The Little Bighorn (1 Viewer)

[Phantom Warrior]

History has shown that when a "powerful modern" civilization collides with a "weaker less-developed" civilization, it is, with no exceptions I can think of, the weaker culture that suffers, no matter how well intended the stronger civilization is at the beginning. It's like a Mini and a Cadillac Escalade in an accident. The Mini is usually totaled. About the best the weaker civilization can hope for is assimilation as opposed to extermination. The very nature of the move into an area by a strong civilization disrupts/destroys the economy and culture of the indigenous people. The morals of the powerful civilization has little to do with it and given a territorial expansion, every powerful civilization will be the "bad guy".

Terry

 

[bromhead]

Gentlemen, it is no use looking back at history with modern ideals, times and mindset were different then. What is unthinkable and reprehensible today was considered to be the logical answer at that time. As we progress we hopefully learn from the mistakes of the past and do not repeat them. But it must be remembered that the actions of the day were governed by the thoughts of that day. In years to come our activities will be evaluated and no doubt many will be ridiculed and some will cause open mouthed shock and horror to our descendants. The same applies to our view of the past, try to look back with impartiality.

My fellow fellows,,looking back after several hours and my response to Pvt forlorn, having already been ridiculed ,reprehensable,unthinkable and with shock and horror myself ,usually from former spouses,I must say I agree with us. I at times chop with no chips flying,,all forests and no trees.

 

[maddadicus]

My fellow fellows,,looking back after several hours and my response to Pvt forlorn, having already been ridiculed ,reprehensable,unthinkable and with shock and horror myself ,usually from former spouses,I must say I agree with us. I at times chop with no chips flying,,all forests and no trees.

That has always been my attitude to enjoying history. If we were to stand on some modern era, touchy-feely, moral high ground every time we were to read a history book about any country's event, no battle, no general, no country would ever pass our bad smell test..It would always be some back and forth as to whose country was the lesser evil than another's..One must go back in time, do the research ,accept that at that point, all military decisions made were based on their facts, their reasoning and their morals..That is the only way, we can ever talk about conflict, without getting sick and always feeling dirty for discussing it..Michael

 

[Spitfrnd]

History has shown that when a "powerful modern" civilization collides with a "weaker less-developed" civilization, it is, with no exceptions I can think of, the weaker culture that suffers, no matter how well intended the stronger civilization is at the beginning. It's like a Mini and a Cadillac Escalade in an accident. The Mini is usually totaled. About the best the weaker civilization can hope for is assimilation as opposed to extermination. The very nature of the move into an area by a strong civilization disrupts/destroys the economy and culture of the indigenous people. The morals of the powerful civilization has little to do with it and given a territorial expansion, every powerful civilization will be the "bad guy".

Terry

I am sorry Terry, that sounds too much like an excuse for immoral behavior for my taste. Certainly a large part of history supports that outcome but that does make it right then or now. Hopefully we have gotten somewhat better or perhaps the instanteous exposure of such conduct does have some positive value; not that I am a fan of our modern press.

 

[Phantom Warrior]

I am sorry Terry, that sounds too much like an excuse for immoral behavior for my taste. Certainly a large part of history supports that outcome but that does make it right then or now. Hopefully we have gotten somewhat better or perhaps the instanteous exposure of such conduct does have some positive value; not that I am a fan of our modern press.

It was not intended to excuse behaviour - just an observation of what happens. My point was that all nations in the dominant position are guilty simply because enough powerful people in that country can get away with it for their own profit. As for whether the modern world behaves better - I don't think so. There are still too many recent examples in Bosnia, Chechnya, Iraq, Iran, several African countries, and so on.

Terry

 

[OzDigger]

I was really enjoying this thread until you guys ruined it with politics and philosophy

It's the natural state of the world for the strong to take from the weak. Morality only becomes an issue when the majority view something in the process as being offensive. As morally offensive acts are perpetrated by individuals or small groups it's wrong to blame the government in power be it religious or economic based. Unless of course it can be proved said government condoned such actions.

My understanding is that the US government wanted the (so called) renegade Indians at Little Big Horn returned to their reservations. The fact that the Indians resisted violently caused the subsequent outcome(s).

Is this not true?

 

[eborris]

I was really enjoying this thread until you guys ruined it with politics and philosophy

It's the natural state of the world for the strong to take from the weak. Morality only becomes an issue when the majority view something in the process as being offensive. As morally offensive acts are perpetrated by individuals or small groups it's wrong to blame the government in power be it religious or economic based. Unless of course it can be proved said government condoned such actions.

My understanding is that the US government wanted the (so called) renegade Indians at Little Big Horn returned to their reservations. The fact that the Indians resisted violently caused the subsequent outcome(s).

Is this not true?

That was my impression of their mission. However, others think it was for the purpose of extermination. There is no doubt that they felt the Indians were a troublesome problem, so maybe their non-stated plans were ethnic cleansing, who can say for sure?

 

[UKReb]

This is intended to be an historical, reasonably fact based inquiry to the military whys and what fors of the Bighorn battle. Politicians and PC advocates need not respond. I want to know about the different books we have read from whatever country, concerning the subject. Conjecture as to combatants movements and intent are welcomed. Michael

The above was Michael's OP for this thread initiated because we had tried to discuss the machinations of the battle over on the "new Custer film" thread only for it to get sullied by Pvt Forlornhoper's bleat of annihilation of the Indian which he was perfectly entitled to air over on the media thread. Because I would tend to agree with him that Hollywood's versions of Custer so far have been somewhat fictitious. However, he followed us over on to this thread and indeed recently even hit poor old Randy's recommendation of a book on Custer aspirations to become a financier following the Civil War with exactly the same comments that he had already aired on the movie thread.

I have tended to ignore his posts as they have been extremely repetitive. I also align myself with Oz's latest post that this thread I have found to be absolutely enthralling. In the main we have kept to Michael's criteria that he set out in his OP and for a bunch of amateur historians we have covered a hell of a lot of ground in our discussions on this battle- was Custer incompetent, his mistakes, his battle strategy-if indeed he had one, his arrogance, was he killed at the Coulee, Reno and Benteen's actions, bravery of the 7th officer corps, faulty weapons, lack of sabers, worn out horses, the skill and bravery of the Sioux and Cheyenne, the mutilations of the troopers, the Indian scouts, the aftermath etc.etc.etc.

I wish to thank all participants (well nearly all) who have inputted to this thread-true I have always been a student of this particular battle and have read a great number of books on the subject-but guys I have also learned such a lot from all of you with your intelligent and erudite posts. So thank you for that.

So in having a very indepth discussion of this battle are we all ignorant of the fact that the Indian was practically annihilated during this and other so called "Indian wars"? Of course it doesn't and I too take great offense at such comments that infer I know nothing of the back-ground and the consequences of these so called soldiers in blue actions. And finally as a Brit I also agree with Michael we are the last race of people who can throw mud at the US for practically destroying the Indians way of life by removing him from his natural habitat that still continues to haunt Americans today-one only has to read any book on the British Empiric occupations to work that one out.

Reb

 

[damian]

Leaving aside the issue of genocide, ethnic cleansing and rampant imperialism I would like to attempt to tie up a number of separate threads into one post. How do we explain the fact that the AZW is so popular with collectors yet the LBH seems to be ignored by most manufacturers. The number of posts on these LBH threads has been quite significant. A lot of collectors seem to be interested in the LBH and quite passionate about it. There are a number of movies about LBH ( more than there are about the Zulu War). I suspect the bibliography on Custer is bigger than the AZW bibliography. Both battles involve white armies getting wiped out by their indigenous opponents. Both battles ended up having similar consequences for the indigenous people. So why is it that the Zulu War is so popular amongst toy soldier collectors but LBH is in the collecting doldrums.

 

[UKReb]

Leaving aside the issue of genocide, ethnic cleansing and rampant imperialism I would like to attempt to tie up a number of separate threads into one post. How do we explain the fact that the AZW is so popular with collectors yet the LBH seems to be ignored by most manufacturers. The number of posts on these LBH threads has been quite significant. A lot of collectors seem to be interested in the LBH and quite passionate about it. There are a number of movies about LBH ( more than there are about the Zulu War). I suspect the bibliography on Custer is bigger than the AZW bibliography. Both battles involve white armies getting wiped out by their indigenous opponents. Both battles ended up having similar consequences for the indigenous people. So why is it that the Zulu War is so popular amongst toy soldier collectors but LBH is in the collecting doldrums.

Who says the LBH is in the collecting doldrums?

 

[damian]

Who says the LBH is in the collecting doldrums?

Reb
I was just asking.
I have the Entire Black Hawk series packed away unopened.
I thought they were not bad.
Reb I know you did not think much of them.
I just don't see any manufacturer bringing out a sustained western LBH 7 th cavalry range at present.
It is just a mystery to me how one era seems to catch the imagination of toy soldier fans and another seems not to.

 

[Spitfrnd]

....How do we explain the fact that the AZW is so popular with collectors yet the LBH seems to be ignored by most manufacturers. The number of posts on these LBH threads has been quite significant. A lot of collectors seem to be interested in the LBH and quite passionate about it. There are a number of movies about LBH ( more than there are about the Zulu War). I suspect the bibliography on Custer is bigger than the AZW bibliography. Both battles involve white armies getting wiped out by their indigenous opponents. Both battles ended up having similar consequences for the indigenous people. So why is it that the Zulu War is so popular amongst toy soldier collectors but LBH is in the collecting doldrums.

Is the AZW popular or is the battle of Rorke's Drift the reason for its popularity? Perhaps it might have been different had Custer's unit survived? FWIW, all politics and morals aside, the are no movies about the LBH as good as the one movie about the Drift.

 

[lancer]

Is the AZW popular or is the battle of Rorke's Drift the reason for its popularity? Perhaps it might have been different had Custer's unit survived? FWIW, all politics and morals aside, the are no movies about the LBH as good as the one movie about the Drift.

BINGO! Baker and Caine and the rest of B Co., 24th Ft. put a winner on screen that has left quite an impression on we TS collectors. Coupled with the Morris book, "The Washing Of The Spears" and you have a perfect storm for popularity. The many excellent TS releases by so many different makers is just remarkable. Plus, that battle at the drift is just fantastic for TS dios because of the limited scope of the battlefield and numbers involved. A collector can put the whole garrison on display along with the buildings without too much trouble. A great subject. -- Al

 

[eborris]

Reb
I was just asking.
I have the Entire Black Hawk series packed away unopened.
I thought they were not bad.
Reb I know you did not think much of them.
I just don't see any manufacturer bringing out a sustained western LBH 7 th cavalry range at present.
It is just a mystery to me how one era seems to catch the imagination of toy soldier fans and another seems not to.

Yeah, infact TSSD is coming out with a set of Custer's Last Stand which should be available at OTSN. Granted this set will be in plastic, but I beleive it will sell very well which would indicate to me that there is quite a bit of interest in the subject.

 

[marco55]

I also think that AZW is more popular because of Custer.Few soldiers before WWII have been demonized such as he.You do not hear nothing about the British commanders in the Zulu War or any other colonial wars even though the had the same viewpoints as Custer.The German,French and Belgian commanders in colonial campaigns were hard sometimes brutal men also.
Mark

 

[mk26gmls]

I don't know if any of you have read the book titled "Where Custer Fell: Photographs of the Little Bighorn Battlefield Then and Now". I found it an excellent read and very informative of the battlefield layout. Since I have not been to the actual battlefield myself, it helped me grasp just how large of an area where this event took place.

If anyone would like to read how early relations between the Indians and the European settlers started, I recommend reading the book "Love and Hate in Jamestown" that I posted under the Books section of this forum.

This has been an excellent thread for the most part.

Darrell

 

[UKReb]

I don't know if any of you have read the book titled "Where Custer Fell: Photographs of the Little Bighorn Battlefield Then and Now". I found it an excellent read and very informative of the battlefield layout. Since I have not been to the actual battlefield myself, it helped me grasp just how large of an area where this event took place.

If anyone would like to read how early relations between the Indians and the European settlers started, I recommend reading the book "Love and Hate in Jamestown" that I posted under the Books section of this forum.

This has been an excellent thread for the most part.

Darrell

Darrell

Concur a very good book in trying to begin to understand the large area the battle was fought over-recommended purchase to anyone interested in the fight.

Reb

 

[maddadicus]

Is it possible that most of the Zulu War buffs do not even know or care who Bartle-Frere was? We all know on the Custer side, who Grant and Sherman were. It seems that most fans of the Zulu War are more forgiving or forgetting to the reasons why it happen while some on the Custer side see political boogeymen and evil intent to anything written about him..What is the difference , Mr. Forlorn between the "genocide" of your Africans and the "genocide" of our Native Americans? Michael

 

[UKReb]

Is it possible that most of the Zulu War buffs do not even know or care who Bartle-Frere was? We all know on the Custer side, who Grant and Sherman were. It seems that most fans of the Zulu War are more forgiving or forgetting to the reasons why it happen while some on the Custer side see political boogeymen and evil intent to anything written about him..What is the difference , Mr. Forlorn between the "genocide" of your Africans and the "genocide" of our Native Americans? Michael

Michael

Slightly bemused with the above as you copied my quote on Darrell's book against your comments

Is this addressed to me or my fellow Brit?

Bob

 

[maddadicus]

Reb suggested a particular book to me ," Custers Last Campaign "by John Gray..First off, it is not an easy read nor is it meant to be some stirring novel..The best way to describe the book, would be to imagine a college professor with a large topographical map of the Bighorn region spread out before us. Then he takes every detail of every interview or trial testimony ever offered by any survivor of the total fight and separates every time reference to an event of the campaign as well as every geographical detail mentioned. Pins are then stuck into a time/distance graph and positioned on this " map ". The author is then able to make a reasonable layout as to the dynamics of the Custer/Reno fight, based on the testimony of all..If you are new to the battle, do not buy this, but if you are well read, it cannot be beat as a reference book for the battle. If all the rah,rah Custer..hate Benteen/Reno sites would read this book, it would end their reason for being. Custer was wiped out too fast and too far away, because of the time and distance evidence presented to have been saved by any of the forces left..That is how I read the conclusion. I would be honored to hear Reb's thought of the same book..Michael