General Custer(Read thread before voting)

[Switch625]

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.

 

[allhailIndia]

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

 

[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.

 

[allhailIndia]

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

 

[donsig]

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.

 

[allhailIndia]

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.

 

[donsig]

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.

 

[TrailblazingScot]

Custard's Last Stand


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

 

[allhailIndia]

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.

 

[donsig]

-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.

 

[History Guy]

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.

 

[History Guy]

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!

 

[TrailblazingScot]

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"?

 

[History Guy]

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.

"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...

 

[TrailblazingScot]

"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

 

[History Guy]

Ah, OK, I get you!

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

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

 

[EdwardTking]

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.

 

[History Guy]

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

 

[Civman10]

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

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.

 

[Charles XII]

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