General Custer is considered as a great hero for his last stand etc. etc. in the US. Here are some facts to be known before the judgement is passed.

1.During the civil war, General Custer's was the regiment to have taken the most casualties as his favoured mode of attack was the blind charge.

2.Custer had never fought Indians face to face before Little Big Horn, save in small skirmishes and in an incident where he attacked them at night after having made peace with them.

3.Before the battle, the 7th cavalry was one of the worst regiments and had few experienced veterans and a lot of greenhorns, with little or no training.

4.Before trying to attack, Custer had been informed by his guides of the largest collection of Indian tribes ever near him and had ignored their advice.

5.He split up his own men to try and form a nutcracker by himself on the Indians (only one meaning intended Darkshade!!)

6.He saw only women and children in the camp and charged at it with the belief that the men were away.

I quote my source as Frederick Forsyth whose research I have deep faith in.

If anybody has irrevocable proof that I am hopelessly wrong, please bring it to my notice

Originally posted by allhailIndia
6.He saw only women and children in the camp and charged

If this is true, there can be only one answer to your poll.

Custer, hero?

I just lost, he did nothing great. Don't desearve to be call a hero.

2) He led an army regiment on the plains for a long time. He was well known among the indians because he was an arrogant bully. While not outright hostile to indians, he definitely saw his role as one who needed "to put them in their place."

4) His visions of grandeur probably saw an opportunity to once and for all break the plains tribes. Win this one, it's all over...

5) The southern force was to attack first, drawing all the warriors from the villages to that point. Custer then figured he would charge in along a gulley (!) from the east, finding...

6) oops! It seems the indians had the fine idea to look around before running off en masse to meet the southern attack front. Custer and his men raced down a gulley and found themselves completely surrounded by hundreds of warriors. By most accounts, Custer was one of the last men to die - tho he was laid low by a gunshot, he may have just been left to writhe until the end, as he was the 'prize' kill of the battle.

In short, on at least one occasion, he was a complete fool.

allhailindia - For a good take on the indians' side of the story, read 'Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee,' by Dee Brown.

Based upon the evidence presented, Custer was an over aggressive commander who rose above the level he should. Some of his actions were very foolish indeed.

I am reminded of a little joke about the battle. Not really factual, but funny:

Custer and his men are surrounded. Slowly, the numbers are whittled down, until he finds himself with a handful of native guides. He takes it upon himself to give a brave rallying speech, to urge them onto glorious death. "C'mon men! We can ride into history here! We can go down fighting! We can give these injuns a good lickin'! We -"
He looks around to see the guides hastily shucking off their uniform and getting the hell out of there. One turns around and says
"We white man?":D

Originally posted by allhailIndia
I quote my source as Frederick Forsyth whose research I have deep faith in.


He was fool enough. But FF wrote a book on Custer? What's it called, I will buy it in a second!

R.III

I don't know of anybody that thinks him a hero, or anyone else from the Indian wars for that matter.

Originally posted by allhailIndia
General Custer is considered as a great hero for his last stand etc. etc. in the US.

Well as an American I think I have a unique perspective on this. ;)

Custer is not at all a hero. People make fun of him for his stupidity, and the story of his last stand goes along with such stories as "The Emperors New Clothes" as one used to teach people what not to do.

Originally posted by Alcibiaties of Athenae
I don't know of anybody that thinks him a hero, or anyone else from the Indian wars for that matter.

I concur with this evaluation insofar as it applies to his record against the Indians after the Civil War. An altogether terrible record ...

However, his record as a brigade and divisional commander in the Civil War was comparatively distinguished; a fact that many overlook owing to the brutality of his "campaigns" against the Native Americans. Some historians have even gone so far as to evaluate him as the best cavalry officer on the Union side. (Sustaining high casualties can be a sign of troops willing to fight for their commander in difficult circumstances; if I recall correctly, the "Wolverines" under Custer almost always held their ground in a fight.)

Originally posted by Apollo
Well as an American I think I have a unique perspective on this. ;)

Custer is not at all a hero. People make fun of him for his stupidity, and the story of his last stand goes along with such stories as "The Emperors New Clothes" as one used to teach people what not to do.

I concur. I'm not too sure where allhailIndia got the idea that Custer is considered by many to have been a hero. If he had won, perhaps, but that's not the case...

Good points, Andu.

We could add that he rose to Brevet general's rank, and was considered a good officer by Sheridan, his commander in Virginia.

Originally posted by Richard III


He was fool enough. But FF wrote a book on Custer? What's it called, I will buy it in a second!

R.III

HE incorporated this in his short story Whispering Wind in his new book "THe Veteran"

Hey, wait a minute - why is AllHailIndia writing about Custer? I thought he was attacking American Indians at Wounded Knee...? ;)

(Just kidding.)

I concur with AofA, that in my experience Americans think of Custer as a symbol for arrogance and foolishness. I don't think they go to the scene of the battle and weep for him.

Originally posted by Sodak
allhailindia - For a good take on the indians' side of the story, read 'Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee,' by Dee Brown.

I can only second that. :)

I must say that Custer was seen as a hero or branded as one at least in the early part of this century and in the late part of the century as a rallying symbol to take over Indian lands. However, it seems my knowledge is a bit outdated:o

BTW does anyone know where I can read a review of this book

Try here, allhailIndia

http://www.2think.org/woundedknee.shtml

Many things about American values have changed in just the last 30 years.

Many things about American values have changed in just the last 30 years.
Very true. People used to think of Custer of a valiant and dashing commander who bravely fought a hopeless battle against the heathen redskins. Now we realize just what a fool he really was. Custer divided his command into two parts in the face of a vastly superior force. He should not even have come anywhere near the Indian camp, since the Oglala, Lakota, Hunkpapa, Crow, and Cheyenne tribes had formed an unprecidented alliance.

The five companies under Custer's direct command (262 men) moved to the top of a small hill, which was eventually surrounded by Indians and overwhelmed. Custer also went up against three of the Indians most formidable commanders: Sitting Bull of the Hunkpapa Sioux, Crazy Horse of the Lakota Sioux, and Gall of the Cheyenne. While Sitting Bull "made the medicine" (rituals intended to bring about victory), Crazy Horse inspired his braves with his personal valor in combat. Most of Custer's troops were armed with single-shot Springfield breechloading rifles, which were outclassed by the Henry repeating rifles of the Indians.

Originally posted by napoleon526

. Most of Custer's troops were armed with single-shot Springfield breechloading rifles, which were outclassed by the Henry repeating rifles of the Indians.

The rest of your facts are true but this one is quite misleading because the Indians were not very proficient in the use of guns and were very bad at aiming them. Their preferrred weapon was still the Bow and arrow and in fact this proved to be quite deadly as the hail of arrows spread panic and fear among the horses of the 7th cavalry, which bolted off and prevented retreat. Also the fearsome war club of the Sioux was unmatched in close combat, and any Cavalryman, unlucky enough to be faced upto one, usually had his skull bashed in :eek: :hammer:

Originally posted by Simon Darkshade
I am reminded of a little joke about the battle. Not really factual, but funny:

D

another one for you simon - know why the ground was all white and sticky after Custer's last stand?


because the indians just kept coming and coming and coming and coming

:lol: :p

Custer had artillery under his command, but in his haste to bring the Indians to a decisive battle, he left it behind. I've heard some speculation that if he had waited for the artillery, the outcome would have been very different.

He was a fool who was lionized by an embarrassed nation.

Custer was also offered Gatling machine guns, but refused them thinking it was no big deal to fight Indians as he had beaten them once after attacking them in their sleep;)

Well, this thread has brought me back to one of my favorite pass times: reading about the (American) Civil War. I'm reading a book called 'Custer Victorious'. It focuses on Custer's Civil War record. Apparently Custer had an impressive record in the War Between the States and became an American hero during that conflict. I've only read up to the battle of Gettysburg so I must reserve judgement for now. I will say that I had assumed he was a fool but now I'm not so sure.

Custer graduated from West Point in 1861 and was with the Army of the Potomac from First Bull Run till Appomattox - an admirable feat in and of itself. He started as a 2nd Lt. and was a captain within 2 years. He then became a brigadier general of volunteers. One of the regiments he commanded at Gettysburg was the Michigan 7th Cavalry.

Originally posted by donsig
Well, this thread has brought me back to one of my favorite pass times: reading about the (American) Civil War. I'm reading a book called 'Custer Victorious'. It focuses on Custer's Civil War record. Apparently Custer had an impressive record in the War Between the States and became an American hero during that conflict. I've only read up to the battle of Gettysburg so I must reserve judgement for now. I will say that I had assumed he was a fool but now I'm not so sure.

Custer graduated from West Point in 1861 and was with the Army of the Potomac from First Bull Run till Appomattox - an admirable feat in and of itself. He started as a 2nd Lt. and was a captain within 2 years. He then became a brigadier general of volunteers. One of the regiments he commanded at Gettysburg was the Michigan 7th Cavalry.

But he lost more men in his regiment than any other and that was mainly because of reckless charges into enemy lines

But he lost more men in his regiment than any other and that was mainly because of reckless charges into enemy lines

Custer was 23 years old when he became a brigadier general and did make a rather reckless charge his first time out in an attempt to gain the confidence of his regiments. He seems to have learned from that. One thing that surprised me in my reading ths far is that Custer was always in the lead of these charges. This book tells of one reckless charge (at Gettysburg) that Custer had nothing to do with. Custer's division commander, Major General Kilpatrick (only 3 years older than Custer and know to his men as Kill-cavalry) ordered a Major Weber to make a charge with 2 companies (57 troopers). It turns out they were charging against a whole brigade! The Major and his men actually made it to the confederate line simply because the rebels (not thinking so few Union men would charge them) mistook them for their own! Weber and his men almost captured A. P. Hill but wouldn't have been able to hold him for as soon as the confederates realized they were union troopers Weber and some others were quickly cut down. Custer was able to bring up part of the brigade and rescue the daring chargers but not before 18 of the 57 were lost. Though these men were in Custer's regiment I don't think he can be blamed for the casualties.

The fact that Custer lost more men may be due to recklessness or it may be due to lots of plain old fashioned fighting. Remember that Grant, too, suffered many casualties, to the point of being dubbed a 'butcher'. Grant was not reckless but relentless. The same may have been true of Custer.

Originally posted by donsig


Custer was 23 years old when he became a brigadier general and did make a rather reckless charge his first time out in an attempt to gain the confidence of his regiments. He seems to have learned from that. One thing that surprised me in my reading ths far is that Custer was always in the lead of these charges. This book tells of one reckless charge (at Gettysburg) that Custer had nothing to do with. Custer's division commander, Major General Kilpatrick (only 3 years older than Custer and know to his men as Kill-cavalry) ordered a Major Weber to make a charge with 2 companies (57 troopers). It turns out they were charging against a whole brigade! The Major and his men actually made it to the confederate line simply because the rebels (not thinking so few Union men would charge them) mistook them for their own! Weber and his men almost captured A. P. Hill but wouldn't have been able to hold him for as soon as the confederates realized they were union troopers Weber and some others were quickly cut down. Custer was able to bring up part of the brigade and rescue the daring chargers but not before 18 of the 57 were lost. Though these men were in Custer's regiment I don't think he can be blamed for the casualties.

The fact that Custer lost more men may be due to recklessness or it may be due to lots of plain old fashioned fighting. Remember that Grant, too, suffered many casualties, to the point of being dubbed a 'butcher'. Grant was not reckless but relentless. The same may have been true of Custer.

But, he never heeded and the advice of his best officers and in a lot of occasions, he lost men when it was not necessary. I suggest that you read G.B. Shaw's short story about the romantic notions of a Bulgarian girl and how they are shattered by a 'real' soldier, I forget it's name.:mad: :o

I think Custer's acheivement's must also be taken into consideration. He fought the rebels hard and his raids destroyed many confederate supplies and his troopers rescued northerners that had been captured.

While his units took many casualties he inflicted casualties as well. He (personally) was the first to capture an enemy battle flag (in the Civil War) and his men captured 3 in one battle. Custer lost men but made progress as well - he did not lose his men for nothing.

He also led the charges and did not give up is men without a fight. He did not fritter his men away.

Custer was also a romantic - he did not break his bride's heart (except by getting killed in 1876).

I haven't read yet where Custer disregarded good advice from junior officers. That may or may not have happened. He did find himself and his men an some bad sisutations because of his superiour officers though.

I have to read more...

...but so far I am the only one who voted him a hero ion your poll.

Custard's Last Stand :D


Custer eptiomised one of the most romantic and heroic forms of warfare, the cavalry charge...so "heroic" that military leaders retained lancers well past their usefulness.

If you have seen "Henry V" and the famous scene of the French Knights charging the English Longbowmen you'll know what I mean!

Or the charge of the fire-brigade in the Crimea :D

The reference to not having listened to junior officers comes during the War of The Plains. The day before Custer was to try and charge the Indians, he decided to split up his troops despite knowing the size of the camp and the fact that his men were in much smaller numbers. THe younger officer who led these other men away on a wild goose chase thru' the badlands protested this decision, but Custer would'nt hear of it.

-I've only been reading about Custer during the Civil War and I'm only up to the Valley campaign of 1864. Up till that time there is no indication of Custer disregarding advice from junior officers. He may have done so before Little Big Horn but that doesn't mean he did that often. I have to reserve judgement because I don't know much about what Custer did in the Indian wars (other than eventually get killed!) Also, fighting Indians was a much different thing than fighting confederates.

If you have seen "Henry V" and the famous scene of the French Knights charging the English Longbowmen you'll know what I mean!

But the French knights didn't have seven shot Spencer repeating rifles like Custer's Civil War Cavalry did.;)

Or the charge of the fire-brigade in the Crimea

Errr...I trust you mean the charge of the Light Brigade at Balaklava!

George Armstrong Custer was an interesting little jerk, that most certainly is true. He maintained a good record throughout the war. His regiment was not the regiment with the highest casualties of the war, but it was still very high. I just think the guy was an idiot.

But, he never heeded and the advice of his best officers and in a lot of occasions, he lost men when it was not necessary.

This too is true. Ulysses 'Sam' Grant did have a habit of launching head-on attacks that achieved nothing, and just added more dead to his mounting casualty lists. He did this sort of thing throughout the war, in fact. The best example of this is, of course, the 1864 Overland Campaign, in which he was constantly launching these pointless attacks. He did this at Wilderness, Spotsylvania, and Cold Harbor (7000 men down in an hour!). At least he had the good sense of calling off the North Anna attacks before he sent more of his men in. He redeemed himself only through his crossing of the Rapidan, which was fairly brilliant for the time! :crazyeye:

Ah, the Battle of Balaclava where the British wore wollen head-gear and were once again victorious.


"History Guy" have you read "1066 and all that"?

Ah, well, Kitten of Chaos, as you know the charge at Balaclava (or Balaklava...it seems to be written seven hundred and nine different ways) was certainly not one of Britain's greatest victories, despite what certain films with a certain 1920s, 30s, Robin Hood actor would like to project. :D

"1066 And All That"...hmmm...I can't say that I have. What's it on...I mean besides the Conquest?

I'm afraid other than what I've read in histories of Britain and Howarth's great 'The Year of the Conquest', I've read too little on the events of 1066. But, I know this...never...ever...allow your eyeballs to be uncovered in battle when the enemy is firing arrows. Pretty nasty, as poor old Harold Godwine figured out... :crazyeye:

"1066 and all that" covers British history and designates which events/people are a:

1. Good thing
2. Bad thing
3. Good man, but a bad thing
4. A bad man, but a good thing
5. A bad man and a bad thing
6. A good man, but a good thing

It covers British History in the form of essentially "student howlers" wher-by quotations of historical fact are mis-represented...e.g "The charge of the light brigade" being termed "The charge of the fire-brigade etc".


It is essential to be literate in British history to fully enjoy the book and to avoid being "taught" a false history :)


"1066 and all that" is by Yeatman and can be bought from Amazon:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0413772705/026-5412571-3701234

Ah, OK, I get you! :lol:

Luckily, I know enough about British history to pass (compared to many other beastly Yanks, of course! :D )

Sounds interesting, actually. Always had some affection for the Anglo-Saxon period myself. Thank the Lord for Saint Bede! :crazyeye:

Two comments:

* when I was boy in england; a very common dire insult was
to be called a "cowardly cowardly custer"; and

* puddings had a Yellow milk based treacle called custard.

Are these related (or is General Custer falsely slandered)?

PS: My bother had a board game called the "Battle of Little Big Horn" for two players; one played the Indians; the other player took the soldiers in blue. With correct play, the indians always won.

The former question might have a maybe answer, Edward, but the latter has a definitely not answer.

custor was not the greatest military commander by any stretch of the imagine:crazyeye:

He was lucky to graduate from west point coming last in his class by a long way.

This record in the civil war was famous, being known for being a brave but rather reckless commander (i.e. doing frontal attacks)

In the Indian wars again he had a famous record being known as the 'indian killer', although he usually attacked them in their winter camps after peace treaties were made (e.g. 1864 can not remember the name)

It was ultimately the American Military's false for allowing Custor to graduate further than his abilities.

Custor thought if he won the battle before grant and co. showed up he would become so famous he could campaign for president. that is a reason why he left the gatiling guns so that his victory would not be based on technology.

I couldn't vote because he was both a fool of a commander and a villain mass murderer.
America has as dark a past as any european power and an even darker future

General Custer? Who is that guy anyway?!

Oh now I see.

He is an idiot who by soemone;'s mistake became a hero. Whatever.

And thou hast summed up aptly. I hail thee:goodjob:

I don't Think Custer Was A hero i think he was made a hero because the U.S. goverment wanted to make it look like the savage indians would do something like that and butcher the U.S. soilders.

Whether or not he's a hero is irrelevant. There are plenty of heroes long since forgotten.

He remains in the public consciousness because of his dramatic demise. People love stories ... and "last stands" are a popular category.

Remember the Alamo....

Hero? I cannot imagine him as one at all. Where did you get that he was an american hero? I know noone who fels he is.