Page 1 of 5
Long, but an interesting account
Posted: Sun Oct 24, 2010 3:33 pm
by Minimalist
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history-a ... s-Won.html
Accounts of the 1876 battle have focused on Custer's ill-fated cavalry. But a new book offers a take from the Indian's point of view
Re: Long, but an interesting account
Posted: Sun Oct 24, 2010 5:42 pm
by Rokcet Scientist
I always have problems with accounts like that when statements like these appear within 10 sentences of each other:
In 1874, an Army expedition led by Lt. Col. George Armstrong Custer found gold in the Black Hills
The Battle of the Little Bighorn is one of the most studied actions in U.S. military history, and the immense literature on the subject is devoted primarily to answering questions about Custer’s generalship during the fighting.
[underline mine]
WTF? Did he get promoted during the battle to skip a rank?
It sure doesn't bode well for the accuracy of the rest of the account.
Re: Long, but an interesting account
Posted: Sun Oct 24, 2010 6:29 pm
by Minimalist
Custer was a brevet Major General during the civil war. This was a custom on both sides as West Point grads were in short supply and Lincoln, in particular, had to deal with "political" generals imposed on him by the state militias and their governors.
At the conclusion of the war, Custer's rank was reduced to that of Lieutenant Colonel in the regular army.
However, the sentence in the article referring to "generalship" means his miserable command of his unit that day.
Re: Long, but an interesting account
Posted: Sun Oct 24, 2010 6:42 pm
by Rokcet Scientist
General is a rank.
Command is a function.
Re: Long, but an interesting account
Posted: Sun Oct 24, 2010 7:40 pm
by Minimalist
gen·er·al·ship (jnr-l-shp)
n.
1. The rank, office, or tenure of a general.
2. Leadership or skill in the conduct of a war.
3. Skillful management or leadership.
Definitions 2 and 3 are what they meant in that instance.
Re: Long, but an interesting account
Posted: Sun Oct 24, 2010 8:05 pm
by dannan14
Wow, even the excerpt was a page turner. i'll have to pick this one up.
Re: Long, but an interesting account
Posted: Mon Oct 25, 2010 8:29 am
by kbs2244
I am not making excuses for Custer.
From all accounts he was a pretty egotistic and arrogant guy.
But…..
Re: the Indians..
“That would suggest as many as 6,000 to 7,000 people in all, a third of them men or boys of fighting age. “
2000 Indians vs. 609 Total troops.
209 under Custer’s immediate command.
Even someone with good generalship skills may have some problems with that.
Re: Long, but an interesting account
Posted: Mon Oct 25, 2010 10:23 am
by Minimalist
That's why part of "generalship" ( defs 2 or 3 ) is scouting out the enemy to learn what you are up against.
Custer disobeyed orders. He was supposed to wait for General Terry, his division commander, and the rest of the army before attacking.
Re: Long, but an interesting account
Posted: Mon Oct 25, 2010 11:28 am
by Digit
Nice to hear the other side for a change, a lot more would make sense if I were familiar with the ground of course.
Roy.
Re: Long, but an interesting account
Posted: Mon Oct 25, 2010 3:26 pm
by kbs2244
There is a whole lot of white man ego in the history books about this battle.
The simple fact is he bit off more than he could chew.
BTW:
The local landscape is less than 200 feet from high ground to river level.
Re: Long, but an interesting account
Posted: Mon Oct 25, 2010 3:43 pm
by Minimalist
Here you go, Dig.
Great tank country but, alas, no tanks.
Re: Long, but an interesting account
Posted: Mon Oct 25, 2010 4:13 pm
by Digit
Ta Min. Were the soldiers buried where they fell or is that a grave yard in the pic?
Roy.
Re: Long, but an interesting account
Posted: Mon Oct 25, 2010 6:11 pm
by Minimalist
You know, I'm not really sure.
Re: Long, but an interesting account
Posted: Mon Oct 25, 2010 6:21 pm
by Rokcet Scientist
Digit wrote:Ta Min. Were the soldiers buried where they fell or is that a grave yard in the pic?
I see nothing
but graveyards in that pic!

Re: Long, but an interesting account
Posted: Tue Oct 26, 2010 12:10 am
by Minimalist
The site was apparently used as a National Cemetery for some time.
As the web site notes, Custer's men were buried where they fell.
http://www.interment.net/data/us/mt/bighorn/custernatl/