Avatar feed
Responses: 6
Lt Col Charlie Brown
5
5
0
I suspect the Indian version of the battle is closer to the truth.
(5)
Comment
(0)
Avatar small
LCDR Joshua Gillespie
3
3
0
Edited 4 y ago
I've long been haunted by this battle (from a historical/tactical perspective). Say what you will about Custer's vanity, arrogance, racism...etc. However, it's undeniable that he possessed and demonstrated remarkable tactical talent at an even more remarkable young age. I think to understand the "Greasy Grass" battle... you have to also study the British defeat at Isandlwana, and the subsequently successful defense at Rorke's Drift. In the former, a technologically superior force was massacred by overwhelming numbers and very poor tactics on the part of the British overall commander. In the latter, a largely outnumbered force held off against seemingly insurmountable numbers due to the effective use of superior technology combined with very good tactics on the part of the on-scene commanders.

First, we have to appreciate that Custer was not acting unilaterally... at least not in terms of prosecuting the campaign. He simply didn't have a choice that included "not being there". Yes, he left heavy weapons behind (which were novel and slowed his columns down, depriving them of their greatest advantage as cavalry). True, he divided his forces (using long-established and proven double-envelopment strategies). Absolutely, he went in against a larger force (he had before, and won). Three things spelled his doom... First, he had subordinate commanders who clearly failed to follow orders and act on their own initiative in support of commander's intent. Second, he was up against a "peer" equal, if not superior force in terms of technology (the Sioux and Cheyenne had repeating rifles, and Custer had breech loaders with bad ammo). Third, Custer was relying on the Sioux and Cheyenne to do what they had done many times before... run. His plan had been not to massacre the camp, but take sufficient non-combatant prisoners to force the allied tribes to negotiate. He wasn't counting on a fight to the death.

I might add a fourth factor... Sitting Bull and Crazy Horse may have represented superior command and control to that of the U.S. Army.

In the end, I think Custer's fight should be seen less as an example of stupidity and incompetence... than one of how easy it is to have the tables turned in a battle. The Zulus lost at Rorke's Drift largely for the same reasons they defeated the British only just prior. Custer theoretically could've won... but not once he started leading his remaining men up the slope.
(3)
Comment
(0)
SGT English/Language Arts Teacher
SGT (Join to see)
4 y
LCDR Joshua Gillespie Custer continued to use the same battlefield tactics against the same enemies. There was a law in Sparta against fighting the same enemies too often for fear that the they would become your equal in tactics and strength.
(2)
Reply
(0)
LCDR Joshua Gillespie
LCDR Joshua Gillespie
4 y
SGT (Join to see) - Great point. I hate to admit it... but I fear we often do the same thing today.
(2)
Reply
(0)
1px xxx
Suspended Profile
4 y
Amazing how the Battlefield detectives episode tracked Army Springfield's over the scene using recovered cases and Pin tests.. AND the Winchester 44-28 should not be sold short [ pun intended.] 16 rounds at close quarters can be a serious load of firepower, and the side gate allows a full mag to be carried while still racking out single shots..good for longer range shooting while holding a rapid reserve..Model 1866 Yellow Boy.
LCDR Joshua Gillespie
LCDR Joshua Gillespie
4 y
SPC(P) Clifford Deal - I think historians have long assumed Custer's men were the "superior" force in terms of technology... when the truth is that they were not only out-numbered, but "out-gunned". It may be a bit of hyperbole for me to say so... but I think the modern equivalent would be going into battle against a larger force carrying AKs while equipped with bolt-action rifles... that tended to malfunction.
(0)
Reply
(0)
Avatar small
PVT Mark Zehner
2
2
0
Thank you for the read!
(2)
Comment
(0)
Avatar small

Join nearly 2 million former and current members of the US military, just like you.

close