The Custer Conundrum by T. J. Stiles

The Custer Conundrum: Exploring Leadership and the Contradictory Life of George Armstrong Custer by T. J. Stiles
George Armstrong Custer proved himself a highly capable commander from the battlefields of the American Civil War through the hills of Texas, to his final moments on the Great Plains. On Wednesday, October 18, 2017, the U.S. Army Heritage and Education Center (USAHEC) hosted Mr. T.J. Stiles, recipient of the Pulitzer Prize, as he presented a lecture entitled, “The Custer Conundrum.” The lecture examined the complicated nature of leadership principles in the U.S. Army through the lens of the peculiar combination of Custer's skills as a combat leader and failings as a regimental field commander.
Brevet Major General of U.S. Volunteers during the Civil War and later, a Lieutenant Colonel in the 7th U.S. Cavalry Regiment, George A. Custer was a highly skilled tactician and inspiring figure in battle, but failed to manage his men well in non-kinetic settings, whether in Texas in 1865-66 or on the Great Plains over the next decade. He also developed a problematic reputation within the army that complicated his relationship with his superiors, who often assumed the worst about him. Custer’s career sheds light on the U.S. Army itself, and its role in the transitional time during the push west across the continent in the Post-Civil War years. The Army represented the leading edge of modernization in the United States, introducing finely articulated organization, professionalization, and technical expertise into an individualistic country that was transforming into a corporate, organizational economy and society. Custer was both a highly trained professional-a technical expert-and a romantic individualist; his volatile nature emphasizes the broader themes of this transition. His self-destructive tendencies lead to a story, which highlights the peculiar demands the Army faced in conflict with Native peoples on the Great Plains.

[@davidlord7364]

Great lecture!The "Gen" was 100per cent, like the rest of us ....Human! God rest him and those who rode with him

[@jeffsmith2022]

Makes you feel really bad for the poor horses that died in this war...Nice to have a good woman behind you...

[@zipperpillow]

I think you mean, under you?

[@toddchafe1703]

Very,very insightful Mr.Stiles

[@richardh8811]

I was born in monroe, MI. There's a Custer statue & museum there. We consider this his home town. Thanks for giving a fair opinion on him

[@zipperpillow]

Also, 2 different roads named after him.

[@janupczak5059]

I have enormous respect for Mr. Stiles as a writer and a speaker. This was a gem to find. Thank you!

[@stephenbastasch7893]

Thank for this calm and objective, informative lecture!

[@mjohn9199]

Everybody remembers George Custer, but who remembers his brother. He who was apparently a a better solder and a better man. His name was Thomas Custer, he was the first US soldier to receive two Medals of Honor,

[@jimwestberg4771]

While tom custer was one hell of a fighter, his merits as an officer are not exactly phenomenal. He was a man prone to quick temper and often much more contemptuous compared to his brother. His merits and fame while deserved, were all due to his brother. He was a man that while very brave, did not show the makings of a great officer. A great book on tom is called "In his brothers shadow" and really focused on Toms own military record.

[@markcrampton5873]

Tom Custer never commanded more than 1 company of troops. Personal courage doesn't mean competence. Should Alvin York have planned D- Day ?

[@samstevens7172]

Custer received both MOHs for capturing enemy flags. Endeavors that were not without risk, but he was no Audie Murphy.

[@allistermcginlay6476]

@@samstevens7172 if I remember correctly Tom Custer was shot in the face when he was awarded the medal of honour, he had to be ordered to leave the battle, sounds like something a "hero might do!"

[@samstevens7172]

@@allistermcginlay6476 I believe I acknowledged Custer had exposed himself to risk in his endeavors. He appeared to be seeking the colors when he was shot in the face. He was removed from the battlefield eventually by “arrest”; I am guessing it was more a “flesh wound.” My comment was more about the frequency the MOH was awarded during the Civil War. That he was a capable and willing fighter appears to be a matter of record.

[@CBUCK1994]

Tj stiles really did custer a solid with his book amazing lecture

[@manuelkong10]

Custer didn't "mishandle" his troops at the Battle of the Greasy Grass (there's a whole book on how his disposition of forces was in accordance with US Cavalry doctrine) The sheer numbers of warriors at Rosebud and Greasy Grass meant a least two things they would fight rather than run and they could use tactics not usually possible Those two battles were well outside the "normal" combat conditions on the plains GREAT talk loved it!!

[@sabineb.5616]

manuelkong10, you are right: the indians outnumbered Custer's soldiers massively. And it isn't mentioned very often that they also had the better weapons! The soldiers had one-shot front-loading guns, which meant that the soldiers had to cooperate: one soldier fired and another one reloaded the guns. This was very cumbersome. Sometimes a bow and an arrow are much more effective. But the Native Americans had also the better guns: by trading and looting they had acquired many repetitive guns! Since Custer was responsible for outfitting his men, one of his biggest mistakes was that he grossly underestimated not just the number but also the fire power of his adversaries.

[@stephenburke5967]

At the Rosebud and subsequent retreat by Crook(squaw soldier,name given by the Arikara)he refused to let the scouts go and warn Custer that the Indian fought full on and not guerilla style warfare,they had huge numbers of superior weapons(Henry repeating rifles) and the enormous amount of warriors.Along with Crook not supporting Custer with 1,200 troops and approx 300 scouts he refused to relate that vital new information that was crucial for the oncoming battle seven days later.Custer went by the book when he handed commands to Reno and Benteen as cavalry tactics in the field state" when assailing the enemy in the front strike from the sides".These tactics were designed on the battles of Mechanicsville and Chancellorsville when Lee hit in three directions against superior numbers.

[@Eadbhard]

@@stephenburke5967 Much of what you say about the Rosebud battle, and the Little Bighorn, is true, but I cannot believe your view that the tactics Custer used at the Little Bighorn were maneuvers designed only for the Civil War. Custer learned his lessons well during the disastrous Hancock Campaign, when he first fought Native warriors on the Plains. A few years later, at the Battle of the Washita, Custer used a tactic called 'envelopment' against the Cheyenne village, and it worked in his favour. Later, in 1874, Colonel Ranald MacKenzie, with 400 men, imitated Custer's 'envelopment' maneuver and successfully defeated 1500 Comanche, Kiowa, Cheyenne, and Arapaho warriors at the Battle of Palo Duro Canyon, in the Texas Panhandle. In short, by the time of the Battle of the Little Bighorn, Custer was a well-seasoned Indian fighter. He learned, long ago, that Indian warfare was entirely different from the type of warfare found in the Civil War. Also, one must remember, Custer fought the same Indians he fought at the Little Bighorn three years before, along the Yellowstone. In those skirmishes, not only were Custer and the 7th Cavalry highly successful, those confrontations with the Sioux, along the Yellowstone, added more grist for Custer's Indian-fighting mill.

[@Eadbhard]

@@sabineb.5616 The 1873 Springfield carbines were chosen by the U.S. Army to be the standard issue weapon. They were chosen mainly because of their accuracy, and their long effective range. Incidentally, Major Marcus Reno was one of the officers on the panel who selected this weapon. I don't see how you figure Custer GROSSLY underestimated the Indians' numbers. Custer, as well as everyone else in the regiment, had a pretty damn good idea how big the Indian village was going to be. Most scholars and experts place the number of warriors at the Little Bighorn at around 1500 - 2000. Custer had 700 troopers. The 7th Cavalry was not MASSIVELY outnumbered, and they were not facing insurmountable odds.

[@icewaterslim7260]

And Custer was unaware of Crook's close call at Rosebud largely due to Sheridan's policy to have them operate independently without any policy in place for sharing intelligence. A requirement for a battle report provided to other commanders would seem essential for someone of Sheridan's background but maybe I'm seeing too little of timely intelligence sharing right up through the Pacific war. A commander's proverbial decisions being only as good as his intelligence and all that.

[@rickkephartactual7706]

Outstanding presentation of the whole man.

[@scottcooper578]

I agree outstanding historical perspective!

[@Defender78]

59:03 !! omg

[@mfs2778]

Thank you for honest history.

[@azspotfree]

So gentlemen came out of our colleges back in Custer's day, my, how things have changed

[@cravinbob]

Excellent lecture and proves what one can learn when they dig deep into a subject.

[@DOLARNICK]

Absolutely excellent presentation

[@fergalohearga9594]

Well done. Probably 99 percent of people who form opinions about Custer as a fighter don't know of these episodes in his career where he evaluated the situation and concluded a withdrawal or a different approach was merited. I'm well aware of them, and Mr Stiles does a good job of presenting this aspect of Custer in a readily understandable way. That is why the Battle of the Little Big Horn is so very interesting, as what ultimately happened to the men on the northern part of the battlefield seems to conflict with what one would expect from Custer the military leader.

[@TightwadTodd]

An explanation of that may be, that Custer wasn't in Command after the Attempt to cross the river. According to John Grass, Custer was shot where Medicine Tail Coulee meets the river. John Grass was leading an ambush party there, after they saw Custer on the hill and heading down the Coulee. According to Grass's account, Custer was the first shot and was dragged up to Last stand hill.

[@fergalohearga9594]

@@TightwadTodd That's exactly my point. Custer was not in command of the unit from early on. I'm very familiar with the Indian accounts and the Medicine Tail Coulee theory, and it is too easily dismissed by historians and interested people.

[@Eadbhard]

@@TightwadTodd What makes you think John Grass would have even recognized Custer? None of the warriors at the Little Bighorn knew it was Custer who was attacking them. All things considered, most of the warriors in the village likely didn't even know Custer, let alone been able to recognize him.

[@TightwadTodd]

@@Eadbhard What makes you think, they didn't recognize Custer? You think that None of those warriors had seen and fought Custer before? Pahanska was known to them.

[@Eadbhard]

@@TightwadTodd Oh, they did fight Custer before - this occurred along the Yellowstone River, three years before the Little Bighorn. Yes, some of the warriors likely saw him, but that doesn't mean they knew who the hell he was. Let's be realistic, shall we? If the battles up along the Yellowstone were long, drawn-out, hand-to-hand brawls, I might concede that some of the Lakota warriors may have gotten to know Custer intimately, but such was not the case. Like most frontier battles, the fights on the Yellowstone were not close-up and personal. Fact: the odds are more likely the Natives at the Little Bighorn didn't recognize Custer for who he was. How could they? Why would they? Do you think they had photographs of George Armstrong Custer hanging up in their lodges? The fact is, the warriors in the village along the Little Bighorn didn't know Custer from Adam; as such, any Native story that describes how Custer got shot, where he got shot, how he died, or where he died, is apocryphal at best. If the Natives actually did know Custer ... if they did, in fact, recognize him at the Little Bighorn, there is really only one possible explanation for it, however slight; but, I don't reckon I'll get into that right now.

[@ChathamJackTar]

Excellent. Thank you.

[@nathanfagan9881]

Fascinating background into the man, I know a fair amount about the Civil War and also Little Big Horn but not a great deal on what kind of a man he was. Thank you..

[@ArtilleryAffictionado1648]

Fascinating. I guess the takeway for those like myself who are not very concerned with any agenda (not being american i hardly care if custer was a monster or a hero or whatever) is that a person is complex and simple phrases do not do them justice and we should be more reserved in judgment and always dig deeper before we make up our minds about a historical figure.

[@RemoteViewr1]

Fascinating to get your take away impression. Good post.

[@ArtilleryAffictionado1648]

@@RemoteViewr1 thank you friend

[@Eadbhard]

Well said, Antonio. Judge not, what you don't know; and until you REALLY know, keep your half-baked opinions to yourself.

[@frankbolger3969]

Bravo!

[@ripvanwinkle1819]

Yeah, you can be american and not have an 'agenda'. Lol. I dont even vote, for false dichotomies that only reinforce each other. So yeah, what a stupid remark on your part.

[@LEMMYKISGOD]

This is a great YT channel 👍

[@charlescasey9799]

You would think Custer did this to the Indians on his own. He was a soldier with a mission you can blame Washington politicians for the Indians fate. The Indians usually tried to get away with there families. They beat crook a few days before they had good medicine crazy horse was an inspiration for their new tactics ...plus a lot of Indian warriors

[@The2cvdolly]

Measured and fascinating lecture! Thank you Mr Stiles.

[@alexamerling79]

Well done. Honest accurate history.

[@prestonphelps1649]

Excellent

[@williampinner1893]

Well done.

[@clydeosterhout1221]

I don’t see any conundrum. Custer had planned on doing the prudent thing and performing a careful and thorough reconnaissance before attacking. Once he thought he had been discovered he believed that he had to attack right away to keep the Native Americans from scattering. Knowing that he had to score a complete and total victory, and knowing that it had worked in the past, he simply went for it. The decision was not impulsive or reckless, it was political. Why didn’t the attack work? - poor communications. Nobody really knew who was doing what. Benteen was ordered forward, but what he was supposed to do when he arrived was unclear. - poor logistics. A successful battle would have required each soldier to carry a double supply of ammunition. While lack of ammunition wasn’t the cause of Custer’s massacre , it would have still resulted if Custer had found a better defensive position. Given the poor marksmanship of the troopers, more ammunition would have been required for survival. - the inability to control the battle. Custer should have had the initiative, as he was the attacker, but even though he had the element of surprise he never gained control of the battle. The Native Americans, using their interior lines and superior local knowledge, were able to maintain complete control of the battlefield, making any US victory impossible. - finally, the attack didn’t work because the Native Americans, contrary to most occasions, maintained an incredible degree of command and control. I would love to see an in-depth study on how Crazy Horse et al were able to initiate and control the “infiltrate, separate, and destroy” tactics that were used. TBH, Custer get’s too much of the blame, and the Native Americans get too little credit for the outcome of the battle. BTW, if Crook had bothered to communicate his experience at the Rosebud, perhaps Terry would have kept Custer on a tighter leash. There was plenty of blame to spread around. Custer deserves some, but not all of it.

[@jodyhoffman1405]

You are wrong about lack of ammunition. They carried most of the ammunition in their saddlebags & they lost most of it when they lost their horses. They fought for 3 hours & slowly ran out of ammo. The Lakota always said that they waited till the bullets stopped coming. Other than that you have a good take of what happened

[@clydeosterhout1221]

@@jodyhoffman1405 good point! And I was not very clear in my statement. I was thinking of the entire unit, not just the companies that followed Custer. Reno, Bentsen, Mathey , and their troops (according to the accounts I am familiar with) ran very short on ammunition, even with the inclusion of Mathey’s pack column. I was under the impression that the units under Custer’s direct command overwhelmed well before the ammunition ran out, but as they were stripped of their weapons and ammunition after the battle that is just conjecture on my part. The Native American reports that I can recall seem to indicate that there was firing right up to the end of the battle.

[@keithj6251]

@@jodyhoffman1405 The Natives have always said the battle was short, about the time it takes a man to eat his lunch.

[@drstrangelove4998]

@@jodyhoffman1405 I’ve come think Custers soldiers ran out of ammunition, Indian testimony reports soldiers throwing away their rifles. You are tight, many horses escaped their horseholders, presumably carrying away an amount of ammunition, Custer’s direct orders to Benteen emphasised twice, bring ammunition.

[@Eadbhard]

@@keithj6251 The battle was not "short". This oft-mentioned tale about the battle lasting only as long as it takes for a "hungry man to eat his dinner" is doubtless referring to just one aspect of the fight - probably when the last of Custer's command fell on Custer Hill. There were many aspects of the Battle of the Little Bighorn. All told, the entire battle lasted two whole days.

[@ericbrumley9026]

What he is describing is a concept that I ran into many times while on active duty. Its the "total Soldier concept". It means that a Soldier must be a good Soldier in both battle AND garrison, not just in one or the other. Custer was great in a fight but became more and more a pseudo-celebrity and a glory hound when in garrison. He knew his way to the top was through battle. Another of his downfalls was what he even called "Custer's Luck". At Gettysburg, when he turned Stuart around and sent him back NE, Custer had no idea the significance of that. He just fought the enemy in front of him. Kind of a Forrest Gump moment. His over confidence in himself, his under estimation and disdain of his enemy that day, his reliance on "Custer's Luck" and the disrespect that he earned from his subordinates by his constant grandstanding and lack of ability to be a genuine leader are what got him and the unfortunate men under his command killed at LBH.

[@DaytonaStation]

Great lecture

[@armstrongcuster9262]

Very nice presentation. Highly professional!

[@garyhiggins6718]

One of my early all time favourite movies, was 'They Died With Their Boots On', the Errol Flynn version. I am glad that it was more than a little right!

[@MJ-we9vu]

I also love that movie but about the only thing it got right about the battle was Custer's name.

[@johnzeszut3170]

This lecture was all right but did not tell me anything I had not known before. It sort of left out the final battle.

[@michaelwutka9714]

Watched many docs of Custer Indian War ventures. What lures me to this Custer Battlefield 'or that Greasy Grass Battle depends on your angle. I'm conjuring up an insight that has allowed for one foremost question he could have the benefit of "what if he had ended his military exploits following the end of the Civil War"?

[@Eadbhard]

Most people would have never heard of him.

[@mjbachman3027]

@@Eadbhard He used to hang out with the popular crowd, including famous stage artists, in New York City in the mid 1870's after the 1874 Black Hills Expedition and before the Campaign of 1876 against the Lakota. I think that he would have been a Buffalo Bill type, had his military career ended after Appomattox. He had a slight stammer, but I doubt if that would have held him back.

[@Eadbhard]

@@mjbachman3027 Yes, I'm sure if he didn't come to grief at the Little Bighorn, Custer would have still been a public figure - at least in his day. Nowadays, probably not. Unless individuals today have a keen interest in that particular topic, or era, of American history, they likely wouldn't even recognize the name of George Armstrong Custer; no more than they would recognize the names of Oliver Otis Howard, Wesley Merritt, Lew Wallace, John Chivington, and a host of other famous Civil War officers.

[@mjbachman3027]

@@Eadbhard Custer was a dandy, dressed in his custom made uniform and with his cinnamon oiled long hair. It set him apart from the other Union generls during the Civil War. He wasn't a great military strategist though, but he did have supporters in senior positions that helped him advance his career. However, he had a sizable number of detractors as well, and they increased due to his erratic behavior once the Civil War was over. There is some speculation that if he had won a decisive battle against the Lakota and Northern Cheyenne earlier in June of 1876, and had been able to have made the train trip to Philadelphia in time for the July 4th 1976 Centennial celebrations, that he would have made a run for a high political office, Us Senator from Michigan or perhaps the presedecy. His ambitious behavior against all odds certainly wasn't an asset during the Sioux Campaign of 1876.

[@Eadbhard]

@@mjbachman3027 Custer was a showman; he loved to be unique, singular, and different. At West Point, he knew he likely wouldn't be graduating at the top of his class, so he vowed to graduate at the bottom of it; the man strived to be distinctive. Custer was the most popular student in his class; he was also the class clown, and all of his fellow cadets loved him. Custer's uniform during the Civil War was all a part of his showmanship, and his predisposition to be emblematic. What is more, an ostentatious and flamboyant uniform also tells a lot about a leader's courage and fighting prowess. Not only did Custer present a decided target for Rebel sharpshooters, but the very sight of him on the battlefield encouraged his men. Custer wanted his men to be able to recognize him everywhere, from anywhere, and at all times, almost as if his dazzling, illumined figure were a guiding light that would steer his troops through the darkest, and most chaotic mists of any battlefield. Custer was a superb cavalry leader; his men adored him, and he gave them victories. He (Custer) wasn't a great military strategist? Based on who's assumption? His three patrons during the Civil War - General George McClellan, General Alfred Pleasanton, and General Philip Sheridan - certainly held Custer's tactful adroitness in high esteem. Custer wasn't a great military strategist? His phenomenal Civil War record tells a different story, as did his actions at the Battle of the Washita, and his fights along the Yellowstone against Sitting Bull in 1873. George Armstrong Custer had some faults and flaws, but ineptitude in battle was definitely not one of them. The man was born to fight battles. It's hard to believe Custer had a "sizeable" number of detractors during the Civil War. That is simply not true. General George Armstrong Custer was one of the most esteemed, admired, and celebrated officers in the entire war. Hell, even the Rebels held him in respect. After the war was over, if Custer did, in fact, suddenly begin to enact some "erratic" behaviors, it was merely a result of him not being at war. During war-time, on a battlefield, Custer was in his element, that's when he accomplished great things, but during times of peace, Custer sort of floundered. By the way, there might be some speculation somewhere (namely, modern media), that Custer vied for the Presidency, or some other "high political office" in 1876, but that's all a bunch of crap. Custer wanting to become the President of the United States is one of the most common misconceptions about the man. Custer did dabble a little in politics earlier in his career, but he proved ineffectual in that endeavor. Custer simply didn't have the mentality for politics; his wife even told him so, and he readily agreed with her. What is more, in 1876, Custer's name was nowhere to be found on any ballot, nor was he even considered as a contender, or a runner-up, for any political party. In short, Custer was not bucking to be the next POTUS after the Little Bighorn. If anything, he likely would have earned himself a star, became a General (again), maybe fought the Sioux again, or the Nez Perce, or Geronimo, then he might have led troops in the Spanish-American War before finally retiring. After that, knowing Custer, he may have written for himself one final, pretentious, and exalted, epic autobiography.

[@levd1292]

Actually from 1869, the commander of the 7th Cavalry was Colonel Samuel Sturgis. Custer was second in command. Since Sturgis didn't care all that much for field operations, Custer was commander in the field. Sturgis wasn't at the Little Big Horn, due to being temporarily assigned to recruitment duty, headquartered in St Louis.

[@Eadbhard]

Unfortunately for Colonel Sturgis, his son - Lieutenant Sturgis - was at the Little Bighorn. Young Sturgis' body was never found.

[@lddcavalry]

Temporarily? Sturgis never led the 7th.Custer was really its commander for all practical purposes.

[@mjbachman3027]

@@Eadbhard His charred head was found on June 27th in the abandoned Lakota and Northern Cheyenne village. It is debatable if he was killed during the aborted river crossing from the Medicine Tail Coulee, or if he was one of the couple of dozen of the 7th survivors left on Last Stand Hill who attempted to flee to the Little Big Horn river, but never quite made it. They took cover halfway down to the river in the Deep Coulee, and were killed from above ny the Lakota, like shooting fish in a barrel.

[@Eadbhard]

@@mjbachman3027 Yes, they definitely found Sturgis' blood-soaked clothing in the village, along with a few burnt and bloody heads. One enlisted man - I forgot his name - did think he recognized one of the heads as belonging to Lieutenant J. Sturgis. Although they could not locate his body, the initial burial party did place a marker for the young Lieutenant, mainly for the sake of Sturgis' mother. The E. Company commander's body, Lieutenant Reilly, was found on Last Stand Hill and, if I remember aright, Reilly's body was the only soldier from E Company to be found (identified) there. If Reilly was killed first, Sturgis obviously took control of the company, yet his body was not found there... or was it? His body was unidentified, but it could have been there, albeit unlikely.

[@talkshow5100]

Outstanding Presentation!

[@wbriggs111]

I could never understand why they had to kill Custer again after his death with misleading half truths. They must have been afraid of him while he was alive.

[@cravinbob]

Who are "they" and avoid films and documentaries especially avoid biased publications.

[@praetoriandorn3154]

@@cravinbob his political enemies.

[@praetoriandorn3154]

I find it very curious as well that so much bile came out after his death.

[@user-kt8yd6we4e]

Good presentation. Never a fan of Custer nor the Indian Wars, as that was bad business and a scar on our history. But now I've learned that George actually had some early success, even in a high rank too soon. Right mix at the right time, and a bad mix at the end.

[@tonygumbrell22]

Duty, honor, careerism.

[@decimated550]

Glory also

[@tonygumbrell22]

@@decimated550 And PR

[@raymonddonahue7282]

Great lecture.

[@charlescomly1]

Great history very fastenating rifles, ive seen mule ear side hammer rifles before but never the navys

[@robertwarn9756]

Mr Stiles' address was informative and engahing. He thanked the audience for not asking a question on the Little Big Horn. I personally thought his entire lecture was or should have been, a prelude to it. So I was disappointed. His detailed comments on the daily slog of cavalry troops and the imperative to care for the horses, and Custer's leap frogging over these tasks, might have led to Custer's overnight forced marching the 7th on 24-25 June, and consequently tired horses and tired men, being a major contributor to the defeat at the LBH on 25 June 1876.

[@DM-iw2qt]

This brings up a very. Very important point. Why at the battle of little bighorn did the seventh leave their swords behind? Also. Reno. Benteen. Crook. All should have been court marshalled drinking. , Not coming with packs when told. Not tell or sending word of 1at defeat. And retreat. At rosebud. And to be honest had Custer survived the question of dividing forces ,,

[@Eadbhard]

Your point about the swords is really not that important; as a matter of fact, it's rather moot. The sabres would have been useful, but the use of them would not have changed the ultimate outcome of the battle. The Seventh Cavalry left their sabres behind because sabres were very rarely used in combat against Plains warriors. More oft than not, Native warriors seldom got close enough for a soldier to have a need of his sword. The Battle of the Little Bighorn was an exception. General Terry, General Crook, Colonel Gibbon, Major Reno, Captain Benteen....yes, they all fugged up. In truth, G.A. Custer committed less errors at the Little Bighorn than most anyone else. Custer had his faults, but when it came to battle, the man was in his element. Besides Crook, Custer had more experience fighting Indians than anyone else in the campaign. Why Crook retreated from the Rosebud without sending word to anyone is a profound mystery. Custer's decision to split his regiment was sound and logical. The fundamental mission at the Little Bighorn was to find the Indians and prevent them from escaping. The only way to prevent the Natives from escaping was to envelop the village and attack it simultaneously from different sides. In order to do this, it is necessary for a commander to divide his force into two or three separate battalions. Envelopment was a tried and true tactic used during the Anglo-Indian wars on the Great Plains. Custer used the maneuver with success at the Washita; Colonel Ranald MacKenzie used it with success at the Battle of Palo Duro Canyon; General George Crook successfully used envelopment at the Battle of Slim Buttes, and so on and so forth. If Custer erred at all, it was in this: he absolutely expected the Natives to flee from the village once he began his attack. But the Sioux and Cheyenne did not flee; they stayed put, and fought in a determined and unwavering manner. One cannot fault Custer for this; after all, his actions and decisions at the Little Bighorn were based upon his experience - Natives always fled when their villages were attacked. The Little Bighorn was an unusual battle; it was an aberration full of unusual circumstances, and peculiar developments. In that battle, Custer's experience may have hindered him more than it helped him.

[@TheOldTeddy]

AND the 'table theory' is bold, yet horse...well.

[@davidlord7364]

PS, the old book "the Court Martial of Custer's is a great old conjectural work

[@icewaterslim7260]

I would've liked to have heard a little bit about the Washita River campaign which has influenced contemporary public perceptions about Custer, possibly more than any of his other records of command but unfortunately Mr Stiles was constrained by too short of an allowance of time for his comprehensive style of presentation. I sense he had wanted to talk more on the Custer's post Civil War command.

[@brucepeek3923]

So Custer was heavily criticized for failure at little big horn.. He was trying to get to the Native Americans village and kidnap a number of women and children so he could hold them hostage. His biggest fear was that the Indians would scatter and become impossible to hunt down and control, and to force the fighting men to surrender. The same tactic had worked at Washita and against the Southern Cheyenne and their allies in the campaign against them the following spring. Cavalry were able to defeat infantry in charges during the Civil War - but it all depended on how the charge was timed. The mounted service needed to take the foot soldiers in flank AFTER they had fired a volley. I they were late the infantry would have the needed 25 seconds to reload. A horse can cover 250 yards in 25 seconds at a medium canter, which was about as fast as worn down remounts could manage. best Bruce Peek

[@praetoriandorn3154]

I always found the logic that Custer getting killed at the Little Big Horn being an indication of incompetence to be silly. No other commander is really held to this illogical standard. Let's take the final battle of any commander in which they were killed and make a judgement on their personal intelligence and military acumen based on that one single battle, lol, its pretty stupid.

[@Eadbhard]

You clearly know little about George Armstrong Custer. Hmmm, so let's do take the final battle of any commander, in which they were killed, and make a judgement on their personal intelligence and military acumen based on that one single battle. Let's list just a few, though there are many.... Major General John F. Reynolds - Gettysburg Major General Philip Kearny - Chantilly Colonel William Barret Travis - The Alamo General Charles George Gordon - The Sudan General Stonewall Jackson - Chancellorsville And on, and on, and on......... Yes, let's make a "judgement on the personal intelligence and military acumen" of all of these commanders who died in battle. "LOL" You're a fugging idiot.

[@praetoriandorn3154]

@@Eadbhard you clearly didn't understand me and then said the same thing I said back at me. Of course it would be stupid to judge commanders that way dipshit, that's exactly what im saying. Custer is constantly judged harshly for getting killed, which is hardly fair at all.

[@Eadbhard]

@@praetoriandorn3154 Yes, you are correct. I read your remark wrong, and I completely misunderstand it. I deserve to be called a dipshit. I crave your pardon.

[@praetoriandorn3154]

@@Eadbhard all good, I've done the same thing before and I'm glad you took your mistake like a man and made amends.

[@stephenburke5967]

He forgot to mention that 74 started in Custer's class at West point.

[@Eadbhard]

Good point. Seems many people forget this.

[@RDO-tw4qn]

Is the number 74 significant.

[@stephenburke5967]

@@RDO-tw4qn Custer qualified out of his class.A question I've asked at these "Custer talks"(mainly anti Custer talks)"Give me the name of one battle in history that was won in a classroom". Obviously the silence was golden.

[@RW4X4X3006]

Custer and his command's greatest mistake at the Little Bighorn - Believing the natives would scatter, rather than fight. Simply put.

[@250txc]

Yep, that could be right RW; He was also thought to try to cross the river at the very beginning but the place he was at on the river was not crossable due to quicksand-type mud. One article says he was wanting the grab the women and children on the other side and if successful at this grab, the natives might not would have fought . This was also known about the natives and Custer had used this tactic in the past with success.

[@RW4X4X3006]

Heck, most of the soldiers thought the campaign was BS from the get-go. They knew that by autumn, most of the "renegades" would return to their reservations, rather than risk a winter out in the wilderness. They also never thought they would find them. Most critics of Custer, or advocates of the natives, have no clue as to how BIG that region is. We're talking Montana, Wyoming, the Dakota's .... Just a waste of time and resources. Let them do their hunts and dance around the fire. And it's true - usually whenever the renegade natives ran into the Army out in the bush, they'd scatter. They didn't want that heat coming down on them, or their tribe.

[@250txc]

Yep that is a huge barren place up there; Seems so senseless now to worry too much there; The Black Hills and gold, a little different, but still a huge area. What was the next generation of Indians gonna grow and become? Sitting Bull was already too old to fight and Crazy Horse, at age ~36 was on the brink of stopping his fighting times. Sounds alot like today really, with belligerence and stupidity ruling with a strong side-order of ignorance topping off our lives.

[@RW4X4X3006]

I was just gonna say - welcome to the shit sandwich. Nothing's changed - only the calender.

[@Eadbhard]

It was a mistake, but it was also based upon experience - natives usually did scatter. Their willingness to stand and fight was extraordinary, totally unexpected, and unprecedented. Much of the warriors' zeal, determination, and self-confidence doubtless came from their victory over General Crook a week before.

[@GeographyCzar]

59:05 - this question is my only source on the Custers never consumating their marriage. Does anyone know where this idea comes from? I know they never had children, but..? They seem to have bonded typically for their era, and seem to have been very much in love. For all I've read about the Custers, it baffled me to hear someone suggest they never had intercourse. Is this merely speculation based on the fact they were infertile (with each other), or did one of the two actually state this outright at some point? George Armstrong doesn't seem to have held back around women, so why would he control himself so stridently for so many years with the admittedly stunning Libby? Does the questioner actually believe he thought so highly of her that he would not risk her health even at the remote postings of the Great Plains that can make almost any man lose sight of the world back East and stop caring what High Society might think? And how would Libby, with so many opportunities, stick so loyally to a man who could not give himself to her as he so obviously did with others? As speculation, this idea makes no sense... where does it come from?

[@jaynesager3049]

Sounds more like speculation, but due to Custer’s STI at such a young age, it is plausible that arousal was difficult for him.

[@mariadacre5875]

Custer and his men were outnumbered just like the British at Isandlwana and the only way to defeat a more numerous, determined foe is to fight from a static all round defensible position (largger). Any formation like the 7th US Cavalry or the 2/24 South Wales Borderers would soon find themselves swamped by the sheer numbers, its that simple.

[@Eadbhard]

Not really. The best way to attack an Indian village was to divide your forces and hit the village from two or three different sides.

[@jeffsmith2022]

No, it's not that simple...

[@johnadams5489]

Maria D'Acre A number of things went wrong for Custer at the Little Big Horn. His Command had rode all day and where tired, Custer didn't want the "Indians to get away" so he pushed on. Custer didn't realize how large of a force the Indians had. I do believe Custer should have withdrawn and waited for the other Commands to reinforce him. I don't know if Custer knew how big the force the Indians until after the battle started. Custer was reckless, and bit off more than he could chew. He got his family and his Command killed. Custer's Luck ran out.

[@TMX1138]

John Adams Plus, he didn't know where to cross the river (he wanted to take the woman and children hostage to use as a human shield), and one of the final nails in the coffin was his troops' horses getting scared away by natives waving blankets at them, causing Custer's troops to lose their mobility and half their ammo.

[@johnadams5489]

@@TMX1138 Yes. All very good points. The Native Americans KNEW where they could cross the river and Custer did not. Custer went off half cocked and charged into the village not realizing how big it was and how many Braves were able charge out of the Village and counter attack his much smaller force. Custer got away with it a number of times during the Civil War, but Custer's Luck ran out. His wife spent the rest of her life trying to clear her dead husband's name, but everyone can see what happened. He lost the lives of his family and the entire force he took with him trying to charge into the village.

[@ianlang4522]

I think the English were ahead of that by many years.........Waterloo ?

[@KernowekTim]

One of my ancestors died at the Little bighorn fight. He was camping at the time in the next field, and went across to complain about all the dust and noise that was spoiling his fishing trip! Years later, my Great Uncle won two medals at Dunkirk, one for sprinting, the other for swimming!

[@huh-by2lr]

Sounds credible

[@ripvanwinkle1819]

Me humble. Me funny. Me secret warrior. Me very funny. Me quote sun tzu. Me dangerous funny clown. Me tim Roger's.

[@robertbishop5357]

Watching this I was a bit disappointed that he didn't cover Custer through his little big horn debacle. As I recall then Lieutenant colonel Hal Moore was less than enthusiastic to find his battalion named after the 7th. I suspect he wasn't a Custer fan.

[@Eadbhard]

Stiles' book doesn't "cover Custer through his Little Bighorn debacle" either. Perhaps you should read it sometime? You "suspect" LTC Hal Moore "wasn't a Custer fan"? I have some words of wisdom for you: "The less people know, the more they suspect".

[@gib59er56]

@@Eadbhard Well said Irish! I only know Hal Moore from the movie "We were soldiers once, and young". It appeared to me that Moore was very troubled at the fact he was taken from an Airborne Division to a new concept of battle, using Helo`s instead of horses, and having no time at all to get any experience in these new "Air Mobile " tactics and logistics. He was smart enough to know that what they were doing to him was basically using him as an experiment if you will. And he knew that the NVA were a seasoned , tough, veteran army fighting in their own backyard. They just crushed the French at Diem Bien Phu. He had a few weeks to read about the French disaster in Vietnam, and he read up on the 7th Calvary`s history. I think he felt quite uneasy and probably a bit angry at this new mode of untested warfare. So he might have felt his fate was the same as Custer`s. Just my view of what he might have thought. Sorry to chew your ear off sir. Cheers!

[@Eadbhard]

@@gib59er56 I'm in agreement. Everything you wrote is logical, and it all makes perfect sense. This robertbishop fellow is an imbecile. Apropos to the movie, I'll wager Sergeant Major Basil Plumley never uttered the line, "Sir, Custer was a pussy, you ain't", in real life. I cannot say this with certainty (I'll have to read the book to be sure), but I'm thinking that line of dialogue was created just for the movie. Thanks! 'La Fheile Padraig sona duit'!

[@gib59er56]

@@Eadbhard Yes, I think you are right. Plumley would not say that to a Lt. Col. that he just met, or even if they were familiar to each other. It would be a very dumb thing to do concerning your career, but who knows? I agree with you. LOL, "How the F^&% do you know what kind of day it is!" They made Sam Elliot so hard ass it was funny. Good talkin` with you cousin!

[@Floridacoastwriter]

Custard is a prime example of what happens when gross incompence is allowed to continue unabated resulting in the senseless slaughter of not only women and children but the 7th Calvary! He was nothing but a monster of a glory hunter, a blemish extraordinary of a fools errand. No honor, no statutes for Custer.

[@jono8884]

I bet they wish they had Spencers instead of trapdoor at the Little Big Horn battle.

[@Jay_Hall]

Jon, actually, the Spencer would have been better if some of the weak points of it could have been strengthened, or maybe a Winchester repeater, both built to tougher specs by the Springfield Arsenal. The Gov. did not have large budgets at this time to properly arm the regular army and the TD carbine had it's flaws early on, for sure and for certain. The TD carbine and especially rifle packed a big wallop, 45-55 and 45-70, and if you are hit you are staying down. It has been reported that some troopers of the 7th took 45-70 rounds to the LBH rather than 45-55 to fire in the carbine, and some even traded their carbine with the Infantry TD rifle to carry on the expedition. I believe it was Ryan who purchased a heavy Sharps rifle with a sniper scope while at Ft. Lincoln and put it to great use at the Reno hilltop. There was also an Indian Sharpshooter with a heavy Sharps doing great damage to the troops at Reno hilltop and was silenced by a barrage from the troopers. That Sharps was recovered when Terry arrived at the site where the Indian sharpshooter was at, meaning he was killed or wounded. If the location of Ryan's Sharps or the Indian Sharps would be known today the value would be in the highest 6 figures, or even in the $ millions. There was a M-1874 Sharps rifle found on the battlefield in the 1880's by a rancher family that had been proven to be used in the battle, and at the time would have been fairly new, it has recently sold at auction. One young warrior who was involved in the Custer part of the battlefield told of seeing a Cheyenne warrior running away with his lower jaw completely blown away, a testimony to the power of the TD carbine and rifle slug! The young warrior said he was so shocked by the sight he stopped and threw up.

[@drstrangelove4998]

For the Greasy Grass the 1973 Winchester 44-40 would have worked, the first assault rifle in a way. The 7th Cav were under gunned, as it turned out, for the conditions in that battle.

[@andrewwood6285]

I bet he wished he hadn’t left the Gatling guns behind.

[@1961Tuber]

The Bottom Line about Custer at The Little Bighorn....which is a rule in all armies/military forces.....HE SPLIT HIS FORCES before he knew the disposition of his Enemy/Opponent. I assume his main interest was surprise....and fighting a large force of Indians, one would want surprise over all else.

[@williamhalejr.4289]

His force was already divided and his scouts told him that the camp was huge, he didn't believe them and sent them off, THEN split his already divided and already inferior force ASSUMING because of his racism that the indians would FLEE and his attempt to capture the non-combatants so he could win the battle himself. It is absurd tactics and got his command destroyed needlessly, which is why it is taught at West Point as the thing NOT to do.

[@1961Tuber]

@@williamhalejr.4289 What Custer KNEW was not what he was TOLD. He ASSUMED.

[@Macarena22279]

"I like generals that weren't killed by combatants"

[@htezell]

The balloon corp/McClellan comment!! 😂

[@randyventresca4152]

Crazy Horse is one of my heroes:)

[@andrewwood6285]

Crazy Horse was a better General.

[@250txc]

One thing is apparent in this era and times before and even today; Belligerent rules; Belligerent is ignorance; Ignorance can lead to belligerent. Why do we continue to lead with belligerence? Once ignorance is cured via education or enlightenment, something else comes into play, like stupidity.

[@Eadbhard]

Stupidity? Sounds like you are describing the majority of the people who made comments on this channel.

[@philtindale4629]

Custer ran out of ammo, hence the outcome. Thanks

[@perkinsvalentine]

I'm listening to where this great swordsman was one of the last to kill with a saber....Question: Was it one of his deserters?

[@perkinsvalentine]

@@LeesTexan must've been the Washita?

[@Freedomfred939]

The leadership lesson was Custer putting two unreliable subordinates in charge of two thirds of his combat power.

[@THINKincessantly]

West Point was similar to Prussian Martial Institutions maybe just toned down...

[@rivco5008]

As the late Mari Sandoz observed, the increasingly alarmed looks on the faces of Custer's Arikara & Crow scouts, and the fact that they were moving slower and slower, trying to stay within visual range of the regiment should've told the commander that he needed to slow down and approach the Little Bighorn very very cautiously. One of his scouts, I dont know who, maybe Mitch Boyuer, but with many years of experience on the plains, told Custer that the Sioux/Cheyenne pony herd was the largest he'd ever seen. He did not listen...

[@Eadbhard]

Once Custer and his regiment realized that they may have been spotted by the hostiles, a few of Custer's scouts, namely Red Star, advised him (Custer) to attack the Indian village immediately. Custer initially planned to attack the Indian encampment at dawn, on the 26th of June - the day when the Terry/Gibbon column was supposed to arrive. Even after these scouts advised him to attack, Custer still wanted to wait until dawn; however, more evidence of the regiment being detected soon came about and Custer decided that his best course of action would be to attack the village immediately. What the hell was he supposed to do? Sit on his ass, with his entire regiment, while the Sioux and Cheyenne packed up their camp and fled hither and yon?

[@Eadbhard]

By the by, Mari Sandoz was a biased writer and many of his facts are erroneous. This is not my own opinion - most Custer/Little Bighorn scholars discredit his work.

[@johnandrews3547]

@@Eadbhard hither and yon? cmon man really...the rest of your post is solid

[@Eadbhard]

@@johnandrews3547 What, you do not like the phrase "hither and yon"? It bothers you? OK, how's this: "What the hell was he supposed to do? Sit on his ass, with his entire regiment, while the Sioux and Cheyenne packed up their village and scattered?"

[@johnandrews3547]

@@Eadbhard Easy Cochise...I am on your side. I said that I agree with your post and you sound like you have extensive knowledge of the true events of that day, as do I. Hither and yon strike me as out of place considering the seething hatred and brutal violence displayed during this epic clash of cultures. I agree with your analysis, it is "hither and yon" better than most. lol...IMHO

[@craigmignone2863]

Judson Kilpatrick General Kill Cavalry.....his nick name

[@scottsimmons7897]

Apples and Oranges comparison. There are too many dissimilarities between Gettysburg and The Little Big Horn. Custer obviously underestimated his enemy's ability and strength at The Little Bighorn, and he didn't have innumerable resources and support, like he did during the Civil War.

[@1961Tuber]

He divided his forces into thirds....bad idea when you don't have enough troops....when your enemy has repeating rifles.....when you don't know how big the force is against you.

[@cirobevilacqua366]

Custer era un buon generale

[@casimirkukielka3842]

Ma non abbastanza!

[@andreascala2663]

dividere in 4 colonne le sue forze (che infatti gli indiani hanno comodamente affrontato separatamente legnandole per bene una alla volta) senza conoscere il campo di battaglia e la forza del nemico fà di Custer un buon generale? pensa se era incapace...

[@drstrangelove4998]

Ciro, he was more than a good general, he was one of the best.

[@williamminamoto.7535]

I was studying Audie at 9 10 years 1955 later Libby 1933 Tom custers person desk pro sessions were for sale Sherman’s in Beverly Hills $37,000 it sold at butter fields for $130.000 there are descendants of all Today wtm

[@fleadoggreen9062]

I can’t even handle a hang over

[@ScooterFarts]

Custer has been judged for his brash arrogance. Certainly a very capable soldier during the Civil War, yet his propensity for glory seeking and rash disregard for other officers' opinions always caused him issues. Including reprimand & demotion. He certainly fataly succumbed to that inflated personality, one engorged with ego and bravado. A personality based solely on his successes rather than lessons he should have learned from his prior failures. That was his inherent downfall at little Bighorn. He disregarded numerous warnings, clear signs, and direct concerns from both scouts, soldiers, and fellow officers. The term "Where fools rush in" certainly applies to underestimating a significantly larger force with very little left to lose, its capabilities, a superior knowledge of the terrain and close range tactics.

[@anneniliam9012]

THe Battle of the little big horn was simply a defeat of the US tactics by the superior tactics employed by the natives. Their accounts of the action were ignored for years until battlefield archaeology showed that the native accounts were truthful and correct!

[@anthonymanchild9591]

shut up. it was simply a win by a vast superior enemy by having way more numbers. period

[@nmelkhunter1]

@@anthonymanchild9591 Exactly.

[@MJ-we9vu]

Custer's tactics were fundamentally sound. Reno was to make a frontal assault on a lightly defended position while Custer's battalion moved to make a flanking attack while Benteen's battalion protected the left flank and stood ready to contain any villagers fleeing in that direction. The objective of the campaign was not to massacre the Indians or even so much defeat them militarily as it was to round them up and return them to the reservation. If Reno had maintained his position at the southern end of the village and Benteen had followed orders to join with Custer the battle would likely have had a very different outcome.

[@andrewwood6285]

@@MJ-we9vuSheridan and Sherman wanted high body counts, Custer had his orders.

[@kenp2218]

Funny how history works out and how there is a fine line between who ends up celebrated, and who ends up as a too reckless fool! In studying the famous US Grant, we see that he was on the rocks several times in his military career and personal life; thought of as a drunk and a bum by some, but ultimately what led to his success and was the main reason that Lincoln finally brought him in to lead the US Army during the civil war, was that he was aggressive, he would fight, and he could stomach huge casualties and keep on ordering attacks! The record shows that dozens of times Grant’s orders resulted in the killing of more US soldiers in 15 minutes than Custer died with at the LBH, yet Grant died a hero, and Custer - not so much. So….. I guess the lesson is: In order to be remembered as a great commander, it’s OK to send thousands of soldiers to their deaths; just don’t be in the battle and die with them😄

[@ringo688]

Didn't Custer kill unarmed women and children or is that a myth?

[@Eadbhard]

Morfill: It's a myth. Custer never killed an unarmed woman or child in his life, nor did he ever order the wanton slaughter of women and children. Ignorant people have a habit of confusing Custer with a Colonel John Chivington. Then again, Custer is America's favorite, historical scapegoat. Since his name is famous, Custer takes the blame for everything. After all, how many people ever heard of Colonel John Chivington?

[@andrewwood6285]

Killed plenty - at the insistence of Sheridan and Sherman.

[@Jay_Hall]

Custer never allowed the killing of women and children, let us be clear on that. Also in the Washita battle there was, I believe, at least a European woman and her baby killed while being held hostages by the Natives in that village.

[@Eadbhard]

Absolutely! Bravo. You are correct. The white woman was Clara Blinn. She was found dead and frozen with her scalp brutally cut off. Her two-year old son was found dead and frozen beside her. Apparently, the Indians simply grabbed the toddler by the legs and smashed his head open on a nearby rock. Their bodies were found close to Black Kettle's camp.

[@elenavaccaro339]

Just because Custer didn't doesn't excuse all of the other officers that encouraged it. There was brutality on both sides. You have to understand the Native Americans were fighting for their way of life and homeland. How would you react to an invasion of the U.S....

[@Jay_Hall]

@@elenavaccaro339 War is a triumph of evil, it is always ugly and brutal and barbaric. I think the Indians were done a great injustice, by Washington DC. I also think the actions by many of the warriors invited rage against them and their tribe by the opposing soldiers. It is an age old story and makes me so very sad. :(

[@XxBloggs]

This is why the Indians were bound to lose. They had participated in endless war with their fellow tribes and acted in an uncivilised way. They were just defeated by a stronger tribe eventually. Being brutal to women and children is what brought them and their “civilisation” down in the end.

[@rocistone6570]

I cannot escape the words of R. E Lee, (The "marble man" who never received any demerits.) Lee thought the biggest mistake of his life was in taking a military education. Custer was poured into a system, as well as an institution, and the teachings and vast shortcomings of that system, amplified by the institution are what destroyed him on the Little Big Horn. Custer believed in the end that reputation could win battles, and rode with 200+ plus of his men and their reputation into not less than 1000 Native American "Light Cavalry." The only question that endures for Custer other than the timeline of his defeat is just exactly how *Arrogant* Custer was, and why History has made of him another sort of "marble man." Rather than a commander who should be called to book for every death for which he was "responsible." 140+ Years later, no one with any "Military education" has been honest enough to "Bust" Custer down to a private who should be (historically speaking) mucking out stalls for what happened to his command. It's always "Custer the flawed hero" or some such garbage. The man and the "leader" was hated by most of his officers and men of the 7th and with good reason, excluding their wholesale *Murder* by an egotist who has never paid the same price his men paid in their "leader's" stead.

[@Eadbhard]

If Custer did not attack the Indian village that day, the Sioux and Cheyenne would have packed up their camp and fled. That was not only his mindset, but everyone else's too - General Terry, Colonel Gibbon, all officers, as well as the scouts - everyone knew/assumed the Indians would flee once they detected a regiment of soldiers coming.. If Custer and his regiment sat idle, while the Sioux and Cheyenne dispersed, Custer truly would "be called to book for" allowing the hostiles to escape from right underneath his nose. If a scenario like that occurred, he probably would've been court-martialed for letting the enemy go. You're a dumbass.

[@rocistone6570]

@@Eadbhard And If Mr. Custer had listened to his scouts, and the other officers in his command, the entire battle would have been avoided. The Cavalry had made a name for itself (including Custer) by waiting for winter to attack "hostiles." Instead, "Long Hair" got on his high horse, and attacked the Indian Tribes at their strongest, in part because he wanted to make a glory grab before the other troops could get into the fight. What sort of idiot attacks a foe when they are strongest? What boob attacks a strong foe *On their home ground?* What kind of even bigger Idiot attacks a foe *when the enemy knows you are coming?* The Indian scouts knew what Custer was in for. That is why Half Yellow Face told Custer (Thru Mitch Boyer) "You and I are going home today by a road we do not know." If there is a bigger definition of a loser than Custer (Fetterman maybe?) I'd like to know his name.

[@Eadbhard]

@@rocistone6570 You're a moron. First of all, Custer did listen to his scouts. Why would he not? Custer had great respect for his scouts, and whatever they reported to him he took for gospel truth. But here is what you, and other idiots out there, do not understand: Indians, including Custer's scouts, had an entirely different mindset when it came to warfare. Unlike white officers and soldiers, natives would never attack an opposing force if they felt that they were outnumbered. Moreover, natives would never attack an enemy if they felt they would suffer too many losses in the ensuing battle. Finally, native warriors fought as individuals; they did not have commanders, platoons, squads, or companies. This independent type of warfare was a cultural thing for them because it allowed them better opportunities for personal glory (and isn't it funny how people condemn Custer for purportedly seeking personal glory, but if an Indian warrior does it, it's quite alright?). Unlike white soldiers, natives did not utilize tactics such as skirmish lines, battle formations, unity and cohesion, movement to contact, fire and support, etc, etc... As a result, attacking an enemy force whose numbers far exceeded their own was inconceivable to Indians because they had no stratagem as to how to defeat numerical superior foes. White officers, on the other hand, thought much differently. Custer did listen to his native scouts, but his reaction to the news of a huge village was in keeping with any officer who fought Indians on the Plains - the number of Indians to fight was not a concern, but catching the Indians before they scattered was. No one in the command doubted there would be a great many Indians on the Little Bighorn that day, but when it came to Indian warfare on the Plains, white officers and soldiers, unlike their Indian guides, rarely worried about the amount of Indians they would face. This line perfectly illustrates your stupidity: "And if Mr. Custer had listened to his scouts, and other officers in his command, the entire battle would have been avoided." Really? Are you really that ignorant about this subject? Listen, you bonehead, the goal of the campaign was NOT avoiding a battle. As well, name me an officer in Custer's command, or in the whole campaign for that matter, who advised Custer not to attack the village? The attack on the village was a foregone conclusion and, in the end, everyone was in accord with it - even Custer's scouts. One of Custer's Arikara scouts, Red Star, said this: "The Crow scouts insisted that the Dakotas had already seen the army and would report its coming and that they would attack Custer's army. They wanted him to attack at once, and capture the horses of the Dakotas and leave them unable to move rapidly." Custer originally had planned to conceal his command for the remainder of the day - June 25th. While the regiment rested, the scouts would pinpoint the village, allowing Custer time to study the terrain and develop a sound plan to attack on the morning of the 26th, the day that Gibbon's column would reach the mouth of the river. However, the events that occurred on the morning of June 25th convinced Custer, and his scouts, that the regiment had been discovered. Because of his experience in Indian warfare, Custer knew the Indians would not remain in place to allow for an attack the next morning. The one constant that the officers on the Plains recognized was the flight of a village before an attack could be enacted upon. Finding the elusive natives concerned officers more than fighting them, and the hardest task in Indian warfare was catching the native, not defeating him once caught. Given the chance, Indians would almost always flee, especially if their families were threatened. No officer on the Plains worried about how to defeat the natives, but how to catch them before they discovered the soldiers and fled in all directions. Custer's fellow commanders in the Dakota column shared the same perception. Colonel Gibbon stated that the object of General Terry's plan in June 1876 had been "to prevent the escape of the Indians, which was the idea pervading the minds of us all." So I ask you - just what the fuck did you expect Custer to do? Given the circumstances on June 25th, he had few choices: he could retreat, hunker down and allow the village to escape while possibly subjecting his command to an Indian assault (you would probably agree with this), or he could attack. Custer's understanding of Indian behavior led him to believe that they would run when they discovered him, not attack him, and there seemed to be no good reason to retreat. Thus, by believing the Indians had discovered the regiment, Custer decided to stay with the offensive in order to stop their perceived flight and hopefully obtain a decisive victory. When Custer did attack the village, he did it in an authorized and tactically sound manner. There was no impetuousness or bravado on his part. In all, Custer and his men died because of peculiar circumstances rather than poor judgment and tactics; he had expected the Indians and his subordinate officers to act in a certain way, but his experience, perceptions, and expectations had failed him; and that's it. By the way, the time and place of the battle was not of Custer's choosing; he did not plan the campaign, you moron. Too, the campaign was supposed to take place during the winter, but General Crook was the only one who was able to take the field at that time. Also, concerning Custer's "glory grab", as you call it, Custer originally wanted to attack the village on June 26th - the very day the Terry/Gibbon column was supposed to arrive. If he could have stuck with this original plan, the other columns of soldiers probably would have been in on the fight - if they actually did arrive on the 26th (they did not). Regardless of all of this, everyone in the entire campaign knew Custer and the 7th Cavalry would act as the initial strike force; as such, it was expected that Custer and his men would engage the Indians before anyone else. Lastly, contrary to what Custer and his scouts perceived, the Sioux and Cheyenne DID NOT KNOW the 7th Cavalry was coming to attack them. Custer caught the village totally by surprise. You're a dumbass. You don't know shit about Custer, the LBH Battle, or the history of the Indian Wars on the Plains. Next time, try learning all the facts before publicly embarrassing yourself with all of your banal, inane, ill-considered, simple-minded judgments and opinions, you imbecile.

[@eag11e]

@@Eadbhard Fantastic! You are correct and your explanation of the historical facts concerning the battle could not have been presented better!

[@howardwhite1507]

Ó Ruairc M. OK, dumbass,how did his actions change the Indians dispersion?

[@johnking6252]

In hindsight , I think maybe an over all withdrawal (retreat) to a more advantageous position (defense) would have been better if his 'honor' would allowed it ?

[@donbryant58]

Custer had a last thought in Montana :I should have brought those Gatling guns after all"

[@halibut1249]

Don't think so. Gatlins would have been too hard to maneuver, Indians would have avoided riding into range. But bringing them to LBH would have slowed Custer down, so maybe Terry/Gibbons/Crook AND Custer would arrive at same time and Custer would not attack prematurely and get wiped out.

[@Eadbhard]

@@halibut1249 You are correct about the gatling guns, but the rest of your remark doesn't make much sense. You wrote: "But bringing them (gatling guns) to the LBH would have slowed Custer down..." which is true, but then you continue by writing, "...so maybe Terry/Gibbon/Crook would arrive at same time (sic) and Custer would not attack prematurely and get wiped out." It's hard to understand your point. Are you saying Custer SHOULD have brought the gatling guns because they would have slowed him down, so his regiment would arrive at the same time as the other columns? WTF? That makes no sense at all. Also, Custer did not attack prematurely; he attacked because he had no other choice but to attack. Custer's original plan was to attack the village on the morning of June 26th. June 26, by the way, was the day General Terry guessed he and Colonel Gibbon would arrive at the Little Bighorn River; yet, for all of that, Terry couldn't' be sure. The June 26th arrival date was just an estimate. In any event, during the early morning hours of June 25th, Custer's scouts told him that there was a high probability that his regiment had been spotted by the hostiles. Some of Custer's scouts advised him to attack the Indian camp immediately, but Custer still wanted to attack the village the next morning. Some few hours later, however, more news filtered in that proved, without a doubt, that the Sioux and Cheyenne at the Little Bighorn were aware of the Bluecoats' presence; as such, Custer was faced with a few decisions: 1) He could retreat, draw his regiment away from the village, then wait for the Terry/Gibbon column to arrive, but if Custer did that, he'd be allowing the entire village to escape and flee. Afterall, the fundamental purpose of the entire campaign was to find the Indians and prevent them from escaping. Then there is this: If Custer withdrew, then ordered his men to stand down until the Terry/Gibbon column arrived, he could be subjecting his command to a Sioux and Cheyenne ambush where the Native warriors would have the advantage. Finally, Custer wasn't even certain when General Terry would arrive. Terry mentioned the 26th (which was the next day) only as an estimate (the Terry/Gibbon column would not arrive at the Little Bighorn until June 27). 2) Custer could attack the village immediately. If Custer attacked the village straightaway, he might have a chance of catching the Natives off guard; he could achieve surprise, and gain the initiative, which would give him an advantage. He could use an envelopment maneuver by dividing the regiment into separate battalions, sweep in, then surround the Indian camp at different angles in order to prevent the Natives from fleeing. Then, upon seizing the non combatants, the women and children, Custer could claim a victory with few casualties afflicted on either side. Custer made the right choice at the Little Bighorn. What is more, he did NOT ATTACK PREMATURELY.

[@Eadbhard]

@@usualsuspect5173 About a week or so prior to the battle, General Terry ordered Major Reno to do a scout of the areas below the Yellowstone River and between the Powder and Tongue Rivers (Reno disobeyed an went as far as the Powder River, but he did find the Indian trail). Reno had with him six companies of the 7th Cavalry and two gatling guns. By all accounts, the gatling guns were a miserable pang to transport. It took "two condemned horses" just to haul one gun, and when it came to creeks, coulees, hills, and ridges, yes, the guns had to be disassembled, and the parts had to be packed on mules. In some cases, the troops had build pulleys using ropes and horsepower. In short, hauling gatling guns over that kind of terrain was a slow, tortuous, monumental pain in the ass.

[@nmelkhunter1]

I get your joke and thought it was funny. It’s too bad no one else did!

[@polynesia8733]

Was he sent to little big horn as possibly a suicide mission...because he pissed off his chain of command so that was his punishment? Does anyone have educated answer? did he volunteer or was he ordered?

[@Eadbhard]

Custer was ordered. He did piss off his chain-of-command, namely President Grant, and Grant wasn't going to allow Custer to go on the Little Bighorn mission, that was to be his punishment. As fate would have it, Generals Terry, Sherman, and Sheridan spoke on Custer's behalf and Grant ultimately relented. Custer was permitted to go, but he wasn't allowed to be in charge of the operation - General Terry was in command. This proved to be a mistake since Terry's experience in Indian warfare and his tactical limitations became all too apparent during the campaign.

[@polynesia8733]

@@Eadbhard Thank you for responding...i also noticed that union army reinforcement-lots of it, came afterwards but by then it was too late...could Custer have waited to advance after reinforcement was already there?...is that why he has a reputation for being impetuous and wild?...spur of the moment kind of soldier because he was impatient ...almost like a cop who didn't wait for back up? Please explain

[@Eadbhard]

@@polynesia8733 Excellent question. Custer's scouts identified the location of the Indian village along the Little Bighorn during the early morning hours of June 25th, 1876. Upon the discovery of the village, Custer formulated a plan. He would conceal his regiment, rest his men and horses, do a reconnaissance of the Indian camp with his scouts, then attack the village the next morning on June 26th. June 26th was the supposed date the reinforcement column would be arriving from the north. Later that morning (June 25th), Custer received some undesirable news from his scouts. His scouts told him that some wandering Sioux and Cheyenne hunting parties may have spotted the regiment, and that he (Custer) should attack the village immediately. This information bothered Custer; nevertheless, he still wanted to wait until the next day to attack. Some time later, Custer's scouts reported more disturbing news that further evidenced the regiment had been observed by the enemy. This time Custer took the advice of his scouts; as such, he altered his original plans, making the decision to attack the village that very day (June 25th). Custer's resolution to attack the village when he did was sapient and sound. If he decided to just wait until the reinforcement column arrived, he'd be allowing the Natives in the camp to get away. Keep in mind, the fundamental goal of the entire campaign was to "find the Indians and prevent them from escaping". More importantly, by waiting for the other column to arrive, Custer could have been subjecting his entire command to an attack from all the warriors in the village. Knowing that a large army of Bluecoats was within close proximity to their village, the Sioux and Cheyenne were going to do one of two things - run or attack. Either way, Custer had to act. Sitting idle, waiting for the Terry/Gibbon column to arrive, would have achieved nothing. Custer had no other choice but to attack the village when he did.

[@polynesia8733]

@@Eadbhard Wow thank you so much...Custer has always been a heroic warrior in my eyes .....your explanation supports my original stance that he will and always be a heroic soldier ....God bless you...hope I see him in heaven one day....God willing. You have a wonderful blessed life.

[@andrewwood6285]

It was Custer’s greatest desire to go on this mission/expedition for his own self serving interests. Steven Ambrose suggests that Custer was to kick Indian butt, then be nominated to run for President on the Democratic Party ticket defeating Grant and Republicans.

[@noretreat151]

most of those who made a comment on this film know little on logic thinking. Reno’s charge was no surprise to the warriors, hence, their fully armed counterattack (in full war dress) was ordered before Reno got close to the camp. Commenters please give your opinions some thoughts first.

[@Eadbhard]

No Retreat: No, you are incorrect. If Reno's charge wasn't a surprise to the warriors, if the warrior's were expecting it, Reno's battalion would have suffered many casualties. As it were, Reno lost one man when he charged the south end of the Indian village. He may have lost another man when he stopped and formed a skirmish line; and when he withdrew from the skirmish line to the timber, Major Reno might have lost two more men. All told, from time he charged the village up until the time he retreated into the shelter of the timber, Reno only had maybe 3 - 4 men killed. If the Sioux were not surprised, if they were ready and waiting to give Reno's battalion a "fully-armed counterattack", the Major would have suffered many more men killed.

[@beaumontmichaels3575]

The Cheyanne were responsible for the security of the southern end.They probably were surprised however,they were conditioned to react, trained to respond at a moments notice!

[@Eadbhard]

@@beaumontmichaels3575 Why were the "Cheyanne" (sic) responsible for the security of the southern end of the village? The Hunkpapa camp was there, and the Cheyenne camped on the northern end.

[@manuelkong10]

west point doesn't produce such great generals and when they do they graduate them at the bottom of the class it should tell you alot when he says "they study the classics" "designed to produce GENTLEMEN"

[@Eadbhard]

MacArthur, Patton, Eisenhower, Robert E. Lee, Jeb Stuart, Omar Bradley, William O. Darby, Norman Schwarzkopf, etc, etc, etc...are not great Generals? You're a moron, Manuelkong.

[@sabineb.5616]

A very good assessment of a complicated man! He was a romanticized tragic hero for a long time. None other than the greatest swashbuckler Errol Flynn turned Custer into a tragic silverscreen action hero. But since the second half of the 20. century this changed dramatically. He was now seen as a vain and bumbling idiot whose self-serving incompetence was the sole reason for the death of 300 soldiers under his command! Exhibit A is the way he is shown in the movie "Little Big Man"! It doesn't help that the movie is great - actually much better than the Errol-Flynn flick. I love "Little Big Man" - but Custer's image has been completely destroyed by that movie!

[@Eadbhard]

"They Died With Their Boots On" came out in 1941, just when the U.S. entered WWII. At that time, Americans were idealistic, public spirit ran high, as did nationalistic pride. In contrast, "Little Big Man" came out when the Vietnam War was still raging. It was an era when most Americans were distrustful of the government, anti-establishment, and anti-military; as such, the film purposely portrayed the U.S. military in a negative manner. Both films are fake as hell, but it is funny how so many ignorant people believe the real Custer was more like the character in "Little Big Man". Actually, it's just funny in itself how so many ignorant people put so much stock into movies in general. Like I mentioned, both films are fake as hell, but at least "They Died With Their Boots On" does catch the essence of the real Custer, however slight. Custer's image changes with the times. You are correct, over the past 50+ years or so, Custer's name has been associated with every atrocity the white man has ever done to the Native American; moreover, he is the premier Indian-hater, the killer of women and children, the rapist, the vainglorious idiot who "had it coming". None of these things are true, of course, but, just like movies, people want to be congruent with the era they find themselves in, historical facts be damned.

[@sabineb.5616]

@@Eadbhard , you are right - both movies reflect the sentiments of their times rather than delivering an accurate portrait of Custer. Both movies were made when America was at war. I would say, though, that the romantic hero of "They Died With Their Boots On" is just as inaccurate as "Little Big Man's" raving idiot. Although it's clearly a caricature and Custer isn't even the leading man but a running gag, the Custer of "Little Big Man" has stuck somehow!

[@Eadbhard]

@@sabineb.5616 Custer was not a leading character in "Little Big Man", 'tis true. Conversely, 'They Died With Their Boots On" is a dramatized bio of the Boy General. Such as it is, "They Died With Their Boots On" is bound to show a little more accuracies than "Little Big Man" since the film is entirely about Custer. As I mentioned, the movie is almost entirely fictitious, but it does, more or less, capture the essence of Custer, especially during the scenes when he is at West Point. By the by, not that it makes much of a difference to the topic on hand, I do believe Errol Flynn played a damn good Custer.

[@sabineb.5616]

@@Eadbhard, thanks for answering. I know that Custer wasn't a leading character in "Little Big Man". As I said already, he was more like a running gag. But almost every one who saw that movie, specifically remembers the scenes with Custer because they are screamingly funny! That really stuck, and it shows, that a good parody can destroy someone's reputation! I love Errol Flynn. He is my favorite swashbuckler. And he was actually a very good actor, too! But both movies are hagiographic. Custer was neither a romantic hero nor a raving fool! Btw, Errol Flynn was far more handsome than Custer 😉This is of course not a big big deal. Peter O'Toole was also much better looking than the real Lawrence of Arabia 😉 But there are a lot of pictures of Custer. And while he was considered to be a very handsome man, I cannot see it. I really don't find him attractive at all. There is something in his features which I really don't like. It's of course possible that he had a winning personality. Since we are talking about Custer's afterlife as a movie character, I want to mention the made-for-tv mini series "Son Of The Morning Star" from the early 1990s which is an adaptation of the highly praised Custer biography with the same title. IMO it's a very good effort with good actors and great production values. But after having researched the events which led to the confrontation at Little Bighorn, I believe now that Benteen is shown in a way which is too positive. In the tv adaptation he seems to be the lone voice of reason. Since the Indians grossly outnumbered Custer's men and also had the far superior Henry-rifles, Benteen might not have been able to make a big difference. But I believe now that he deliberately misinterpreted Custer's message because he loathed Custer.

[@Eadbhard]

@@sabineb.5616 Through modern eyes, Custer doesn't appear to be a handsome man, but preferences to what is attractive do change with the passing of the centuries. Notwithstanding all of that, if one can imagine Custer on a valiant steed, bedecked in a tight-fitting, extravagant uniform, sword in hand, his voice strident as a bugle, with his long golden hair glowing in the sun, one would think he was some kind of epic cavalier from an ancient hero saga. The man definitely had charisma. "Son of the Morning Star" (the film) is the most accurate Custer/Little Bighorn movie to date. Even so, it still has its flaws. It is, after all, a movie. Evan S. Connell's book, however, is phenomenal; I've read "Son of the Morning Star" three times. The more I read about Custer and the Little Bighorn (and I've read a tremendous amount), the more I'm convinced that the actions of Custer's two subordinates, Major Reno and Captain Benteen, were the primary cause for the 7th Calvary's defeat at the Little Bighorn. Major Reno was drunk during the battle, he made inept and insane decisions, and he showed the white feather by retreating from the timber in the valley floor - which was the best fighting position on the entire battlefield. As for Captain Benteen, he simply just didn't care.

[@DM-iw2qt]

The Indians were not saints they did bad things too. Neither side was innocent

[@justdynee]

He is lucky the Comanchee involved. They'd have taken every one of Custer's men alive, and they would take days and days to kill them in some of the worst tortures.

[@GFSLombardo]

Stiles is a fine military historian but what is the "conundrum"? Custer was an ambitous risk taker who made some bad decisions and whose luck ran out on that fateful day. Trying to do a theoretical post mortem forensic profile of his psyche over 100 years later , accomplishes nothing but providing more grist for the academic paper mill. As the old TV detective used to say: "just the facts, ma'am"...

[@Eadbhard]

Too bad most people don't know the facts.

[@keriwilliams8980]

I would be interested in the observations/opinions of his military peers of the time. I'm sure they weren't silent on the most (or seemingly most) notorious event in u.s. military history. Can't help but think of Patton.

[@ldg2655]

Gary L. I agree. Custer was a courageous fighter in the Civil War, but I think that, with his Civil War successes, he got the idea that he and his men could overcome any odds... the “10 foot tall and bulletproof” mentality... He also was a glory hunter and had dreams of a political career. He underestimated his foe, and LOST.

[@RemoteViewr1]

Love your comment. Accurate

[@ianlang4522]

west point.......the leading instructor in the world ????

[@perkinsvalentine]

Okay now, Custer .."fights a few battles with the Sioux/Cheyenne"..? The Washita was a battle to the extent of how well women and children could fight back. And we know about the other battle. This guy manages to reinforce the opinion of historians, on what the hell not to do as a commander (desert, suicide). Custer needed to do something to over-ride impending doom back east. He got the chance to pick his own death, thus attempt to manipulate his legacy. Still, liking the debate. Listening to the conclusion now. A Custer apologist, how embarrassing - good audience questions.

[@garryowen6274]

Your ignorance is laughable.

[@Jay_Hall]

Perkins, You are mistaken.

[@stephenburke5967]

Explain your lack of knowledge of Washita.Benteen letter to his wife after Washita" Custer had words with me about killing a young buck who was trying to kill me and all Custer did was shoot the pony herd".

[@frankbolger3969]

Any opinion about Custer which is not nuanced is foolish. Custer sometimes made misjudgments (as did Lee, Grant, MacArthur, Napoleon, Caesar, Montgomery...pretty much everybody.) He was not the greatest Native American fighter; Wesley Merritt and Ranald MacKenzie, were his superiors, for two examples.) On the other hand, he was fantastically brave and at the forefront of just about every charge he ever ordered, unlike most cavalry officers of his day. Gen. George Crook was partly to blame for Custer's defeat because he never apprised anyone of his own defeat at the Rosebud about a week earlier (where the Sioux captured a number of repeating rifles employed in the Custer fight.) In fact, he claimed it as a victory. Moreover, Major Marcus Reno's performance that day was widely criticized and Captain Frederick Benteen, whose fighting was widely praised -- for whatever reason -- never did follow the orders relayed by his commanding officer. Point is, there's a lot of blame to go around. The caricature of the Washita battle is grossly overstated. And for the record, Custer nearly missed the Greasy Grass fight because he infuriated President Grant by testifying before Congress about the Indian Bureau scandal. There is much to be said pro and con about the flamboyant boy general, but in the context of his times, I admire much about him.

[@Eadbhard]

@@frankbolger3969 Well said.... good comment. But Wesley Merritt? I cannot agree Wesley Merritt was a more superior Indian-fighter than Custer was. Insofar as I recall, Merritt fought one notable battle with the Indians - the Battle of Slim Buttes - but that battle was fought after Custer was already killed. Ranald MacKenzie, on the other hand, fought not a few battles with the Indians on the Southern Plains during the early 1870's. He was a superb Indian fighter with a lot of experience so, yes, I absolutely agree he ascended Custer when it came to superiority. It's too bad MacKenzie eventually went insane. General Crook also had a wealthy amount of experience fighting Indians. His campaigns along the Powder River, and the Little Bighorn, were not too successful, but Crook definitely kicked some ass during the Apache wars of the early 1870's; as such, I might consider Crook as one of Custer's superiors when it came to fighting Indians. Actually, if I had to pick two frontier Indian-fighters who were much alike, it would be Custer and Crook. General Nelson Miles was also an excellent Indian fighter, but his experience fighting Indians did not manifest itself until after Custer's death. A personal favorite Indian fighter of mine was one Lieutenant Howard B. Cushing. After the Civil War, Cushing was assigned to the 3rd Cavalry out on the Texas and Arizona frontier. In Arizona, Cushing became well-known for his successful raids and attacks upon the Apaches under Cochise. He would take out small companies of men, scout various areas, and just hunt the Apaches until he found them. It has been said that Cushing alone killed more Apaches than the U.S. Army. As his incursions into Apache country increased, Cushings fame became more renown, and soon some Apaches were able to recognize him on sight, and they vowed to snuff out the intrepid Lieutenant's life. This day finally came in 1871 when Cushing was leading a small company of men through some mountains in southern Arizona. Lieutenant Cushing, along with

[@polynesia8733]

Very tragic life of civil war horses

[@jonrettich4579]

Even during the Civil War Custer’s behavior could be foolhardy, only luckily escaping precarious situations he had thrown himself into. It is not unusual for flamboyant personalities with some capability to be deeply flawed and fortunate till they are not.

[@rickybell2190]

an apologist is someone who takes facts and changes them to suit his narrative. Custer killed civilians, killed his own men for his own glory. A good General would not split his command without knowing his enemy whereabouts and being a cavalry officer in the civil war you'd think that reconnaissance would be drilled into him as after all that's the purpose of cavalry.

[@Eadbhard]

You're a perfect example of an apologist, Ricky Bell; however, you don't change the facts, you just don't know them. Fugging idiot.

[@rickybell2190]

@@Eadbhard Well that made no sense whatsoever. Can you please at least attempt to break down you're argument into some sort of debate instead of the poor attempt you made in trying to prove a point by using child like comebacks.

[@Eadbhard]

@@rickybell2190 Give me some bonafide historical examples where Custer killed civilians. As well, give me factual evidence where Custer killed his own men for his own glory. Also, tell me why a good General doesn't split his command as a tactical maneuver when engaging an enemy. What the hell makes you think Custer didn't know the whereabouts of the Indian village, especially since his scouts spotted it 15 miles away, from a high bluff in the Wolf Mountains; and especially since Custer's regiment had been following the Indian trail, that led to the village, from all the way down Rosebud Creek? Finally, prove to me Custer did not do a reconnaissance. And if he actually did not do one, tell me why he did not. Answer me these questions, Mr. Apologist, then maybe we can have "some sort of debate".

[@rickybell2190]

@@Eadbhard I thought my original comment was and is historically correct. He split his command in the face of the enemy and conceded with his own glory to continue an attack when Custer knew that to take his men further into the enemy territory without a strong reconnisence put in place, which as historians, military advisors, future teachings of clusters campaign was nothing less than incompetent to the highest level. His actions in the civil war was as much as a controversy as the Indian wars. As for killing citizens then again his command albeit a split column but still under his command attacked a camp that had warriors but also women and children. Now also a point of reference may I suggest you look up Mosby and Custer during the civil war in where Mosby called Custer " Atilla the Hun" There are many great generals during the early years of the wars of the rise of the new nation of America ....Custer was not one of them. Edit: Just too add. I'm always amused when I'm told to bring facts to a debate....an opponent of a debate would at least have something of value to at least counter what I said originally. Unless of course the statement I said was disingenuous in which you would have replied with a better understanding of the word " Debunking".

[@Eadbhard]

@@rickybell2190 Listen (read), imbecile, and learn: The most effective tactic to use when attacking an Indian village was a maneuver called envelopment. Custer used the envelopment tactic at the Battle of the Washita, Colonel Ranald Mackenzie used it effectively at the Battle of Palo Duro Canyon, General George Crook used envelopment maneuvers successfully against the Apaches, and so forth and so on. Envelopment was a maneuver which required a regiment to split up into 2 or 3 separate forces, then attack an Indian village from different sides or angles. Usually, one of these forces would act as a diversion; the diversion force would initiate the attack, and keep the warriors in the village occupied while the other forces moved in and hit the village at the opposite end, or at the village's flank. An Indian village could handle one force threatening their village. For example, once the Natives determined where the threat was, say at the south end of the village, all the warriors would rush to it and concentrate all their efforts on that one threat; meanwhile, all the noncombatants would flee to safety in the opposite direction (north). But what do you think happens when another enemy force suddenly appears at the opposite end of the village where the women and children are fleeing? Utter chaos, that's what happens. The village now has two threats to their village, one in the south and one in the north. The force to the north is quickly honing in on the women and children. The warriors to the south, knowing their families are in danger, try to break off from the initial Bluecoat attack to go north and protect their women and children from the Bluecoats at that end of the village; but, to their utter amazement and dismay, suddenly another force of Bluecoats appears directly west of the village, and there are now three forces threatening their village instead of just one. And so, the noncombatants are in serious danger of being captured, most of the warriors are still fighting the bluecoats to the south, and now to the west, the village is in mass confusion, and, all of the sudden, the village inhabitants have but two choices - try to run, or just surrender. Do I have to explain further why commanders often divided their regiments whenever they attacked Indian villages? Custer's initial plan on June 25th was to conceal his regiment, rest his men all day, go with his scouts out on a reconnaissance that evening, then attack the village on the morning of June 26th. Did you read that, Mr. Apologist? CUSTER PLANNED TO RECON THE VILLAGE A DAY BEFORE HE ATTACKED IT! For all of that, unexpected events disrupted Custer's plans but, as usual, Custer adjusted and adapted to the ever-changing scenarios that comprised the Little Bighorn campaign. On the morning of June 25th, Custer's scouts reported to him that the regiment had likely been spotted by wandering Sioux and Cheyenne hunting parties. This concerned Custer, but he still wanted to go on with his original plan of attacking the village at dawn. Some time later, however, his scouts reported more information that evidenced the regiment had been observed. The scouts advised Custer to attack immediately before the village fled and scattered, or before the warriors of the village came and attacked him. Quickly absorbing this swift change of events, Custer then decided that his best course of action would be a direct attack on the village as soon as possible. Since a reconnaissance was no longer an option, Custer chose to move his regiment out as a reconnaissance-in-force; that is to say, the regiment would scout and observe while en route to their objective - the village. As part of this recon-in-force, Custer would send Captain Benteen's battalion off to the left (west). Custer had to know if there were any outlying satellite villages in that area, but he totally expected Benteen to consolidate with the rest of the command once his (Benteen) reconnaissance was completed. In short, Custer not only planned a reconnaissance at the Little Bighorn, he still managed to do one even after he countermanded his original plan. At the Battle of the Washita in 1868, Custer specifically ordered his men not to kill the women and children. Indeed, measures were taken by Custer's men to save the Cheyenne women and children. At one point during the battle, troopers placed Cheyenne noncombatants into some empty lodges. These lodges were then guarded by a few of Custer's men. Unfortunately, women and children were killed during the battle, but these deaths were done unintentionally or accidentally. Some scholars believe Custer's Osage scouts killed the Cheyenne women and children at the Washita. This makes sense when one considers the fact that the Osage and Cheyenne were hereditary enemies; and, when it came to warfare, Native warriors were indiscriminate; women, children, infants, the elderly...all fell beneath their tomahawks. But if you compare Custer's actions at the Washita to the actions of Colonel John Chivington at Sand Creek, four years before, you'll quickly and clearly understand who's the real killer of innocent women and children. Custer ordered his men not to kill the women and children; Chivington, on the other hand, told his men to "kill them all, nits make lice". For all of that, idiots like you never mention the likes of Colonel John Chivington, you just blame Custer for everything. The Custer vs Mosby drama during the Civil War was a tit-for-tat feud that went back and forth between these two officers and their men. Atrocities, bloodshed, and slayings occurred on both sides. It was war, and war isn't pretty. Such micro vendettas were common during the American Civil War. In the end, Mosby wrote General Sheridan, telling him that he would stop the disgraceful inequities when his men stopped them, and then it was over. There you go, Mr. Apologist. If you doubt anything I've written, go do some research yourself. You're knowledge of this subject is half-assed and half-baked; as such, you shouldn't have the right to spout off your nonsense on a public platform like KZbin. Were I you, I'd be embarrassed. It's a damn good thing I'm here to correct your simple, sorry ass. Were it not so, some people might mistake the tripe you write for gospel truth.

[@thatguyinelnorte]

It was not appropriate to slime "conservatives" as favoring slavery or oppression. The rest seems to be very well-researched.

[@XxBloggs]

But they did. And they behave in a backward way today.

[@eag11e]

Say or think whatever you want of Custer. But, you must view his life from the time period in which he lived! Life styles and public norms were very different then, than they are today! Custer was viewed and honored as Hero at Gettysburg! And in fact his actions there were Heroic! Custer was betrayed by both reno and benteen at Little Big Horn! The direct disobedience of more than one written orders by both reno and benteen were blatant and inexcusable! reno's display of total cowardice and melt down took all of his men out of the fight, when they should have been rolling the indians up from the South! reno was ordered to attack! Instead he formed a defensive skirmish line. He obviously didn't have a clue! benteen slow walked his troops to the fight and then stopped his men at reno hill instead of supporting Custer. I can only view this as cowardice as well. If reno or benteen had engaged, attacked, followed their orders, Custer would have prevailed and you all here would be singing his praises! BTW, what happened to reno's 30 indian scouts? Hahahaha, consider them fleeing before you speak of how brave the indians were!

[@andrewwood6285]

There is a fine line between heroic bravery and stupidity- Custer - on his first expedition- left his command shot his own horse while attempting to hunt antelope. It’s a good thing his men went looking for him and found him before the Sioux did. Yeah he was on foot when they found him, imagine what his subordinates were saying about him around the camp fires that night.

[@suebrown6591]

😊 no

[@richardschaefer4807]

If Tom Custer and Keogh had been in command of the Reno/Benteen battalions there is no doubt that the disaster would have been averted. That fact is pretty obvious to anyone who is not a "Custer Hater".

[@GFSLombardo]

'What if"history is entertainment and not history. Many things could have been done differently at Little Big Horn and anyplace else. George A Custer was in command and the rsponsibility as to who was to do what and who was to go where rested with him as the commander. The buck stopped with him. He was the reponsible commanding officer, whether he is revered or hated almost 150 years after the fact, is irrelevant.

[@richardschaefer4807]

Senior officers commanded the battalions. Custer really did not have a choice...without a cause. I was just making a "What If" scenario. Not really sure why you rattled my cage...Boredom?

[@eag11e]

Well stated, and absolutely true! Custer plan would have been great success if Reno had followed his orders and attacked instead of forming defensive skirmish line. Also, Reno's melt down and cowardice took all of his men out of the battle! Also, benteen disobeyed orders and did not support Custer at all. If benteen had followed orders and supported the attack, the 7th would have prevailed! There is no doubt the blame lies with benteen first and reno second. Custer was betrayed by his subordinates. Also, the 30 indian scouts assigned to reno showed the true indian fighting spirit and fled, so I am tired of hearing how brave indian warriors were.

[@GFSLombardo]

@@richardschaefer4807 I guess you were too bored to read the first sentence of my comment about "what if" scenarios Of what value are they 150 years later? As Mr. Stiles does in his video, analyze what actually happened and why . That would give you the opportunity to really learn from the past vs fictionalizing scenarios. Now "what if" Custer had tanks or tactical nuclear weapons? BTW- If KZbin banter from other people bother you so much-suggest you go onto whats left of MY SPACE.

[@treerat7631]

@@GFSLombardo If he would have taken the other cavalry the Gatling guns . If Reno did not fuck up

[@ronnieverhagi5607]

Custer was a fool who rode to his death. That's what Sitting Bull said. I would add "murderer" to the bill based his crimes against the Cheyenne in the Washita massacre.

[@drstrangelove4998]

You haven’t paid listened to the video have you Ronnie.

[@perkinsvalentine]

The final question is the best - it exposes dude as a Custer apologist. (NOTICE)

[@cplmpcocptcl6306]

Johnny B Perkins There is no reason to apologize. Absolutely none.

[@davidsanford7840]

I'm bi

[@gilliangreen2920]

Anyone that accidently shoots his own horse whilst riding it and killing it .......as Custer once did.......has to be pretty stupid.

[@robertwalker951]

Genocide !!!!!!!!!!!

[@RemoteViewr1]

The rap on Custer was that he behaved stupidly in this situation. Riding ahead of the main body, well ok. Leaving behind Gatlin guns in favor of mobility, well ok. Appreciating these twin vulnerabilities, what caution when your indian scouts suggest withdrawal? Poor reconnaissance of the area, but balls to the wall. Divides his command. So I am free of the mans persona, prior record, and whilst I bear him no ill will personally, he was bent on offensive action against women and children. He wasn't going in to rescue any innocent people from attack. The sense of urgency to close with the "enemy" wasn't driven by positive motives; simply to kill. He screwed up. He is remembered that way, for definitive reason. I wish we could bear in mind the Indians need not have been dealt with this way. That's the real overarching negative of Custer's last stand.

[@Eadbhard]

Remote Viewer. The rap on you, Remote Viewer, is that you don't know crap about Custer, or his last battle. - Yes, mobility! He was fighting Indians, duhh. Gatling guns would not have helped Custer at all. They were slow, clumsy, required 2 - 3 troopers to operate just one gun, they jammed often, and on, and on, and on.... - Poor reconnaissance? Well, if you did any kind of research, you would know why Custer could not perform a reconnaissance, but did a reconnaissance-in-force instead. - When the hell did Custer's Indian scouts suggest he withdrawal? Prove this to me. Give me a source. Which Indian scouts said this? Tell me what they said? Attacking the Indian village was a foregone conclusion, and everyone in the regiment was in accord with it. - Divide his command, yes. Again, if you weren't so ignorant, you would know why he divided his command; moreover, you would know why a mass attack on the village, by the entire regiment, would not have worked. - Offensive action against women and children, eh? Wow, really? Damn, maybe he should have taken those gatling guns! You're a dumbass. - The sense of urgency to close with the "enemy" wasn't driven by positive motives, eh? Hmmm, in that vacuous space between your ears, have you ever considered the fact that Custer probably surmised the Indians would likely attack his regiment if he did not act with any kind of celerity? - "He behaved stupidly", "He screwed up"....these words, and many similar words, are the same words used by unread morons (like you) who know next to nothing about Custer and the Battle of the Little Bighorn. - You're an idiot.

[@mjs6157]

During the civil war "Custer" had a high causality rate among his men. He got the fame, but his men paid the ultimate price for it.

[@Eadbhard]

Many commanders in the Civil War had high casualty rates; namely, General Hugh Judson Kilpatrick, otherwise known as "General Kil-Cavalry". What's your point?

[@mjs6157]

@@Eadbhard tactics that kill 60% of your command shouldn't be considered heroics.

[@Eadbhard]

@@mjs6157 So, what? If a commander can achieve a crucial victory that will help win a war, but at the cost of nearly half his men, he shouldn't fight? You're a moron, and you know nothing about soldiering, warfare, or heroics.