June 25, 1876

Status
Not open for further replies.
S

STW

Member
Joined
Dec 28, 2002
Messages
391
Location
MT
Today is the 131st anniversary of the fight at the Little Big Horn. It's only an hour away so I wander over there now and again. If you pay attention to the terrain it's fairly easy to understand how the fight developed as it appears to.

Given the resources of the day, on a practical basis, what could have been done to make the outcome different? Weapons, tactics, personnel, etc. are open for second guessing. Simple answers like more soldiers and fewer Sioux and Cheyenne, while acceptable and reasonably accurate, are frowned upon.

Those advocating pet theories are welcome.

Personally, I feel the Gatling guns left behind would not have been decisive. Custer would have been better served had he had church services that day and not tried to horn in on the local's bbq. I also think there was a good chance that Custer was killed or wounded early at the river crossing and that contributed a great deal to the Seventh's poor showing.
 
Everything I know about Custer from reliable sources, as opposed to the movie depictions of him, show him to be a man whose military tactics consisted of attacking, with little regard to what happened to his men, or to the disposition of the enemy, or even of his own forces.
 
I really don't know much about little bighorn at all, in spite of my being a fan of history. However, in Harry Turtledoves Timeline-191 series he depicts Custer (who never went to little bighorn, but instead became the commander of the U.S. army circa 1914) as a man who is basically like a battering ram stopping at nothing with no regard for his men whatsoever so long as it gets the job done. Kinda like Grant.
 
What would have saved Custer, you ask? Besides not splitting his forces, and using a non-coordinated attack?

I would suggest that training of his troops (actually ALL Army troops of the Indian Wars period) was EXTREMELY poor, and certainly played a significant part in the outcome of the battle. Little markmanship training, no unit tactics training, etc. sure made for unimpressive skills in battle.
 
Besides poor training for soldiers, smaller numbers, and Custer's arrogance, I believe it was the History Channel which said that compared to the US Army, the Sioux had new, more modern guns which they acquired between 1874-1875.

Little Big Horn---Custer blew it
Custer wore Arrow shirts.
 
Well, to be picky, it's the 130th anniversary of the attack. The 1st anniversary would have been in 1877 which makes this the 130th.

STW said:
Given the resources of the day, on a practical basis, what could have been done to make the outcome different? Weapons, tactics, personnel, etc. are open for second guessing. Simple answers like more soldiers and fewer Sioux and Cheyenne, while acceptable and reasonably accurate, are frowned upon.
Click to expand...

One possible answer is NOT to have put Major Reno in charge of the column that hit the south end of the village.
I know a lot of people who comment on Custer's arrogance. Yes, it was there, but Custer was hardly the only "boy general" during the Civil War and by no means the only army officer who possessed more than his God Given portion of hubris.
Custer fought hard and aggressively during the Civil War. He participated in every major battle save one and lead eleven major charges, and had as many horses shot out from under him. Wounded once, the "Boy General" was well loved by the men who followed him; they knew that the men who followed Custer had an unnaturally high attrition rate compared to other cavalry units, but they believed that by fighting hard and quick like they did, it would in the end shorten the war and ultimatly save lives.
Now back to my "little pet theory." Why Reno? Major Reno, who was a vocal critic of the Son of the Morning Star, in fact was inexperienced at fighting Indians. He lead his unit across the Little Bighorn River to engage the most southerly group of Indians, while Custer and his 5 companies were trying to find a point at which to cross the river. Reno and his men were quickly pushed back, first, into a small copse of trees. At this point, one of Custer's primary Indian Scouts, "Bloody Knife" received a bullet through his skull, which spattered his brains across Reno's face and chest. It is said Reno lost it here, and pulled his men wildly back across the river, where they took up a defensive position atop what would be called "Reno Hill." Benteen and hs column would join Reno there, and from that point, be basically contained there by the Indian warriors.
Indians when questioned in following years would express great surprise at how easy pushing Reno back had been. Some felt that had Reno been just a "tad" more aggressive, it would have been they who fell back, not the cavalry.
This is an important event. Why? Turning back Reno and containing Reno atop Reno Hill with Benteen (who has his OWN crosses to bear) freed the better, more aggressive and intelligent warriors -- and here I am refering to Chiefs Gall & Crazy Horse -- to go north to locate another group of bluecoats who were trying to ford the Little Bighorn.
If this had not happened, had Reno or Benteen come through .... maybe ... maybe ... maybe.
The theory that the men were drunk ... maybe a few, not all. Not enough to make a difference. The indians said a number of men broke ... and some who fought did not fight well. Why? IMHO, they were tired as hell. It was hot as that place that day, and remember; Custer had ridden the 7th hard the past few days and the attack was scheduled, really, for the next day, the 26th. The men lost a chance to get some rest. But Custer did have good reason to precipitate the attack; a group of Indians had come across some supplies the supply train had spilled and had escaped when cavalry men rode out to kill them. Custer believed, quite reasonably, delaying the attack would lose the element of surprise.
I think the men fought as well as could be expected of them given the conditions, which were far from ideal. The Indians were in some ways better armed; true, the Winchester & Spenser repeaters helped tremendously in that particular close in fight. But the bow & arrow did too, in the broken hilly terrain of coulees and hills, groups of Indians could fire arrows upwardly, arcing them over the hills, and raining them down on the cavalry from above.
Despite the weapons, never short-shrift the Indians themselves. Crazy Horse was an absolutly brilliant tactician and strategist, so was Gall. Sitting Bull, while at the time elderly and not fit to fight, was still a magnificent leader who's "prophesies" truly instilled in the warriors the conviction that they WOULD win the fight, and that was truly important. White man saw the Americasn Indians as backward, upper paleolithic cavemen, and that bigotry cost the "bluecoat" dearly at the Little Bighorn. The Indian warriors were every bit as good and some ways better than the Westpoint graduated white man.

The Gatlings, had Custer brought them, might have saved Custer -- but not by making his men more efficient. They would have slowed him down, which would have given the Terry/Gibbon Column coming down from the north more time to catch up and if there had been more men -- maybe .... maybe, THAT would have "turned the tide."

A good book about Custer's "Last Stand" was written a number of years ago by Roger Darling titled A Sad and Terrible Blunder. It deals ONLY with that final battle, and goes into good detail about the terrain, the movements of the cavalry, the mistakes made by the Terry/Gibbon column (and they made some incredible blunders!). It has original maps that show what the ground was like in 1876. And, it is very readable!
 
Last edited:
I am sure this will be an unpopular answer here but I am glad the Iindians kicked their butts.

If I was Custer I would have refused to follow an immoral order and would have left the tribes alone. By doing this my men and a bunch of Indians would have survived.
 
When I was in the 5th cavalry regiment 1st Cav, I was amused that our sister regiment the 7th cavalry was just down the street. Yup, Custer's old outfit. Still active to this day.

National Geographic had an excellent article about the battle many years ago. Many of the soldiers' bodies were dismembered and mutilated by the Sioux warriors. Supposedly to keep them from enjoying the afterlife.
Surprisingly, Custer's body was found stripped but intact except for the mortal wounds.
 
Actually, Custer's eardrums were perforated by women of the tribe, while asking "can you hear us now?" due to Custer's reluctance to listen while still alive.

"Son of the Morning Star" by Evan Connell is an excellent book, probably the best written on Custer.

The movie by the same name starring Gary Cole is quite good also, though the book is much better.

Steve
 
I have to disagree with the Reno at fault theory- If Reno had stayed I think the only outcome difference is that there would have been many more 7th KIA- Attacking a village of that size with the understrength three companies at hand was stupid to begin with, and was Custer's decision not Reno's- Where was his support at the time of the attack?- Across the river on some bluffs at least 30 minutes away from the river via the quickest route ie Medicine Tail Couley- It took very little time for the Indians to outflank Reno and his hand full of Indian scouts resulting in the only course of action left at that place and time in retreating to the timber- Then when the Indians started their infiltration into the timber the handwriting was on the wall and the cavalry were going to loose their scalps-

By this time Custer had finally seen and realized the extent of the village size- His excursion down Medicine Tail Couley was with only two of his five companies so was not meant as an attack otherwise he would have used all five of his companies- Was this meant as a scout to see if crossing the river was feasable there or rather an attempt to draw some Indians from his hopelessly outnumbered Reno wing?- Your guess is as good as mine-

Reno has been used as a scapegoat for Custer's inadequacies IMO- Custer made so many mistakes that it is hard to pin it down to one ultimate cause of his defeat- But if I had to pick one it would be his total lack of intellegence as to the disposition of the Indians- Everything went downhill from there
 
Im283 said:
I am sure this will be an unpopular answer here but I am glad the Iindians kicked their butts.

If I was Custer I would have refused to follow an immoral order and would have left the tribes alone. By doing this my men and a bunch of Indians would have survived
Click to expand...

Such "thinking" is (was) outside the thinking of the 19th century military officer. In fact no one -- to my knowledge -- has ever claimed or even made the case that any orders General George A. Custer received were "illegal" and to be blunt, morality was not a concern. All of war can be IMHO said to be immoral, or atleast it can be said there is rarely anything particularly "moral" about war.
It is a truth of existance that some wars are necessary to survival. World War Two is one I consider obvious. I believe the Indians Custer fought would consider the wars they prosecuted to be necessary to their survival; and despite modern sympathies, tendencies, and political correctness, a good case can be made that some of the wars we prosecuted against the Indians were necessary, too.

Turkey Creek said:
I have to disagree with the Reno at fault theory- If Reno had stayed I think the only outcome difference is that there would have been many more 7th KIA- Attacking a village of that size with the understrength three companies at hand was stupid to begin with, and was Custer's decision not Reno's- Where was his support at the time of the attack?- Across the river on some bluffs at least 30 minutes away from the river via the quickest route ie Medicine Tail Couley- It took very little time for the Indians to outflank Reno and his hand full of Indian scouts resulting in the only course of action left at that place and time in retreating to the timber- Then when the Indians started their infiltration into the timber the handwriting was on the wall and the cavalry were going to loose their scalps-
Click to expand...

Major Reno was certainly not the only one at fault; Benteen received orders (written) to bring up ammo packs, and failed to even make an attempt, IIRC.
My theory about Reno's retreat is not original to me; but it is based on the historical testimony of Indians who participated in the fight at the time. "Reno has been used as a scapegoat for Custer's inadequacies IMO." I am not really trying to use Reno as a "scapegoat," ultimatly, General G.A. Custer had command of the 7th cavalry and was responsible for his own decisions, right or wrong. General Alfred Howe Terry was the commander of the expedition, and as said commander, ultimatly, he had the penultimate authority and responsibility for the outcome. The book I pointed out, A Sad And Terrible Blunder, in fact pointed out that since General Terry survived, much of his reports and statements were used by current and later authorities, and that he was able to twist them subtly to extinguish hints that his column bore greater responsibility than history would recollect.
As for the size of the village, his Indian Scouts told him the village was huge, but I rather doubt any current army commander would have been able to honestly appreciate the size of it. As far as fighting superior numbers by itself; every battle Custer engaged in during the Civil War presented Custer with a superior number of Confederate soldiers, and in every single battle Custer prevailed, so the fact of being outnumbered itself is not in my opinion a decisive factor. The fact that the 7th was outnumbered by an impressive degree, by Indians who were firmly convinced of their victory and eagerly anticipating it was an enormous factor.
While attacking supposedly "sleeping" villages may seem horrific by our standards today, it must be remembered that by 19th century standards, things were quite different. Custer's "Last Stand" was not the first time U.S. Military men were trounced by Indian Warriors, there was the Gratten "Massacre" and the Fetterman "massacre" and any number of battles where the army caught Indians out in the open, mounted, and were trounced or ambushed, or cornered by Indian warriors. Thus, the tactic of hitting them when they were less mobile -- in villages -- was adopted. It worked horrifically well at Sand Creek which was as damnable as it was unnecessary--there weren't even any warriors there!!! Just women, children and old men.
"Custer's Last Stand" was in effect, "the exception that proved the rule." It was why Sitting Bull's prophesies were so important -- not because Indian mysticism has any merit of truth, but because it truly inspired the Indian Warriors that they could fight and win and WOULD do so at the Little Bighorn.

sgphoto said:
Actually, Custer's eardrums were perforated by women of the tribe, while asking "can you hear us now?" due to Custer's reluctance to listen while still alive.

"Son of the Morning Star" by Evan Connell is an excellent book, probably the best written on Custer.

The movie by the same name starring Gary Cole is quite good also, though the book is much better.
Click to expand...

Custer and Crazy Horse: The Parallel Lives of Two American Warriors, by Stephen Ambrose, is also quite good. Yes, the Indians did pierce Custer's eardrums, they cut off a fingertip, and commited a certain atrocity against Custer's ..."manhood" that really can't be mentioned in polite company.
"The Son of the Morning Star" was probably one of the better TV movies made about Custer. I have some problems with it ... but is better than Errol Flynn's "They Died With Their Boots On" from a historical perspective.

In the end however, there are a lot of theories about exactly why things went down the way they did on that battlefield. I find all of them interesting, and will never discount the possibility that any of them are correct. People will be debating this for a long time to come, as they've debated it for a long time passed.....;)
 
a good case can be made that some of the wars we prosecuted against the Indians were necessary, too.
Click to expand...

In some cases, such as LBH, the wars weren't really the problem. It was what happened on the political front after the wars, with the wholesale destruction of land, tradition, language and so on. That said, there were certainly genocidal conflicts, particularly in California and parts of the PNW. Though these tended to involve local milita more than any organized federal force. And the 7th Cav's behavior a few decades later at Wounded Knee was well beyond the pale. There was no cause to open up on women and children with a Hotchkiss gun except pure bloody-minded revenge. The ensuing slaughter bore no resemblance to any disciplined military engagement.
 
Cosmoline said:
And the 7th Cav's behavior a few decades later at Wounded Knee was well beyond the pale. There was no cause to open up on women and children with a Hotchkiss gun except pure bloody-minded revenge. The ensuing slaughter bore no resemblance to any disciplined military engagement.
Click to expand...

Certainly "Wounded Knee" AKA "Custer's Revenge" was "bloody revenge" and the resulting "slaughter was truly a "massacre" unlike Custer's Last Stand, which is refered to be some as a "massacre" even though it really wasn't.
The Plains Indian Wars encompass numerous, complex events and causalities, and there are horrific and unjustifiable actions on both sides.
The white man's hands were far from clean, and the Indians also commited
some grotesque and unjustifiable actions.
The whole matter is truly too complicated to resolve or treat fairly in just a website thread on Custer's last battle, though.
 
slightly off topic; about the 7th Cav

IIRC, the 7th Cav was reactivated during the Vietnam war - 1962 or '63, I believe - as a part of the new Air Cav. And, ironically, in its first major battle, the Ia Drang Valley, Col. Harry Moore and his boys were almost overrun, very much in a comparable (although much more modern) version of Little Big Horn. A great book is We Were Soldiers Once, and Young; the movie by the same title starring Mel Gibson is quite accurate and very good as well.

Anyone know: Does the Army (or any armed force, for that matter) keep alive the history of units' past, such as the 7th Cav, the Big Red One, etc.?

Q
 
Well, aside from the fact that Custer's men were outnumbered, like 20 or 30 to 1, they were equipped with 1873 Springfield Trapdoor Carbines. Many of the Indians were using Winchesters. However, even a bow and arrow can fire at a higher rate than a single shot rifle.

Still, even if the cavalry had repeating rifles, I think they would still have been overrun, eventually. He made a big mistake, not waiting for General Terry to get there.
 
To quote the movie War Games "The only way to win is not to play the game".

No different engagement strategy or Gatling or faster horses would have saved Custer. Some pilots have a saying about an undetected malfunction that causes a fatal crash "He was dead when he left the ground".

I have not read scholarly works about the battle, but have been to the site, and had the visitor's center lecture in '87 and read the afore-mentioned NatGeo article. Here are some facts as presented by them both.

1) Never had there been an assembly of Plains Indians of that magnitude. As described on the site, if that same village were there now, it would be the 5th largest city in Montana.

2) Said village was obscured from direct visual observation by a copse of trees and a bend in the Bighorn river. Custer discounted the reports of his scouts.

3) As described by other posters, the Indian warriors were committed to victory, not survival. Heretofore, (according to the on-site historian) Indians would disperse and scatter when faced with a cavalry raid, rather than stand and fight. This willingness to come to grips and prevail was not one Custer had encountered among the Indians. His usual (successful) tactic was to spread thinly and entrap as many Indians as possible.

All these factors resulted in the outcome

1) He was outnumbered HUGELY, likely dozens to one, in warriors. His oponents were better armed, if not better marksmen

2) He didn't realize 1) above due to poor scouting and the geography

3) Although better disciplined, his forces were decisively engaged in close combat by warriors who were assuredly not going to break and run, but press the counter-attack to ultimate annihilation.

He was doomed, aka "dead when he left the ground". Given the "mad-on" the locals had, I don't think M16's and Ma Deuces would have saved his formation.
 
The tactics Custer used at the LBH were those he had used over and over again, both in the Civil War and later in the Indian wars: shock and aggressiveness. Whenever the army attacked Natives, regardless of the man to man ratio, the Natives would run. I'm convinced that Custer knew the Natives outnumbered him, but I think he thought he'd surprise them and as usually happened, they'd panic and run. However, having superior numbers, adequate and equal if not superior firepower, and numerical superiority, they fought back and won.

The only way Custer could have adverted diasater was to have heeded General Terry's words to him "now Custer don't be greedy", meaning wait for Terry, Gibbon, and Cook to join him before attacking. Custer being Custer did what always worked in the past and wasn't about to share the glory with anyone.
 
It seems to me that there are some interesting parallels with Isandhlwana, just three years later - a disaster on a rather larger scale - in terms of mistakes founded IMHO largely on arrogance. Mistakes like splitting your force, poor scouting, and underestimating the enemy's willingness and capacity to initiate and drive home an attack, culminating in a massacre when the enemy unexpectedly appears on the scene in large numbers and does just that.
 
Custer being Custer did what always worked in the past and wasn't about to share the glory with anyone.
Click to expand...

This was not just a problem with Custer. A lot of US military officers of that period were just as bad, or even much worse, in that respect. I think in the end his arrogance, coupled with his inability to use but one tactic (head on attack) was what did him in.
 
Natural Ability

Something that we need to realize is a natural ability. While Custer was trained in school and had battle observations in the War Between the States, Crazy Horse had only battle observations. He relied on the fact that the Cavalry would give chase as they had always done. He used this tactic to his advantage. The Plains Indians also had the 'home field' advantage.

This was nothing more than 2 military leaders doing battle and one was a superior military mind. It has happened time and again throughout history, especially when one is a 'General' in 'the greatest army in the world'.
 
Instead of engaging the Indians in open combat, They could have built train tracks nearby, and loaded the indians onto trains and taken them to a special "work camp" with electric fences and gas chambers and a sign over the front gate that says "work makes free" in Lakota. There was the technology for all that in 1876.
 
The Gatlings, had Custer brought them, might have saved Custer -- but not by making his men more efficient. They would have slowed him down, which would have given the Terry/Gibbon Column coming down from the north more time to catch up and if there had been more men -- maybe .... maybe, THAT would have "turned the tide."
Click to expand...

There's your key — Custer wanted to be first so badly that he ignored the Principles of War and violated two of them: Mass. "Achieve military superiority at the decisive place and time." and Surprise. "Accomplish your purpose before the enemy can effectively react." By not waiting for the rest of the forces and by more-or-less ignoring scouting, he doomed the column. Reno's failures to press home or Benteen's failure to bring the ammunition forward both contributed, but the primary failure was Custer's.

The foregoing was a rant brought to you straight from my days of teaching US military history at the college level. Is it absolutely gospel? No, it's the opinion of the military history department at West Point in the early 1970's and my own opinion from reading. In the 1950's, when I first studied US military history, my instructor (West Point, 1953, Armor) taught the entire Indian War segment without mentioning Custer. When questioned by a member of the class, "What about Custer?," his reply was succinct if nothing else, "Custer was an a*s!" Then he added, "Go study George Crook, he knew what he was doing."
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top