of any troops but the civil war provided the opportunity for the WEST POINT reject to rise to notoriety and gain some influential friends.If CUSTER was anything ,he was surely vain,brave and foolish all the prerequisite attributes of an incompetent leader of soldiers in battle.

 

[eborris]

This is a fasinating subject that could be discussed for years without resolution.As a matter of fact it has went on for years,133 to be exact.
Mark

If we had positive answers to all the questions, it wouldn't be worth discussing. It seems to me people like mysteries, look at the number of people attracted to the Black Dahlia, Jack the Ripper, The Loch Ness Monster, Bigfoot, UFO's, The Alamo to name a few.

 

[UKReb]

I wonder if the new movie ,will endeavor to explain that custers command was just a small part of an invasion army,sent by the U S GRANT administration as part of its genocidal policy towards the native american indians,whose sole wish was to maintain their way of life and independence.The reason for his defeat at the little big horn,was that CUSTER was a military incompetant of the highest calibre and should never have been in command of any troops but the civil war provided the opportunity for the WEST POINT reject to rise to notoriety and gain some influential friends.If CUSTER was anything ,he was surely vain,brave and foolish all the prerequisite attributes of an incompetent leader of soldiers in battle.

Your above post although containing a large chunk of truth is however I feel a little harsh. It has been summarised many times that the historic image and reputation of Custer have been somewhat unfairly established from the events of one day in his life-the day he died, of which as we have discussed here on this thread very little is actually known. Every other aspect of his career has been tainted by that single Indian fight at the LBH.

He was not actually a West Point reject- neither was he an incompetent leader-true he was no academic and tended to come near bottom of his class in mathematics and English but when examining the record number of demerits he received none of them were for flunking his exams they were all boyish pranks such as laughing in class; playing snowballs on the parade ground; being late on parade; hiding cooking utensils up a chimney etc. etc. However, his prowess as a horseman was proven by executing the highest jump of a hurdle while slashing at a dummy with his sabre ever recorded at the academy and although his boyish but harmless pranks kept him in constant hot water Custer excelled in popularity and leadership for as one fellow cadet wrote "Fanny Custer was beyond doubt the most popular man in his class and loved by us all"

Because of the coming of war the Class of 1860-61 was reduced by Congress from five to four years-everyone of Custer's classmates was a Southerner who following Fort Sumter resigned their commissions- but in spite of the close friendship with his Southern colleagues he remained loyal to the oath of allegiance he had sworn when entering the academy. His class was scheduled to graduate June '61 and no doubt to the amazement of some of his instructors Custer satisfactorily completed his studies and was commissioned a second lieutenant.

At his very first action at Bull Run he was cited for bravery when he turned a Union rout which had blocked a bridge into an orderly formation. Due to his West Point graduation he was transferred to a number of minor Union generals staff where his bravado and fearlessness was noted by McClellan-his rise then was meteoric not necessarily based on influential friends but more for his youthful belligerence in an army where the ruling virtue was prudence bordering on timidity. When McClellan was sacked Custer learned a painful lesson that their civilian masters controlled the military and would severely punish what they considered to be "military inactivity". Subsequently, he became a strong exponent of total war that was introduced to the Union army by the likes of Grant; Sherman and Sheridan which became very evident when studying Custer's cavalry strategy and actions which some considered reckless but whatever the description his actions always delivered victories over his Confederate counterparts prompting his men to follow him anywhere. When reading numerous accolades to be found in memoirs; diaries and letters left by his officers and cavalrymen Custer was one of the most popular generals in the Army of the Potomac even the hardcore Union Infantrymen who always jeered the cavalry could not suppress their cheers when "Young Curly Custer" cantered by-they simply adored him.

And there lies the rub to the annoyance of some of his biographers/critics-the Custer recalled by Civil War veterans bears little resemblance to the vain glorious and incompetent tyrant described by some of the Seventh Cavalry survivors-in particular Captain Benteen.

When any history student attempts to analyse Custer's actions in the West especially that Sunday June 25th 1876 on a river the Sioux called the Greasy Grass- he/she should always bear in mind two important factors that Custer had experienced during the grandest tragedy in American annals the Civil War which without doubt was the most fulfilling period in his life- 1. demonstrating timidity inevitably led to the wrath of the army's civilian masters the politicians- and 2. executing a total war doctrine always achieved outstanding and proven success. Food for thought!

Reb.

 

[maddadicus]

Your above post although containing a large chunk of truth is however I feel a little harsh. It has been summarised many times that the historic image and reputation of Custer have been somewhat unfairly established from the events of one day in his life-the day he died, of which as we have discussed here on this thread very little is actually known. Every other aspect of his career has been tainted by that single Indian fight at the LBH.

He was not actually a West Point reject- neither was he an incompetent leader-true he was no academic and tended to come near bottom of his class in mathematics and English but when examining the record number of demerits he received none of them were for flunking his exams they were all boyish pranks such as laughing in class; playing snowballs on the parade ground; being late on parade; hiding cooking utensils up a chimney etc. etc. However, his prowess as a horseman was proven by executing the highest jump of a hurdle while slashing at a dummy with his sabre ever recorded at the academy and although his boyish but harmless pranks kept him in constant hot water Custer excelled in popularity and leadership for as one fellow cadet wrote "Fanny Custer was beyond doubt the most popular man in his class and loved by us all"

Because of the coming of war the Class of 1860-61 was reduced by Congress from five to four years-everyone of Custer's classmates was a Southerner who following Fort Sumter resigned their commissions- but in spite of the close friendship with his Southern colleagues he remained loyal to the oath of allegiance he had sworn when entering the academy. His class was scheduled to graduate June '61 and no doubt to the amazement of some of his instructors Custer satisfactorily completed his studies and was commissioned a second lieutenant.

At his very first action at Bull Run he was cited for bravery when he turned a Union rout which had blocked a bridge into an orderly formation. Due to his West Point graduation he was transferred to a number of minor Union generals staff where his bravado and fearlessness was noted by McClellan-his rise then was meteoric not necessarily based on influential friends but more for his youthful belligerence in an army where the ruling virtue was prudence bordering on timidity. When McClellan was sacked Custer learned a painful lesson that their civilian masters controlled the military and would severely punish what they considered to be "military inactivity". Subsequently, he became a strong exponent of total war that was introduced to the Union army by the likes of Grant; Sherman and Sheridan which became very evident when studying Custer's cavalry strategy and actions which some considered reckless but whatever the description his actions always delivered victories over his Confederate counterparts prompting his men to follow him anywhere. When reading numerous accolades to be found in memoirs; diaries and letters left by his officers and cavalrymen Custer was one of the most popular generals in the Army of the Potomac even the hardcore Union Infantrymen who always jeered the cavalry could not suppress their cheers when "Young Curly Custer" cantered by-they simply adored him.

And there lies the rub to the annoyance of some of his biographers/critics-the Custer recalled by Civil War veterans bears little resemblance to the vain glorious and incompetent tyrant described by some of the Seventh Cavalry survivors-in particular Captain Benteen.

When any history student attempts to analyse Custer's actions in the West especially that Sunday June 25th 1876 on a river the Sioux called the Greasy Grass- he/she should always bear in mind two important factors that Custer had experienced during the grandest tragedy in American annals the Civil War which without doubt was the most fulfilling period in his life- 1. demonstrating timidity inevitably led to the wrath of the army's civilian masters the politicians- and 2. executing a total war doctrine always achieved outstanding and proven success. Food for thought!

Reb.

Amen, Reb.....you were more diplomatic than my original, personally deleted answer to that particular post...Michael

 

[forlornhoper]

Custer should be remembered by history as a poor human being of little or no conscience,prepared to commit attrocities on defenceless men ,women and children under the guise of just following orders,that fiddle was played at nuremburg ,dont see any movies turning those criminals into heroes,so why attempt it with Custer.

 

[maddadicus]

Custer should be remembered by history as a poor human being of little or no conscience,prepared to commit attrocities on defenceless men ,women and children under the guise of just following orders,that fiddle was played at nuremburg ,dont see any movies turning those criminals into heroes,so why attempt it with Custer.

Do you have any idea what you are talking about? I might forgive you for not being well read on the subject of U.S. history, but the continued ignorance in your statements, beg to be challenged, or is that your purpose in trying to bait us? Michael

 

[marco55]

Custer was a man of his time and enviroment.We can look back and see that the Indian was treated unfairly but admit it or not they waged savage war and it wasn't pretty. BOTH sides commited atrocities.Life was a much harder deal back then and it was survival of the fittest.We can argue forever if Europeans should have come and took over the Americas but that can be the case of every place in the world as peoples has supplanted other peoples throughout mankind's history.
Mark