Not if he had a starship.
Posted on 06/25/2022 7:34:35 AM PDT by Macho MAGA Man
On June 25, 1876, a village of some five thousand Lakotas and Cheyennes camped on the Greasy Grass River (today’s Little Big Horn) was famously attacked by George Armstrong Custer and his vaunted Seventh Cavalry. The Indians were followers of the powerful Húnkpapa holy man Sitting Bull, and, like their leader, most of them wanted nothing to do with white men. They simply wanted to be left alone, to live separate from the Euro-Americans who’d been steadily encroaching and trespassing upon Lakota lands for decades.
With shouts of “Hóka hé!” (Come on!) and “The Earth is all that lasts!” the Oglala war chief Crazy Horse and other Indian leaders rapidly gathered their warriors and galloped off to defend their families. And because Custer had unwisely divided his regiment into three battalions, more than a thousand Lakota and Cheyenne fighting men were able to strike these separated detachments individually. On a grassy ridge overlooking the Greasy Grass, the warriors completely overwhelmed Custer and some two hundred troopers of the Seventh. The Indians’ stunning victory was soon dubbed “Custer’s Last Stand.”
(Excerpt) Read more at thedailybeast.com ...
Incredibly interesting battle. Although to an extent I believe Custer was in the end following orders, he; failed to respect the enemies knowledge of the terrain; failed to accurately access the enemies willingness to fight; failed to listen to his scouts; the enemy had Henry repeating rifles that were not known to the 7th; Custer split his forces, thus weakening him. Lastly he did not take a gatling gun because it would slow his march. A mistake in hindsight. Maybe others on here have different opinions or knowledge. If so I’d really appreciate listening to your knowledge and views.
Thanks, didn’t know that!
Was that there first ever use in combat?
Thank you for your post. His like to read his book.
And 93 years later we were on the moon.
Then you need to rethink that, he took them as pows. I am not sure that the well the enemy does it so it is okay for the US Army to do it is a good excuse. Although a number of the last few post seem to think it is okay.
I don’t understand your posts they seem confused and confusing.
Trevilian Station was his first major screw up with that encirclement tactic.
LBH was his second and it cost him his life - in addition to having sown animosity and hatred among his officers towards him over nearly a decade.
Thanks for the ping GreyFriar!
I just started another thread in memory of the battle today.
Equating bravery with foolhardiness is a fool’s statement.
Not if he had a starship.
Not sure but I think it was the siege of Petersburg (1864-65). Neither army ever bought any (for use in the field) but Benjamin Butler, commander of the Army of the James, bought some out of his own pocket. According to one account Butler bought 13 of them at a cost of $1000 each.
If true I'd call that the deal of the century because the Confederates paid $1000 each for (English-made) Whitworth rifles, the best sharpshooter/sniper rifle of the era. I have to think a Gatling gun would have more influence over the battlefield than even a thousand yard sniper's rifle with a primitive telescopic sight. Especially if you had a battery of 13 of them (an provided you had a limitless supply of ammunition).
Nit controversial, it is a question many historians have asked.
Some have said Custer declined taking Gatling guns in to battle at the Little Big Horn in June 1876 because he thought they would hamper his mobility.
According to many he correctly left them behind for the wrong reasons. First, he was conducting an offensive movement to contact and at the time these guns were considered defensive artillery. The first offensive use of a Gatling wasn’t until 1898 at San Juan Ridge. Second, they were heavy and pulled by second hand horses. Remember that Custer’s ammo train didn’t catch up to any part of the command until it finally got to the Reno position a bit after Benteen made it there - approximately the same time or just before Custer’s command fell over 4 miles further along the rough terrain! And of course that also means that Custer would never have gotten in position to attack - possibly causing him to be detected, or resulting in Terry striking the village first and the 5th Cavalry being the ones that got mauled. Or in Custer’s mind, winning the engagement without him.
Custer also refused to take infantry, who would have slowed him down not only on the march but more critically during his movement to contact the day of the battle. Infantry, it should be noted, did not help Crook overcome a smaller force.
And he refused the attachment of the 5th Cavalry. Another regiment would have been extremely useful to Custer, but he turned it down for two reasons. First, he felt the 7th could handle the mission which was somewhat reasonable based on what he knew and expected at the time but also a little bit of conceit. The bigger reason was if he excepted them the second in command would have been the major of the 5th, and Custer didn’t want his own officers supplanted. If you want to identify a single specific thing that led to Custer’s failure, it was this misplaced loyalty to his subordinates who were less competent and in the case of Benteen not loyal to him.
The fact Terry offered up the 5th is a good clue that he fully expected Custer to encounter the village and win the battle before Terry could get to the battlefield. Custer was a legend in his own mind.
wy69
Thanks for your posts.
There’s so much ignorant asshattery being posted - it’s good to get some detailed info on Custer and the demise of his command.
Not to mention what the Indians did to homestead families when the men were away.
In Kansas during the Kansas Indian insurrection of 1867-68 it was not uncommon for entire White families to be slaughtered inside their homes in the most horrific manners. The words cannot even be posted here as to what these savages did to the White Women.
“your posts they seem confused”
Your post is very clear, you don’t know what you are talking about.
“taken into custody but not as POWs I don’t think.”
Sorry, but I don’t know what points you have been trying to make.
Thanks for your service, and for your family history about how there are a lot of good people here...
The point I was trying to make is that Gen Armstrong took women and children as prisoners of war, it is a well documented fact. I think that is a terrible thing.
A few on this line of posts appear to think (and I paraphrase) “well the Indians did terrible things to women and children” my further point was “simply because the enemy does bad things does not make it okay for the US Army to do bad things.”
I hope this helps. We are all Freepers here which hopefully can disagree, sorry if I got a little persnickety and too personal.
After killing or running off the enemy soldiers and destroying their base one can’t leave the women and children to the elements and lack of food and shelter, and if they were supposed to be on a reservation, then they had to be returned.
I don’t know that they were defined as prisoners of war.
Taking in the women and children is not the same as the enemy’s torture and slow murdering of civilians like the indians did, the horrors of what the indians did to men, women, girls, children and infants is almost indescribable.
What the indians did was official, it was not an occasional act of some small group of warriors suddenly losing it, or some shameful, supposed to be hidden act.
The indians did their horrors as routine and entertaining, when they could they would bring Americans back to their home so that all of the kids and wives, and grandmas and grandpas could share in and watch the slow horrible deaths of the innocent and hear their screams.
Is your point that the indians did bad things so that makes it okay for whatever the US Army did to them? if not what was your point? Thanks.
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.