The Little Bighorn (4 Viewers)

[Louis Badolato]

The Histroy International Channel, is showing, "The Little Big Horn: The Untold Story" I have not watched it yet I am recording it.

It is set to replay at 1:00 am (CST).

Not sure if it will be Pro or Anti Custer, I hope it will tell what happened with no particular political axe to grind.

I watched it. I was particularly interested by the accounts of Custer's Scouts to that photographer. I had no idea that Custer's brother was a double Medal of Honor recipiant. All in all it seemed to mirror the discussions on this thread. Not bad for the history channel.

 

[OzDigger]

I enjoy a good political discussion but I have to say I'm enjoying this battle tactics discussion even more.

Here's a few comments from a guy that knows next to nothing about those battles:

1) As we well know from Napoleonic wars etc, swords/sabers are not very good defense against lancers and spears which I believe the Indians were rather adapt with. And in a close in fight a sword in the hands of an untrained person can be an unwieldy weapon against a humble club, knife or tomahawk.

2) If Indians were trying to give me a bad hair day I wouldn't care who owned the closest available weapon, be it Custer's or anyone elses

3) I haven't fired a weapon from a moving horse but I have ridden enough to know that it wouldn't be too difficult to get a reasonable shot at someone, depending upon the gait. I might not get you with the first shot but I reckon you better have a good insurance policy for the second And I could always stop and fire from a distance whilst you wave your hand weapon in anger against me

 

[Spitfrnd]

...The bottom line is the whole campaign was an ill conceived slap-dash plan quickly put together by Sheridan with input from Sherman and alas the Army concept of ACYA (Always Cover Your A##) with one's regiment coming first was very much alive and well in 1876 as it most probably still is today.
...

True in all branches of the military, government and large corporations. Certainly it is a practice that has legs and that is not likely to change any time soon.

 

[OzDigger]

Gentlemen, that's why, as you no doubt well know, we will never be able to separate politics from military.......sorry about that maddadicus et al.

 

[UKReb]

Gentlemen, that's why, as you no doubt well know, we will never be able to separate politics from military.......sorry about that maddadicus et al.

Oz that's perfectly true but there has been some good discussions on here on WWII battles for example without the subject being continually scotched by politics- although some do try to as it appears they just cannot help themselves

So surely that principle applies to this particular subject and it shouldn't stop akin guys on here discussing the tactics/strategy or lack of them in one of the most infamous battles in American history.. Or does it?

There cannot be many people in the world today who are unaware that the Native American got a real rum doing over from the good old 19th century US of A. But I for the life of me cannot comprehend why that should stop like minded students of this battle being able to discuss what afterall was a most resounding victory for the Sioux Nation over the dreaded pony soldier-Sure I would not want to discuss the battle tactics in any way whatsoever for the Wash-ita, Sand Creek or Wounded Knee Massacres but that's how some members on here have made me feel.

Crikey it's a good job nobody has raised the British in India or Africa military actions-we conquering nations all have our crosses to bear but it shouldn't stunt discussion and analysis due to the shame we carry for our forefathers.

Reb

 

[Spitfrnd]

Oz that's perfectly true but there has been some good discussions on here on WWII battles for example without the subject being continually scotched by politics- although some do try to as it appears they just cannot help themselves

So surely that principle applies to this particular subject and it shouldn't stop akin guys on here discussing the tactics/strategy or lack of them in one of the most infamous battles in American history.. Or does it?

There cannot be many people in the world today who are unaware that the Native American got a real rum doing over from the good old 19th century US of A. But I for the life of me cannot comprehend why that should stop like minded students of this battle being able to discuss what afterall was a most resounding victory for the Sioux Nation over the dreaded pony soldier-Sure I would not want to discuss the battle tactics in any way whatsoever for the Wash-ita, Sand Creek or Wounded Knee Massacres but that's how some members on here have made me feel.

Crikey it's a good job nobody has raised the British in India or Africa military actions-we conquering nations all have our crosses to bear but it shouldn't stunt discussion and analysis due to the shame we carry for our forefathers.

Reb

No reason the political and tactical discussions cannot co-exit and no one need feel offended by either as far as I am concerned. But then you know I am one of those "let it fly" blokes. Your point is well taken on British excesses (for which we could substitute French, German, Japanese, Roman, etc). For example, no one, including me, has brought up the appalling conduct of Wellington's army following the storming of Badajoz, among others.

 

[UKReb]

No reason the political and tactical discussions cannot co-exit and no one need feel offended by either as far as I am concerned. But then you know I am one of those "let it fly" blokes. Your point is well taken on British excesses (for which we could substitute French, German, Japanese, Roman, etc). For example, no one, including me, has brought up the appalling conduct of Wellington's army following the storming of Badajoz, among others.

Bill,
My point exactly and it would be interesting to see if the British contingent got just as upset if we did go into the gory details of Badajoz

Personally I wouldn't but like you I fly this desk by the seat of my pants Mind you they may hang me like they did a great number of British soldiers after the siege and sacking of Badajoz

 

[eborris]

Bill,
My point exactly and it would be interesting to see if the British contingent got just as upset if we did go into the gory details of Badajoz

Personally I wouldn't but like you I fly this desk by the seat of my pants Mind you they may hang me like they did a great number of British soldiers after the siege and sacking of Badajoz

I try real hard to stay out of the political discussions, especially if they revolve around something that happened 100 years before I was born, no matter how I feel about the events, there's nothing I can do to change history. All I can do is learn from the experiences and pains of others and try to avoid the same mistakes in my own small way. Getting all worked up about it now does no one any good.

 

[Njja]

Reb it is my opinion that many people today have been taught to have a

negitive opinion on most everything about U.S. history. This is why almost

every discussion on a historial battle becomes our crimes against a fallen

foe. When I grew up in the 1960's and attended college this was not the

case.....but the Vietnam war was raging and I can only assume that many

"people" that either fled to Canada, or stayed in school to "avoid the draft"

became educators such as Ward Churchill, and Bill Ayers, two men that have

spent their lives distorting students view of our country.

I suggest that we simply ignore any and all posts that do not deal directly

with the battle and its aftermath. The rest is pointless, and in my opinion

will never be resolved.

 

[Spitfrnd]

Well why not just ignore whatever you like of any thread? Either it is of some interest to you or evokes some peceived need for comment or not. Surely each of us is free to chose that for themselves.

I am not sure that our educators have given any given generation an undue critical sense of American history. There is plenty of any nation's history to be critical about and ours is no different. I do not think we need dwell on our examples of poor behavior but judging from the responses in this thread, some qualifying as outright denial, I'd say it remains useful to bring them up from time to time. Less we forget has more than one meaning.

 

[Combat]

There is apparently no such thing as overkilling those PC "special americans" who won't stick to the pre-1950 script. Some keep coming back to it over and over. They apparently must be silenced even they haven't said anything. Remember it's all "political" when contrary to your own cultural POV.

 

[Mister Dave]

I've just finished the History Channel program from last night. Not a masterpiece by any stretch but interesting to look at and some interesting information offered I think worth mentioning. Apparently a fellow named Curtis in 1905 or so spent some time with several of the Crow scouts still alive at the time. Among other things they suggested to him that Custer's command sat for a time observing Reno's plight unfolding and seeing it going badly and despite this chose to press on rather than ride to his assistance. This apparently was omitted from the book Curtis ultimately published. I wonder if any of you have read this book or heard much and could comment about these particular claims?

MD

 

[OzDigger]

Oz that's perfectly true but there has been some good discussions on here on WWII battles for example without the subject being continually scotched by politics- although some do try to as it appears they just cannot help themselves

So surely that principle applies to this particular subject and it shouldn't stop akin guys on here discussing the tactics/strategy or lack of them in one of the most infamous battles in American history.. Or does it?

There cannot be many people in the world today who are unaware that the Native American got a real rum doing over from the good old 19th century US of A. But I for the life of me cannot comprehend why that should stop like minded students of this battle being able to discuss what afterall was a most resounding victory for the Sioux Nation over the dreaded pony soldier-Sure I would not want to discuss the battle tactics in any way whatsoever for the Wash-ita, Sand Creek or Wounded Knee Massacres but that's how some members on here have made me feel.

Crikey it's a good job nobody has raised the British in India or Africa military actions-we conquering nations all have our crosses to bear but it shouldn't stunt discussion and analysis due to the shame we carry for our forefathers.

Reb

Reb, I agree. Although politics continues to play a large part in war I think purely political discussions are best avoided, otherwise battle threads can become very tedious.

 

[trooper]

Referring back to the finding of Custer's body, it is amazing how many of the accounts contradict each other in detail. One speaks of his marble white body, another says his upper body was blackened by the sun and his lower body was livid with congealed blood. One says he was reclining on the bodies of two troopers with his head resting on his outstretched arm, another that he was lying on his back with his arms folded across his abdomen. Most speak of the two gunshot wounds to his left breast and left temple, one refers to them being on the right side while yet another introduces a further GSW in his forearm. Which opens up the question of powder burns around the head wound, some authorities stating quite firmly that these were absent, yet there must be a possibilty of any such marks being obscured by the blackening of mortification.

 

[UKReb]

Referring back to the finding of Custer's body, it is amazing how many of the accounts contradict each other in detail. One speaks of his marble white body, another says his upper body was blackened by the sun and his lower body was livid with congealed blood. One says he was reclining on the bodies of two troopers with his head resting on his outstretched arm, another that he was lying on his back with his arms folded across his abdomen. Most speak of the two gunshot wounds to his left breast and left temple, one refers to them being on the right side while yet another introduces a further GSW in his forearm. Which opens up the question of powder burns around the head wound, some authorities stating quite firmly that these were absent, yet there must be a possibilty of any such marks being obscured by the blackening of mortification.

Good post Trooper

When Libbie Custer went riding with the 7th on numerous occassions during their Black Hills and Yellowstone expeditions Custer ordered two of his Lieutenants never to allow her to be captured by the Indian and there was after the mutilations of the Fetterman massacre an unwritten rule of "save the last bullet" etc.

I suppose Custer's wounds with what we have discussed should be seen in two seperate scenarios.

1. Was he shot at the river with a chest wound-carried to the ridge incapacitated and either Cooke or Tom Custer putting the final shot through his head before being overwhelmed by the Indian.

2. Instead of him riding down Medicine Tail Coulee he stayed with Keogh and Calhoun and organised the skirmish line at Luce Ridge finally arriving at Custer Hill where he received either his wounds or blew his own brains out at the end. Remember Cheyenne in particular rarely mutilated a body of anyone who took their own life-bad medicine. And a blackened body after two to three days in the sun would indeed make it difficult for Lt Bradley to spot powder burns on the wound even though he said there was no blood trickle-ie received post mortem.

Now you know why this battle continues to fascinate me as it has done for the last 30 years or so.

Reb

 

[UKReb]

Referring back to the finding of Custer's body, it is amazing how many of the accounts contradict each other in detail. One speaks of his marble white body, another says his upper body was blackened by the sun and his lower body was livid with congealed blood. One says he was reclining on the bodies of two troopers with his head resting on his outstretched arm, another that he was lying on his back with his arms folded across his abdomen. Most speak of the two gunshot wounds to his left breast and left temple, one refers to them being on the right side while yet another introduces a further GSW in his forearm. Which opens up the question of powder burns around the head wound, some authorities stating quite firmly that these were absent, yet there must be a possibilty of any such marks being obscured by the blackening of mortification.

Dave

I didn't/haven't seen the programme but from your post I would assume they are referring to William E Curtis's "Custer's Scouts" reprinted as Big Horn-Yellowstone Journal 1876.

This story had been bandied around for years but has been whittled down to Mitch Boyer (or Bouyer) Custer's half breed scout with the young Crow scout referred to as Curly (who escaped from the battlefield dressed in a Sioux blanket and brought the news to the steamer "Far West") as the two scouts who witnessed Reno's retreat into the timber. They both viewed this from the top of Sharpshooter Ridge and reported it to Custer who was waiting further north. Custer then dismissed his scouts but Mitch decided to stay with the general and perished just south of the Deep Ravine.

One can only imagine the disappointment that struck Custer when being informed of Reno's repulse-What was he to do? Remember he had already sent Sergeant Kanipe to hasten Benteen to join him and believed he would. That is when he sent E & F Troops down the Coulee either as some would state a stupid attempt to charge the village or a brave bluff to pull half the Indian force off of Reno (which indeed was the result).

Curly's testimony was refuted for years as being utterly unreliable and it is only been the last 20 years or so since the archeological finds that historians have returned to analyze Curly's statements only to prove some of it to be very accurate

Bob

 

[trooper]

Again refering to the possibilty of Custer's suicide, one argument against this was that the wound was in the left temple and Custer was right handed therefore suicide should be ruled out. However, venturing into the realm of unsubstantiated surmise, if Custer had been hit at the ford he would have most likely had drawn the pistol carried butt forward on his left hip, and it would have been dropped. Carried back with the retreating troops to the final moments on Last Stand Hill if he did commit suicide it is logical that he would have drawn his second pistol with his left hand and used it immediately, hence the wound in the left temple. As said, unsubstantiated surmise, but a possible scenario. A lot of the witnesses said they would prefer not to comment until after the death of Libby Custer, indicating there were other details not released at the time, unfortunately Libby outlived virtually all of them and the details died with them. They might have answered a lot of the questions we are now exploring.

 

[maddadicus]

I am most confused by the totally contradictory nature of transcripts and after action reports from officers and men that survived with Reno/Benteen. You would be hard pressed to find any consenus among the " remembered details " of any moment at that time..Allowing that some witnesses may have had an agenda ,if you throw out their opinions and stick with the rest of the observations, you are still no where near common ground. Archeology and forensics( past, present and future )might be the only reasonable way to guesstimate this battle...Michael

 

[Mister Dave]

Dave

I didn't/haven't seen the programme but from your post I would assume they are referring to William E Curtis's "Custer's Scouts" reprinted as Big Horn-Yellowstone Journal 1876.

This story had been bandied around for years but has been whittled down to Mitch Boyer (or Bouyer) Custer's half breed scout with the young Crow scout referred to as Curly (who escaped from the battlefield dressed in a Sioux blanket and brought the news to the steamer "Far West") as the two scouts who witnessed Reno's retreat into the timber. They both viewed this from the top of Sharpshooter Ridge and reported it to Custer who was waiting further north. Custer then dismissed his scouts but Mitch decided to stay with the general and perished just south of the Deep Ravine.

One can only imagine the disappointment that struck Custer when being informed of Reno's repulse-What was he to do? Remember he had already sent Sergeant Kanipe to hasten Benteen to join him and believed he would. That is when he sent E & F Troops down the Coulee either as some would state a stupid attempt to charge the village or a brave bluff to pull half the Indian force off of Reno (which indeed was the result).

Curly's testimony was refuted for years as being utterly unreliable and it is only been the last 20 years or so since the archeological finds that historians have returned to analyze Curly's statements only to prove some of it to be very accurate

Bob

Yes, Bob, the Curly story sounds more consistent with the generally accepted version of things, and you are correct I think in your id of the book and it's author. The programme was quite clear, however, about the 3 scouts that Curtis was getting information from and Curly was not among them. (Was Curly still alive in 1905?) Hairy Moccasin was one of the three and the the other two's names escape me at the mo. According to Curtis, he was told of Custer himself and his staff directly observing Reno's retreat and "could have ridden to his assistance within 5 minutes ride from the point of observation." The program eventually claims that then pres. TR persuaded him not to include this in his book, which he did not. An interesting twist I thought.

MD

 

[eborris]

I am most confused by the totally contradictory nature of transcripts and after action reports from officers and men that survived with Reno/Benteen. You would be hard pressed to find any consenus among the " remembered details " of any moment at that time..Allowing that some witnesses may have had an agenda ,if you throw out their opinions and stick with the rest of the observations, you are still no where near common ground. Archeology and forensics( past, present and future )might be the only reasonable way to guesstimate this battle...Michael

The fog of war, you generally are only aware of your own circumstances or what you believe your circumstances were.