The Little Bighorn (3 Viewers)

[eborris]

Interesting how bias plays into interpretation of historical events. The Germans are war criminals - and rightly so - for the holocaust. But when Americans or Brits look at their own history it becomes PC to review those events. War being hell and such. The savages better off under the colonial boot. Custer was a person who thought he could obtain glory by killing an entire race of people. My hope is that he had a few moments to reflect upon the wisdom of that objective at the very end. Res ipsa and all that PC jazz.

I don't believe he went in that battle to destroy the Indian population, infact his strategy suggests that he actually tried to avoid a large brawl. Had his plan succeeded and he captured the women and children chances are there would have been no massacre, just a minor skirmish. If he was not respected by the Indians why did they not mutilate him like they did everyone else? That makes me believe they did not think of him as a blood thirsty exterminator.

 

[Njja]

Interesting how bias plays into interpretation of historical events. The Germans are war criminals - and rightly so - for the holocaust. But when Americans or Brits look at their own history it becomes PC to review those events. War being hell and such. The savages better off under the colonial boot. Custer was a person who thought he could obtain glory by killing an entire race of people. My hope is that he had a few moments to reflect upon the wisdom of that objective at the very end. Res ipsa and all that PC jazz.

........................................................................................................

Is it really necessary to insult a man that fought so bravely for his country?

If you do not like him fine, that is completely your opinion and I respect that.

I wish you would express your opinion without the insults.

 

[Spitfrnd]

I don't believe he went in that battle to destroy the Indian population, infact his strategy suggests that he actually tried to avoid a large brawl. Had his plan succeeded and he captured the women and children chances are there would have been no massacre, just a minor skirmish. If he was not respected by the Indians why did they not mutilate him like they did everyone else? That makes me believe they did not think of him as a blood thirsty exterminator.

I am not so sanguine as you about the capture part; was not the policy and practice at that time to kill any "uncooperative natives"?

 

[Combat]

........................................................................................................

Is it really necessary to insult a man that fought so bravely for his country?

If you do not like him fine, that is completely your opinion and I respect that.

I wish you would express your opinion without the insults.

Simply because he was American? How about the same standard for Hitler or Heydrich? They had the same objectives.

 

[Njja]

Simply because he was American? How about the same standard for Hitler or Heydrich? They had the same objectives.

.......................................................................................................

Wow, now Custer is in a class with Hitler and Heydrich?

Sorry I can't even come up with a response for that one.

 

[eborris]

I am not so sanguine as you about the capture part; was not the policy and practice at that time to kill any "uncooperative natives"?

Perhaps it was, but on the surface they were supposed to get them to return to their reservations through a show of force, not exterminate them. All his scouts told him that it was the largest Indian gathering they had ever seen. Did he think he was going to defeat them in battle? Maybe or maybe his plan was to capture the women and children to get the Indians to cooperate. He was bold and brash for sure, aggressive yes, some may say foolhardy, but I don't believe he was a complete idiot. We all have our opinions but nobody knows for sure what went through his mind or even what his true intent was, that's why we still discuss this topic 173 years later.

 

[Combat]

.......................................................................................................

Wow, now Custer is in a class with Hitler and Heydrich?

Sorry I can't even come up with a response for that one.

Only an ignorance of history or cultural bias would distinguish the two situations. The objective of the US government was to exterminate a race of people. Custer was the Eichmann in that objective - following orders etc. This is not one of those situations where there can be a reasoned difference of opinion.

 

[jazzeum]

I'm wondering if we can tone it down some and possibly return to discussing these themes within the original topic. Thanks.

 

[marco55]

Interesting how bias plays into interpretation of historical events. The Germans are war criminals - and rightly so - for the holocaust. But when Americans or Brits look at their own history it becomes PC to review those events. War being hell and such. The savages better off under the colonial boot. Custer was a person who thought he could obtain glory by killing an entire race of people. My hope is that he had a few moments to reflect upon the wisdom of that objective at the very end. Res ipsa and all that PC jazz.

Why do you say Custer was going to kill an entire race?Isn't that a little overboard?
Mark

 

[Njja]

Only an ignorance of history or cultural bias would distinguish the two situations. The objective of the US government was to exterminate a race of people. Custer was the Eichmann in that objective - following orders etc. This is not one of those situations where there can be a reasoned difference of opinion.

........................................................................................................

You are quite correct on that point, you have your opinion and I have mine.

And I can say that without insulting you, or compairing you to any unsavory

character in history.

I would hope we could discuss Gen Custer without resorting to crude

comments and insults, they do not strengthen ones point of view.

 

[marco55]

Only an ignorance of history or cultural bias would distinguish the two situations. The objective of the US government was to exterminate a race of people. Custer was the Eichmann in that objective - following orders etc. This is not one of those situations where there can be a reasoned difference of opinion.

My god,I didn't realize that Custer was the Antichrist.

 

[Njja]

Njja,the troopers killed at the big horn,were from a historical perpective,only there as part of an invasion force,that cannot be denied,the fact that their bodies were mutilated is morally reprehensible,no arguement on that point,but if they were not part of an invasion force they would not have met their demise.The fate of the native americans was sealed long before the big horn.The behaviour of a civilised society,does not include the physical removal or destruction of a minority people who were trying to preserve their way of life and defend their civil rights and lands.If that is not a historical fact then i must have read the wrong history of America,were the native americans not the indigenous people of America and the white europeans not the invaders,iam sure i have read that somewhere or shall we pretend that it was all an old wifes tail and it was the native indian that invaded white european America,when they migrated from Africa.

........................................................................................................

You are correct the american indians never fought against each other, and never attempted to wipe out or drive off other tribes from land they wanted.
They all got along swell, like regular pals.

I seem to remember somewhere the theory that the indians migrated here walking across the land bridge that used to connect asia with alaska. If that is the case what is the difference between them walking to America and the Europeans sailing to America?

Throughout history it has always been survival of the fittest, not the first one here wins.

 

[maddadicus]

I'm wondering if we can tone it down some and possibly return to discussing these themes within the original topic. Thanks.

The historical guys quit this thread a number of posts back...Michael

 

[lancer]

Goodness, did this thread ever go off course. -- lancer

 

[pugio]

There is one account about the battle that was never taken seriously because it was told by some Cheyenne warriors. Custer may have been one of the first casualties of the battle. After Custer sent Reno off on his ill-fated charge of the village, Custer traveled on the opposite side of the river from the village. Farther up his found a fording place, and did indeed start crossing the river to the village side. There he came into contact with a small group of Cheyenne warriors. According to the braves, who discribed his horse and his attire, Custer received the first of his 2 wounds- a round to the chest- almost knocking him off his mount. This threw the rest of his troop into chaos and they retreated back across the river into history. On the modern battlefield, even with all modern tech at your figure tips, in a ambush, if your commanding officer is put out of action, it takes a while for the second in command or anyone to take stock of the situation before he can restore order out of the chaos. I really belive this is what happened. His troops could not believe "Custers Luck" had run out- the Golden Cavalier was mortally wounded. Pyschologially they had just lost the fight........

 

[Njja]

There is one account about the battle that was never taken seriously because it was told by some Cheyenne warriors. Custer may have been one of the first casualties of the battle. After Custer sent Reno off on his ill-fated charge of the village, Custer traveled on the opposite side of the river from the village. Farther up his found a fording place, and did indeed start crossing the river to the village side. There he came into contact with a small group of Cheyenne warriors. According to the braves, who discribed his horse and his attire, Custer received the first of his 2 wounds- a round to the chest- almost knocking him off his mount. This threw the rest of his troop into chaos and they retreated back across the river into history. On the modern battlefield, even with all modern tech at your figure tips, in a ambush, if your commanding officer is put out of action, it takes a while for the second in command or anyone to take stock of the situation before he can restore order out of the chaos. I really belive this is what happened. His troops could not believe "Custers Luck" had run out- the Golden Cavalier was mortally wounded. Pyschologially they had just lost the fight........

........................................................................................................

That is a very interesting point, I had not read that account of the action.

It certainly would put a different spin on the battle.

 

[UKReb]

Guys,did i read somewhere that the suspicion is that some men were never found and were probably taken back to camp to be tortured.Also a couple of men tried to surrender and were killed on the spot,this comes from an Indian warriors staement.I also read that at least one of Custers men was killed by an Indian women with a club during the attack on the village.

Rob

Rob old mate

Nice try but drop it best not make statements like that on this thread

Reb

 

[Njja]

Guys,did i read somewhere that the suspicion is that some men were never found and were probably taken back to camp to be tortured.Also a couple of men tried to surrender and were killed on the spot,this comes from an Indian warriors staement.I also read that at least one of Custers men was killed by an Indian women with a club during the attack on the village.

Rob

........................................................................................................

Rob everything you mention certainly is possible. I read several accounts of the battle but it was quite sometime ago. I know the Indian women where present to pick the bodies clean of anything of value.

I believe it would have been difficult for anyone to have survived to be captured at Custers Ridge. I recall the Indians laid in the tall grass and fired arrows up into the air that came down and impaled the troopers on the ridge. When the firing from the soldiers fell off the Indians charged many on horse back and wiped out the command. You can imagine the ferocity of the attack.

To me it is interesting that Gen Custers body was cleaned but not scalped or mutliated. No one really know why this happened. Some think it is because he was wearing buckskins instead of a uniform, and the Indians did not know he was a soldier. This seems unlikely as he was more then likely giving orders unless mortally wounded early on.

Because his hair was cut short others think he did not have enough for a good scalping. Some believe the Indians left him alone out of respect for his fighting ability, but others claim few of the Indians actually knew who he was, so this was not the case.

I guess the real reason will never be known.

Custer had two gunshot wounds either of which could have been fatal. One just above the heart the other to his left temple.

 

[Rob]

........................................................................................................

Rob everything you mention certainly is possible. I read several accounts of the battle but it was quite sometime ago. I know the Indian women where present to pick the bodies clean of anything of value.

I believe it would have been difficult for anyone to have survived to be captured at Custers Ridge. I recall the Indians laid in the tall grass and fired arrows up into the air that came down and impaled the troopers on the ridge. When the firing from the soldiers fell off the Indians charged many on horse back and wiped out the command. You can imagine the ferocity of the attack.

To me it is interesting that Gen Custers body was cleaned but not scalped or mutliated. No one really know why this happened. Some think it is because he was wearing buckskins instead of a uniform, and the Indians did not know he was a soldier. This seems unlikely as he was more then likely giving orders unless mortally wounded early on.

Because his hair was cut short others think he did not have enough for a good scalping. Some believe the Indians left him alone out of respect for his fighting ability, but others claim few of the Indians actually knew who he was, so this was not the case.

I guess the real reason will never be known.

Custer had two gunshot wounds either of which could have been fatal. One just above the heart the other to his left temple.

John,funny that although in comparison to many famous battles this was a mere skirmish,it has attained legendary status and is known across the world.Past down over generations here we are still talking about that short,savage and sad episode in American History,somehow it captures our imagination.The same can i guess be said for Rorkes Drift,Charge of the Light Brigade. As kids we would play at Custers last stand not knowing the first thing about it really,but knowing it was brave,violent and with a bad ending.

Louis mentioned earlier about the mutilations inflicted after the battle and that they have been part of warfare through the ages.I read sometime ago about how Marines in the pacific took Japenese heads as trophys, and how as veterans started to pass away in the 80's and 90's many of these heads started to come to light in America.I make no judgement about this at all.Because of the sacrafice of that generation i live a free and comfortable life and cannot for one milli second imagine the horror and trauma these young men went through and what this can do to a young man.

We asked so much of that generation and thank god they stood up.

Rob

 

[UKReb]

Uk reb,if you feel that the historical information i have presented is incorrect please feel free to present your version.Political correctness has nothing to do with my presentation of the facts.Historical events and figures will be viewed from many perspectives,but hopefully through the study of history the human race will learn the lessons and not repeat the same mistakes of an earlier age,whats wrong with that?The little big horn was a small part of a more complex us government policy towards the ingidenous people,that is a historical fact and american citizens of the time morally questioned that policy,that is a historical fact too,the Grant administration was tainted at the time for corruption,thats a historical fact.Iam sure as someone who studies military history,you should know,all wars are politically motivated by the political masters of the time,the Grant Administration desired the land already assigned to the native americans and that desire corrupted their humanity,that is a historical fact.The Grant administrations native american policy was the forcible removal and or physical destruction of re calcitrant elements within the natives ,that a historical fact too.I have presented my facts without passion or any PC motives.

Yes and you presented the same theme on the new Custer film thread which I am led to believe prompted Michael to open this thread on the battle/tactics etc.

Thank you for the above history lesson, however I am well versed in Custer's political difficulties during the spring of 1876 and his testimony in Washington on the Belknap affair concerning governmental corruption on the frontier. Although Secretary of War Belknap resigned he had indirectly implicated Grant's brother Orville. This brought down the wrath of President Grant upon Custer who blamed him for the whole mess and during a presidential election year. I am also aware thank you that after the defeat the Custer legend was perpetuated to portray the army as a victim that needed to be avenged and was indeed the perfect way for the army/government to justify forcing Plains tribes onto reservations, opening the West for white settlers. It was 1876 the 100th anniversary of the battle for Independence and the shock to the American people at the time was incredulity that a warrior culture could defeat a modern army-very similar I would think to the American reaction to 9/11. I am also quite familar of the fact that a large number of American people today consider Custer as an Eichmann of the Plains.

All that said some of us-make that a couple of us on here-are fascinated with the battle itself without the political agenda albeit we are fully aware of the whole sordid background. Every year more books are published on this battle than any other- apart from Gettysburg- there is simply a plethora of tomes; articles; symposiums etc.on the subject. At West Point the cadets still study the fight as how not to conduct yourself as an officer in command-the fact that Custer divided his forces in the face of an unknown enemy is really a reflection of white arrogance from Custer all the way up to the top of the Army Command. Subsequently, Michael and myself are far from being just the two lone rangers who have the same interest albeit I accept that this is the case on our forum.

A definitive account of the LBH has always eluded historians and continues to do so but small details and discoveries in recent years continue to fuel that interest of how Custer's command collapsed into total disintegration based on the simple premise that these noble and simple indigenous people would not fight let alone have the ability to defeat a whole regiment.

However being in the complete minority here on the forum I surrender this thread to you and others who understandably do not have the same interest in the battle that I have.
Amen

Reb