Posted on 06/25/2004 7:09:26 AM PDT by ijcr
"Showed that the indians actually had better rifles than the calvary and were much more well armed than anyone thought."
My wife and I were both stunned by the huge disparity in firepower, and that it so decisively favored the Indians. I found it ironic, seeing as during the Civil War Lincoln attempted repeatedly to upgrade the Union Army's weaponry ony to be rebuffed by the head of procurement. The fact Custer's command was still carrying a breech loader as the primary weapon well over a decade later simply is mindboggling to me.
Toss in Custer's well known eagerness for glory, which led him to desire speed of movement to "get thar firstest with the mostest" which caused him to dump his arty and I believe four gatlin guns, and you just shake your head in disbelief.
I found it facinating the forensic scientists were able to not only determine the weapon types, but were able to track indivual Indian Warriors and Seventh Cavalry Troopers as they moved across the battlefield, and thereby demonstrated how the battle unfolded, again undermining previously conclusions.
Scout: Mr Custer, Mr Custer, I have bad news and good news.
Custer: What's the bad news?
Scout: We're surrounded by Indians and we're all going to die.
Custer: What's the good news?
Scout: We don't have to ride back through Nebraska.
OR
"I just got a great deal on my horse insurance....."
"Custer was the only man in the battle who got what he deserved. His ego bit him on the butt big time!"
Very hard to not agree with that statement.
"Actually, if you review the battle, about 1/2 of the force was preserved due to the efforts of Custer's subordinate commanders Reno and Benteen. Their defense site is incredably well preserved and their story dramatic. The only ones really 'wiped out' were those who rode north with Custer."
I think the reference was solely to those actually with Custer's group.
Yes, the poster did reply back. However, it is interesting the number of people I encounter that do not realize that the whole 7th Cav wasn't lost and are unaware of that portion of western history. Thanks.
"Because during the Civil War it was GENERAL GEORGE ARMSTRONG CUSTER who made a name for himself possibly at the expense of his men, and he helped the North win that one."
Everything I've read concerning Custer's performance in the Civil War mentions he didn't waste his troopers, ala the infamous "KilCavalry".
His eagerness for glory, and his love of committing atrocities was what finally did him in... Granted, Indians were not perfect, and also engaged in atrocities, but men like Custer were especially bad.
While I take the loss of life seriously. I had an opportunity to visit the site in the late 70's and whilst walking around the battlefield, I stumbled across a plaque in the ground.
Inscribed were the words "Custer fell here".
I had to admit that I was not the least bit suprised as I had just tripped over it.
Remember too that in the Zulu wars three years later, the Brits were armed with single shot .45 rifles and endured much more severe losses before getting matters in hand. The Winchester 73 was a great weapon but if the troopers had been equiped with those it may not have changed the outcome.
"Firstest with the mostest" is a paraphrase from Confederate General NB Forrest and not from Custer as perhaps you already know.
"Not at all. Those 260 U.S. cavalry soldiers were only as good as their leader was, and Custer's biggest flaw was that he wasn't a terribly good leader."
Ok, I can buy that. I will admit, I'm a little wary of things coming out of Canada these days. It would seem many of our Canadian "friends", (especially those of French ancestory), aren't very friendly.
"....and one has a much better history than the silly forensic studies. "
You obviously didn't see the program referenced above. Because of those "silly forensic studies" we now know how the battle initially began (to the spot within three feet). We know the Indians had far superior firepower on that day, which wasn't known, nor appreciated fully by historians and military experts until the past three or four years.
We know how each seperate "group" fell back, moved forward, and when the end was obvious, exactly where Custer's last remaining troops (about 25 - 35 from what I recall) attempted to seek an escape route.
Finally, these "silly forensic studies" took down a half dozen "myths" that were accepted by historians as "fact"....such as when Custer was killed, flow of the battle, etc etc etc.
Eye witnesses are to be viewed with extreme caution in any situation. Those that are "handed down" from generation to generation lose so much in each retelling they are impossible to rely on. Thats true of witnesses today as it was in the 1800's.
"Yes, the poster did reply back. However, it is interesting the number of people I encounter that do not realize that the whole 7th Cav wasn't lost and are unaware of that portion of western history. Thanks."
No different than today, with most people unaware the President never said Iraq was behind the 9/11 attacks.
"His eagerness for glory, and his love of committing atrocities was what finally did him in... Granted, Indians were not perfect, and also engaged in atrocities, but men like Custer were especially bad."
No doubt thats true, and its even more odd if you accept the rumor that Custer fathered a child with an Indian.
Im memorium to Audie, Boston and Libby Custer. Some of history's most colorful people and my favorites to read about.
Remember too that in the Zulu wars three years later, the Brits were armed with single shot .45 rifles and endured much more severe losses before getting matters in hand. The Winchester 73 was a great weapon but if the troopers had been equiped with those it may not have changed the outcome.
"Firstest with the mostest" is a paraphrase from Confederate General NB Forrest and not from Custer as perhaps you already know.
No doubt your observation concerning the Winchester 73's impact on this battle can't be accurately assesed. I think we both could agree the number of Indian dead would have been greatly increased.
And yes, I'm aware of the origins of that quote....I think it applies to Custer's state of mind on the morning in question. No doubt he had heard it before, and agreed as most Cavalry types would.
I'm sure he "fathered" several, if he didn't kill the woman when he was done raping her. (I have no proof he ever raped, but with everything else he did, what's a little rape, too?)
Good one!
"I'm sure he "fathered" several, if he didn't kill the woman when he was done raping her. (I have no proof he ever raped, but with everything else he did, what's a little rape, too?) "
I think it was PBS that did a fiction account called "The Trial of General Custer" that gave the impression Custer was in fact impotent. I never put much stock in that dramatization to be honest.
One of its "conclusions" was that had Custer survived, he would have been awarded the CMOH...and on that I completely and totally disagreed.
Now they have the Little Bighorn Casino, next to the gas station, next to the convenient store. It's a shame....it was a nice place to visit.
Jeeez, tell the damn truth sometime.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.