The Little Bighorn (5 Viewers)

[maddadicus]

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

I quoted the wrong post. Is was in reference as to why the Zulu War might be more popular than the Bighorn fight and also a question to your fellow Brit..Michael

 

[bromhead]

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

Agreed as I am beginning to fade into history myself.

 

[UKReb]

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

Phew! that's a relief Michael as I rightly guessed you were a few miles up that dusty Montana road in your knowledge of the characters and the fight. When you asked me to recommend any books to you I did say my recommendations for you would be different than the ones I offered Mister Dave who by his own admission was a first year student of the fight.

I am really glad you found the book as interesting as I did-no mesmerizing is a more apt descriptive in my feelings after reading it twice and you are correct not an easy read. But when you eventually decipher where the characters were and more importantly when and how that fits into the time-line of the battle I was completely sold.

Two particular quotes that Gray makes about Custer and where it could have gone wrong aligned with my thinking out of all the books I have read on the LBH.

1. A simple battle plan that he hoped would stop an Indian left flank escape

2. He believed and expected no doubt right up to receiving his two bullets that Benteen would ride up with his troops and ammo packs.

Also Gray's analysis of Curly's testimony-that for years had been discarded fitted almost perfectly into his time-line using topographic info and positions of who was were. I'll say it now a brilliant book and I seriously would have paid for the book if you had not been satisfied-but I guessed I was on to a safe bet

Reb

 

[maddadicus]

Phew! that's a relief Michael as I rightly guessed you were a few miles up that dusty Montana road in your knowledge of the characters and the fight. When you asked me to recommend any books to you I did say my recommendations for you would be different than the ones I offered Mister Dave who by his own admission was a first year student of the fight.

I am really glad you found the book as interesting as I did-no mesmerizing is a more apt descriptive in my feelings after reading it twice and you are correct not an easy read. But when you eventually decipher where the characters were and more importantly when and how that fits into the time-line of the battle I was completely sold.

Two particular quotes that Gray makes about Custer and where it could have gone wrong aligned with my thinking out of all the books I have read on the LBH.

1. A simple battle plan that he hoped would stop an Indian left flank escape

2. He believed and expected no doubt right up to receiving his two bullets that Benteen would ride up with his troops and ammo packs.

Also Gray's analysis of Curly's testimony-that for years had been discarded fitted almost perfectly into his time-line using topographic info and positions of who was were. I'll say it now a brilliant book and I seriously would have paid for the book if you had not been satisfied-but I guessed I was on to a safe bet

Reb

Gray certainly was not a Benteen fan but I felt he was very fair, as his own time and distance formula left the surviving officers off the hook for not charging the village or not somehow reaching Custer, before the last shots were fired. What truly should amaze most Bighorn followers is how fast Custer seemed to have been overwhelmed. It certainly speaks volumes to the almost no organized stand theory. Any type of firing line by near 200 men ought to have been able to hold longer. If Weir's belated rescue attempt had caught the Indians attack of Custer in flank ,who knows how things might have worked out, but Weir would have needed another 30 to 45 minutes of Custer actually still fighting rather than his command being already dead...Michael

 

[damian]

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

Hey now most of us Zulu fans know who Bartle- Frere was. I think we all have read about the Road to War, The border dispute, confederation and the Ultimatum tree etc.

 

[maddadicus]

Hey now most of us Zulu fans know who Bartle- Frere was. I think we all have read about the Road to War, The border dispute, confederation and the Ultimatum tree etc.

Damian, having said that ,then why does the Zulu War get off scott free from all political ramifications and poor Custer get represented as the anti-christ. A great case could be made that the 2 campaigns politically as well as militarily are mirror images of each other. The British suffered the greater disaster and are lauded while the Bighorn is picked apart socially, politically and militarily..Custer probably wishes he had 1200 men to lose, but Chelmsford goes home a hero and Custer becomes a bumMichael

 

[Spitfrnd]

Damian, having said that ,then why does the Zulu War get off scott free from all political ramifications and poor Custer get represented as the anti-christ. A great case could be made that the 2 campaigns politically as well as militarily are mirror images of each other. The British suffered the greater disaster and are lauded while the Bighorn is picked apart socially, politically and militarily..Custer probably wishes he had 1200 men to lose, but Chelmsford goes home a hero and Custer becomes a bumMichael

I think it is somewhat a question of where you live. I doubt Chelmsford is a hero in Africa. The LBH and related events just happened to have occurred here, where the American Indian policy and its practioners are most criticized.

 

[trooper]

With regard to the Zulu War argument it is generally accepted that the British commanders were inept whereas with Custer there is a raging argument as to whether he was the brilliant commander suggested by the Custerphiles or a reckless, glory hunter by the Custerphobes. As has been stated before where Custer is concerned there appears to be no shades of grey, everything is either black or white, and until the grey is freely acknowledged by both sides the arguments will continue.

 

[UKReb]

Damian, having said that ,then why does the Zulu War get off scott free from all political ramifications and poor Custer get represented as the anti-christ. A great case could be made that the 2 campaigns politically as well as militarily are mirror images of each other. The British suffered the greater disaster and are lauded while the Bighorn is picked apart socially, politically and militarily..Custer probably wishes he had 1200 men to lose, but Chelmsford goes home a hero and Custer becomes a bumMichael

Fully understand Michael's frustration between the vilified Custer and the reputation of Chelmsford surviving almost intact. However, one must understand the positions of "gentlemen generals" within British society and the absolute power Queen Victoria had at the time over her politicians and army personnel.

Frederick Thessiger-2nd Baron Chelmsford was not only the son of one of Britain's Chancellors he was also a very personal and dear friend of the Queen serving as her aide-de-camp from 1868-1872 and his youngest son was even one of her personal page-boys. Therefore making Chelmsford utterly untouchable! Following the disaster at Isandlwana there had to be a scapegoat and although Chelmsford was no doubt shocked that an indigenous people could wipe out a 1300 strong British army he was adroit enough to allow the full amount of criticism to fall upon a one armed junior officer-Lt Col Durnford. But Disraeli-Victoria's prime minister at the time was not so easily fooled and demanded that Chelmsford be stripped of his command of the Natal forces.

Victoria ordered Disraeli to immediately drop this unwarranted personal attack on "poor Frederick" and she certainly had the power to ensure that happened. Chelmsford knew his reputation had been tarnished and moved heaven and earth to retrieve it but the Zulu continued to frustrate his efforts with other disasters following such as the death of the Imperial Prince Louis Napoleon. Time passed fresh news replaced the old and sober Parliamentarian minds sifting through hard facts started to view the Zulu campaign somewhat differently, Bartle Frere was recalled from his post under a cloud of disapproval and finally Chelmsford was relieved of his command replaced by Garnet Wolseley but not before he massacred the Zulu at Ulundi and following this action Victoria demanded that Wolseley's despatches would ensure that Chelmsford receive full credit for the victory over the Zulu.

So yes! Chelmsford did weather the storm to have more honors bestowed upon him such as the GCB and the GCVO by an admiring Queen Victoria, but he was never trusted with a command again. At the time of his death from a heart attack whilst playing billiards in his London club he held the "glorious" position of Colonel of the West London army cadets.

The background as above is an attempt to explain why the name Chelmsford is not as vilified today as Custer. Bartle Frere even on his death bed saw himself as carrying out British policy, and there is much truth in that. But by choosing his and Chelmsford's own timing rather than that of their superiors had left them both open to censure. Which was not the case of Custer albeit he did not wait for Terry and Gibbon before he attacked-so the question of why should Custer all on his own carry the sins of a pretty dreadful US policy against the Indian is I suppose valid.

Simply I think because he got himself and his troops killed ensuring his and the 7th cavalry historical immortality with practically everyone in the world being familiar with the name Custer. The public at large however are not so familiar with the names of other Indian killers-such as Kit Carson; John Chivington; Nelson Miles etc.etc. And more importantly they survived and just disappeared into the history books where you now have to dig them out to discover that they did exactly the same- if not worse- acts of attrition against the Indian than Custer executed.

Reb

 

[maddadicus]

With regard to the Zulu War argument it is generally accepted that the British commanders were inept whereas with Custer there is a raging argument as to whether he was the brilliant commander suggested by the Custerphiles or a reckless, glory hunter by the Custerphobes. As has been stated before where Custer is concerned there appears to be no shades of grey, everything is either black or white, and until the grey is freely acknowledged by both sides the arguments will continue.

Trooper, if one reads Gray's book, one might find a strategic Custer, who ran out of time and men to overwhelming superior numbers. I was entralled by his time and geographical interpretation of Custer's moves and ultimate demise..Michael

 

[eborris]

Fully understand Michael's frustration between the vilified Custer and the reputation of Chelmsford surviving almost intact. However, one must understand the positions of "gentlemen generals" within British society and the absolute power Queen Victoria had at the time over her politicians and army personnel.

Frederick Thessiger-2nd Baron Chelmsford was not only the son of one of Britain's Chancellors he was also a very personal and dear friend of the Queen serving as her aide-de-camp from 1868-1872 and his youngest son was even one of her personal page-boys. Therefore making Chelmsford utterly untouchable! Following the disaster at Isandlwana there had to be a scapegoat and although Chelmsford was no doubt shocked that an indigenous people could wipe out a 1300 strong British army he was adroit enough to allow the full amount of criticism to fall upon a one armed junior officer-Lt Col Durnford. But Disraeli-Victoria's prime minister at the time was not so easily fooled and demanded that Chelmsford be stripped of his command of the Natal forces.

Victoria ordered Disraeli to immediately drop this unwarranted personal attack on "poor Frederick" and she certainly had the power to ensure that happened. Chelmsford knew his reputation had been tarnished and moved heaven and earth to retrieve it but the Zulu continued to frustrate his efforts with other disasters following such as the death of the Imperial Prince Louis Napoleon. Time passed fresh news replaced the old and sober Parliamentarian minds sifting through hard facts started to view the Zulu campaign somewhat differently, Bartle Frere was recalled from his post under a cloud of disapproval and finally Chelmsford was relieved of his command replaced by Garnet Wolseley but not before he massacred the Zulu at Ulundi and following this action Victoria demanded that Wolseley's despatches would ensure that Chelmsford receive full credit for the victory over the Zulu.

So yes! Chelmsford did weather the storm to have more honors bestowed upon him such as the GCB and the GCVO by an admiring Queen Victoria, but he was never trusted with a command again. At the time of his death from a heart attack whilst playing billiards in his London club he held the "glorious" position of Colonel of the West London army cadets.

The background as above is an attempt to explain why the name Chelmsford is not as vilified today as Custer. Bartle Frere even on his death bed saw himself as carrying out British policy, and there is much truth in that. But by choosing his and Chelmsford's own timing rather than that of their superiors had left them both open to censure. Which was not the case of Custer albeit he did not wait for Terry and Gibbon before he attacked-so the question of why should Custer all on his own carry the sins of a pretty dreadful US policy against the Indian is I suppose valid.

Simply I think because he got himself and his troops killed ensuring his and the 7th cavalry historical immortality with practically everyone in the world being familiar with the name Custer. The public at large however are not so familiar with the names of other Indian killers-such as Kit Carson; John Chivington; Nelson Miles etc.etc. And more importantly they survived and just disappeared into the history books where you now have to dig them out to discover that they did exactly the same- if not worse- acts of attrition against the Indian than Custer executed.

Reb

Another major difference, Chelmsford had enough foresight to be with the split forces that survived, while Custer did not. Had his forces been slaughtered maybe his place in history would be quite different, then again, maybe not.

 

[Spitfrnd]

Fully understand Michael's frustration between the vilified Custer and the reputation of Chelmsford surviving almost intact. However, one must understand the positions of "gentlemen generals" within British society and the absolute power Queen Victoria had at the time over her politicians and army personnel.

Frederick Thessiger-2nd Baron Chelmsford was not only the son of one of Britain's Chancellors he was also a very personal and dear friend of the Queen serving as her aide-de-camp from 1868-1872 and his youngest son was even one of her personal page-boys. Therefore making Chelmsford utterly untouchable! Following the disaster at Isandlwana there had to be a scapegoat and although Chelmsford was no doubt shocked that an indigenous people could wipe out a 1300 strong British army he was adroit enough to allow the full amount of criticism to fall upon a one armed junior officer-Lt Col Durnford. But Disraeli-Victoria's prime minister at the time was not so easily fooled and demanded that Chelmsford be stripped of his command of the Natal forces.

Victoria ordered Disraeli to immediately drop this unwarranted personal attack on "poor Frederick" and she certainly had the power to ensure that happened. Chelmsford knew his reputation had been tarnished and moved heaven and earth to retrieve it but the Zulu continued to frustrate his efforts with other disasters following such as the death of the Imperial Prince Louis Napoleon. Time passed fresh news replaced the old and sober Parliamentarian minds sifting through hard facts started to view the Zulu campaign somewhat differently, Bartle Frere was recalled from his post under a cloud of disapproval and finally Chelmsford was relieved of his command replaced by Garnet Wolseley but not before he massacred the Zulu at Ulundi and following this action Victoria demanded that Wolseley's despatches would ensure that Chelmsford receive full credit for the victory over the Zulu.

So yes! Chelmsford did weather the storm to have more honors bestowed upon him such as the GCB and the GCVO by an admiring Queen Victoria, but he was never trusted with a command again. At the time of his death from a heart attack whilst playing billiards in his London club he held the "glorious" position of Colonel of the West London army cadets.

The background as above is an attempt to explain why the name Chelmsford is not as vilified today as Custer. Bartle Frere even on his death bed saw himself as carrying out British policy, and there is much truth in that. But by choosing his and Chelmsford's own timing rather than that of their superiors had left them both open to censure. Which was not the case of Custer albeit he did not wait for Terry and Gibbon before he attacked-so the question of why should Custer all on his own carry the sins of a pretty dreadful US policy against the Indian is I suppose valid.

Simply I think because he got himself and his troops killed ensuring his and the 7th cavalry historical immortality with practically everyone in the world being familiar with the name Custer. The public at large however are not so familiar with the names of other Indian killers-such as Kit Carson; John Chivington; Nelson Miles etc.etc. And more importantly they survived and just disappeared into the history books where you now have to dig them out to discover that they did exactly the same- if not worse- acts of attrition against the Indian than Custer executed.

Reb

Friends in higher places certainly can make a difference, as can no surviving to tell your own story; although it seems Libby may have done a better job than Custer ever could. I still think it has a lot to do with where the event occurs. For example, Carson is not exactly revered in New Mexico and the Southwest and has a conflicted reputation here in the states at best. He never suffered a disaster like LBH and certainly he never got quite the same degree of attention as Custer.

 

[UKReb]

As an aside and as some solace for my American friends is the fact that after Custer's massacre the US Army learned a military lesson and didn't make the same errors again. Whilst us Brits didn't learn a darn thing after Isandlwana and went and did it again the very next year during the 2nd Afghan War at the Battle of Maiwand.

Another army under the command of an inexperienced "Gentleman General" was practically massacred in the Helmand area of Afghanistan in July 1880 . This fine fellow General Burrows was completely unable to co-ordinate his infantry; artillery and cavalry who were utterly routed suffering over 1700 casualties dead and wounded -the only occassion of an Asian army defeating a 19th century Western power.

Attached picture is of the final stand-toward the end of the battle-of the 66th (Berkshire) Regiment of Foot and in true Hollywood style the little regimental dog (Bobbie) in the foreground of the picture survived. Queen Victoria presented Bobbie with an Afghan War Medal-seriously true!

So there you go guys you learned at the LBH whilst us Brits kept repeating those last stands engineered by incompetent "gentlemen generals"-Oh Yeah! Burrows got away as well and was awarded a medal ! Don't think he was a personal friend of the Queen's though.........but then again!

Reb

 

[Louis Badolato]

As an aside and as some solace for my American friends is the fact that after Custer's massacre the US Army learned a military lesson and didn't make the same errors again. Whilst us Brits didn't learn a darn thing after Isandlwana and went and did it again the very next year during the 2nd Afghan War at the Battle of Maiwand.

Another army under the command of an inexperienced "Gentleman General" was practically massacred in the Helmand area of Afghanistan in July 1880 . This fine fellow General Burrows was completely unable to co-ordinate his infantry; artillery and cavalry who were utterly routed suffering over 1700 casualties dead and wounded -the only occassion of an Asian army defeating a 19th century Western power.

Attached picture is of the final stand-toward the end of the battle-of the 66th (Berkshire) Regiment of Foot and in true Hollywood style the little regimental dog (Bobbie) in the foreground of the picture survived. Queen Victoria presented Bobbie with an Afghan War Medal-seriously true!

So there you go guys you learned at the LBH whilst us Brits kept repeating those last stands engineered by incompetent "gentlemen generals"-Oh Yeah! Burrows got away as well and was awarded a medal ! Don't think he was a personal friend of the Queen's though.........but then again!

Reb

Everything you said about Maiwand is 100% accurate, but I am not sure it was the only major defeat imposed on British arms by native forces in the 19th Century. The Afghans imposed a greater disaster on the British Forces retreating from Kabul under the command of General Elphinstone (I think only 5 Sepoys and a Veterinary Officer or Surgeon Officer escaped), and then there was Hugh Gough's near disaster at Chillianwallah, where his mishandling of the 24th Foot (the same poor regiment massacred at Isandlwana) caused them to perform the infantry version of the "Charge of the Light Brigade" and sustain 50% casualties. And the Madhi (an African, rather than Asian) sure handed several British led forces bad beatings, from Valentine Baker Pasha through Chinese Gordon. And if you consider we crazy ex-colonials natives, then the Battle of New Orleans certainly counts . . .

 

[damian]

To bring politics back into this debate, I agree with some of the comments here about how the Zulu war is not vilified but the Indian wars are. There are a few current historians Shula Marks and Jeff Guy who have written extensively on teh outcome of the Zulu War for the people of Zulu Land.
It was an unmitigated disaster. They lost their sovereignty and were gradually incorporated into settler South Africa where they were dispossesed and turned into surplus cheap labour for the new gold mines of the Witwatersrand. If anyone ventures off the tourist track in modern Zululand the extent of this disaster is readily appreciated by observing the living conditions of the vast majority in the area. So I agree that the outcome for teh Zulus is often overlooked by Zulu war buffs who prefer reading about the military side of things.

 

[Spitfrnd]

Everything you said about Maiwand is 100% accurate, but I am not sure it was the only major defeat imposed on British arms by native forces in the 19th Century. The Afghans imposed a greater disaster on the British Forces retreating from Kabul under the command of General Elphinstone (I think only 5 Sepoys and a Veterinary Officer or Surgeon Officer escaped), and then there was Hugh Gough's near disaster at Chillianwallah, where his mishandling of the 24th Foot (the same poor regiment massacred at Isandlwana) caused them to perform the infantry version of the "Charge of the Light Brigade" and sustain 50% casualties. And the Madhi (an African, rather than Asian) sure handed several British led forces bad beatings, from Valentine Baker Pasha through Chinese Gordon. And if you consider we crazy ex-colonials natives, then the Battle of New Orleans certainly counts . . .

Well certainly LBH was not the only US military disaster or even the worse for that matter. We certainly had our share in the 20th Century. Interestingly on a force against force basis, LBH was not even the worse defeat suffered against natives, even without gentlemen generals. There was of course, St. Clairs defeat at the Wabash. BTW, since you mentioned New Orleans, it only seems fair to also mention Bladensburg.

 

[arnhem44mad]

Off with his head!

 

[UKReb]

Everything you said about Maiwand is 100% accurate, but I am not sure it was the only major defeat imposed on British arms by native forces in the 19th Century. The Afghans imposed a greater disaster on the British Forces retreating from Kabul under the command of General Elphinstone (I think only 5 Sepoys and a Veterinary Officer or Surgeon Officer escaped), and then there was Hugh Gough's near disaster at Chillianwallah, where his mishandling of the 24th Foot (the same poor regiment massacred at Isandlwana) caused them to perform the infantry version of the "Charge of the Light Brigade" and sustain 50% casualties. And the Madhi (an African, rather than Asian) sure handed several British led forces bad beatings, from Valentine Baker Pasha through Chinese Gordon. And if you consider we crazy ex-colonials natives, then the Battle of New Orleans certainly counts . . .

Louis
Thanks for the corrections as my statement was a little premature of Maiwand being the only occassion of an Asian victory over a 19th century Western power-Kabul was indeed a massacre of a retreating British force although I had Chillianwallah down as more of a greater loss of British prestige rather than a complete rout by a native army as at the end of the battle both sides held their positions for a further three days until the British left the field.

Interesting you use the comparator of the Charge of the Light Brigade as following that disastrous Crimean action Lord Lucan said something like "This is a dam* rum serious thing". General Airey replied "Huh! this is nothing you should have been at Chillianwallah!"

And as I know absolutely nothing at all about "crazy ex-colonial natives" I couldn't possibly comment

Reb

 

[eborris]

As long as we drifted a bit from the theme, I'll carry this a little further. does anybody know how many wars the UK has been in and what their record is? I certainly don't and I'm just curious.

 

[Louis Badolato]

Louis
Thanks for the corrections as my statement was a little premature of Maiwand being the only occassion of an Asian victory over a 19th century Western power-Kabul was indeed a massacre of a retreating British force although I had Chillianwallah down as more of a greater loss of British prestige rather than a complete rout by a native army as at the end of the battle both sides held their positions for a further three days until the British left the field.

Interesting you use the comparator of the Charge of the Light Brigade as following that disastrous Crimean action Lord Lucan said something like "This is a dam* rum serious thing". General Airey replied "Huh! this is nothing you should have been at Chillianwallah!"

And as I know absolutely nothing at all about "crazy ex-colonial natives" I couldn't possibly comment

Reb

Reb,

You know far more about the antics of we crazy ex-colonials than I ever will. You encyclopedic knowledge of the Civil War and the Alamo, as demonstrated in your fantastic diodramas, is beyond impressive.

Funnily enough, I have spent most of my free time studying the History of Great Britain and its empire. My two favorite authors, Rudyard Kipling and George MacDonald Frasier, got me hooked, and I after WWII, my favorite historical topic is "Queen Victorias Little Wars".

As far as Chillianwallah is concerned, for whatever reason, despite his disastrous mishandling of his infantry, and his Calvalry Commander (who apparently went insane in the midst of the battle) taking his cavalry and retiring from the field, the Sikhs did not take advantage, and merely held their position. Had the Sikhs pressed their advantage Gough would (rightfully) be regarded as one of the worst commanders and British history. But, Gough was able to declare the battle a victory (despite the decimation of his forces), and rather than being relieved of his command, thanks to the incredible quality of his infantry, went on to win that battle (the name of which escapes me) where the Sikhs inexplicably pinned themselves along the curve of a river, could not retreat, and some obscene number of them ended up drowning.