Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 6/2/2003 10:27:29 AM EDT
According to legend, when Custer and his troops were setting out for the Little Big Horn, thier reflection was seen in the sky above. First of all, is this true? Second, what natural phenemenom would cause this? anyone know?
Link Posted: 6/2/2003 10:32:01 AM EDT
IBTL!
Link Posted: 6/2/2003 10:32:58 AM EDT
me too
Link Posted: 6/2/2003 10:36:09 AM EDT
Originally Posted By FireControlman: me too
View Quote
Me three
Link Posted: 6/2/2003 10:48:34 AM EDT
Link Posted: 6/2/2003 1:20:21 PM EDT
Custer was a pussie.
Link Posted: 6/2/2003 1:25:28 PM EDT
On a more serious note: Sitting Bull had a vision the day before the battle. In the vision he saw the riding soldiers...upside down. This signified to Sitting Bull the soldiers would loose the upcoming battle. A meadow lark also told Sitting Bull that after the victory the Indians were NOT to plunder the battlefield of trinkets or booty. That to do so would enslave them forever. Guess they didn't listen to well, huh? Several years ago I read a biography on Sitting Bull entitled [i]Sitting Bull[/i]. A really good read.
Link Posted: 6/2/2003 1:29:14 PM EDT
Link Posted: 6/2/2003 1:34:00 PM EDT
Okay, okay... It should have been: "Custer was a pussie, sir." Sargent Major (who ever Sam Elliot portrayed in the movie [b]We were Soldiers[/b]. Of course I never intended to insult someone who was awarded the MOH TWICE. He AINT no pussie!!
Link Posted: 6/2/2003 1:36:46 PM EDT
I have never heard of it. I do however carry a seed pod from the ground where Custer & his men were found after the battle, in the cab of my truck. I couldn't tell you why, I just do. I have been to the battle field 2 times, & it is something to see. It is a true experiance that I cannot put into words. If you ever have the chance to go see it, don't pass it up. It is a really different , & moving place to see. They still find artifacts there, & even found a soilders remains around 1975 I think. I'm going from a few year old memory though so I wouldn't swear about the exact date.
Link Posted: 6/2/2003 2:10:03 PM EDT
The most poignant fact of the Battle of the Little Bighorn is that Gen. Custer left four gatling guns at Ft. Phil Kearney (?) before meeting his end. He thought that they would slow his advance. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out what was the first thought going through his mind when he saw those 1500 to 2500 native americans rushing out to greet him.
Link Posted: 6/2/2003 2:13:36 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Fruit_of_the_Looms: Custer was a pussie.
View Quote
you aint
Link Posted: 6/2/2003 2:18:02 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Aimless: I think he may be the only person serving with the US ARMY to be awarded the MOH two times
View Quote
There's a few others. [url]http://www.cmohs.org/recipients/double.htm[/url]
Link Posted: 6/2/2003 3:05:59 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Kamikaze_Ozzy: The most poignant fact of the Battle of the Little Bighorn is that Gen. Custer left four gatling guns at Ft. Phil Kearney (?) before meeting his end. He thought that they would slow his advance. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out what was the first thought going through his mind when he saw those 1500 to 2500 native americans rushing out to greet him.
View Quote
SOP for Gatling Gun use at the time was to use it as field artillery. Long range, indirect fire. Direct fire against persennel with a machine gun did not come about until WWl. In my humble opinion, the thought of wishing for those Gatling Guns for direct anti-personell use never crossed Geo. Custer's mind. Remember he was somewhat of an egotist and it would not have crossed his mind that he (and his troops, but more him) could still take on all those warriors and prevail.
Originally Posted By Belfry_Express: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally Posted By Fruit_of_the_Looms: Custer was a pussie. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- you aint
View Quote
[>:/] I aint what, a pussie? Dude! You don't know me! I'm the biggest pussie you've never met. [:D]
Link Posted: 6/2/2003 3:20:27 PM EDT
Originally Posted By DoubleFeed: Calvary is where Jesus died. Cavalry is soldiers who use means other than their feet to go places.
View Quote
I hate that. You have to be an idiot to get them confused...unless blackrifle51 meant that's where Custer went after he died.
Link Posted: 6/2/2003 5:04:20 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Aimless:
Originally Posted By Fruit_of_the_Looms: Custer was a pussie.
View Quote
You might want to clarify that [;)] 2nd Lt Thomas Ward Custer was awarded the Medal of Honor TWICE! The 2nd time he jumped his horse over confederate barriers and charged a confederate flag bearer. He took a round to the head, but still shot the flag bearer, grabbed the flag and made it back to the Union lines. I think he may be the only person serving with the US ARMY to be awarded the MOH two times
View Quote
Just to keep things clear... George Armstrong Custer was never awarded the Medal of Honor. His brother, Thomas Ward Custer, was awarded the medal twice, as you said. Thomas Custer served under the command of his older brother and both Custers were killed at Little Big Horn.
Link Posted: 6/2/2003 5:13:09 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 6/2/2003 5:19:36 PM EDT by Garryowen]
Link Posted: 6/2/2003 5:24:09 PM EDT
The most poignant fact of the Battle of the Little Bighorn is that Gen. Custer left four gatling guns at Ft. Phil Kearney (?) before meeting his end.
View Quote
He died a Lt Col.
Link Posted: 6/2/2003 6:19:58 PM EDT
Link Posted: 6/2/2003 6:29:33 PM EDT
you learn something new every day. I didn't know there were two custers. I didn't know one of them earned two medals of honor. and I didn't know you could get two medals of honor for a single act of bravery (which just doesn't seem right, to me). I learned all that today
Link Posted: 6/2/2003 6:52:48 PM EDT
Well I was close to little bighorn last week when I drove to Montana From GA.
Link Posted: 6/2/2003 9:00:55 PM EDT
There's a good book by Stephen Ambrose called Americans at War that has a chapter about Custer. The gist of it is that he was a good small unit commander but a lousy General. He was very aggressive. He had no time for intel or tactics. He found the enemey and he attacked. He lost a lot of men needlessly but his men liked him all the same because he was fearless in battle.
Link Posted: 6/3/2003 3:29:07 AM EDT
What is up with the Custer bashing? George Armstrong Custer was an extremely competent officer. He had a reputation for dash and being a little "out there," but that was and is expected for a Cavalry officer. You don't want a plodding follower doing this, you want aggressive, competent innovators, which Custer was by all decent accounts. He was highly regarded for his actions during the Civil War, and was notorious for leading the often bloody actions from the front. That he even survived the war is a testament to his skill and courage. During that war, he was "breveted" to General during the Civil War, which was common practice during that conflict, promoting officers to a temporary rank. He reverted to his permanent rank after the war, which I believe was Major at the time. He was later promoted to LTC. Custer gets frequently bashed by the left as some sort of genocidal mysoginistic deade white guy, representative of all of the evils of the 19th Century. I had enough Custer bashing in college, enough so that I read his book, "Life on the Plains" at one point. I got an entirely different picture of him. He was rather sympathetic to the plight of the Native Americans, thought that they were getting royally screwed by the government, and even opined that if the situation were reversed, he would be out there fighting the US government. He thought the whole situation could be solved by honoring treaties and treating the Indians with respect and courtesy (go figure). He also had a whacky theory that the Indians were one of the lost tribes of Israel, and as such deserved reverence and respect from a religous standpoint. As to his competence, if the rest of the damned Regiment would have showed up like they were supposed to, Custer's men would likely have won at Little Big Horn. Oh, and the horse indient? Custer details that in his book, too. He was out riding with a few of his troops, on his best horse (which he bought himself, common practice for serving officers of the day, who also were required to buy their own weapons). He decided to bag a buffallo for fun and to get the troops some fresh meat. The buffallo ran, and he chased it down over several miles, his speedy horse rapidly outpacing the other troopers. As he finally got close enough to dispatch the horse with his pistol (hard to shoot a rifle from a moving horse), he violated rule 3 (which he severely chastised himself for, even though they didn't have a rule 3 back then), and had his finger inadvertently on the trigger. As he drew close to the buffallo, the buffallo attaempted to gore his horse (again, this is all at extremely high speeds). He hauled back on the reins, inadvertently pulled the trigger on his single action revolver, and shot his own horse out from under himself. Having to walk several miles back to his patrol, carrying his tack (which he also had to pay for), after shooting his best horse by accident was punishment enough. His account of that incident was rather self-deprecating and humorous, as he wrote about it in his book. The only real criticism I have of Custer was that he refused the first two Regimental commands he was offerred after the Civil War, which were the 9th and 10th Cavalry in Texas. He refused to serve as commander of those Regiments because he felt that leading African-American troops (the 9th and 10th Cav and 24th and 25th Infantry Regiments in the West were formed using all black troops) would damage his career, though he spoke with great respect for those regiments' prowess and skill.
Link Posted: 6/3/2003 4:53:46 AM EDT
Custer was bold, but also rash. He failed to recce the village he spied, and thus didn't have the intel to see that it was much larger than what he could see from his perspective. That, combined with his impetuous nature & splitting his forces, led to the waste of many good men. As for him writing that treaties should be honored, he led an illegal expedition into the Black Hills and discovered gold (aka "the yellow metal that makes the white man crazy"). Prior to that the Great Sioux Reservation was the entire western half of South Dakota. Look at what's happened to the rez since then. Custer had his moments when he shone brightly, but was a man of contradictions.
Link Posted: 6/3/2003 5:03:33 AM EDT
[b]THANK YOU NATE[/b] for dealing with the hollyweird version of G.A.... While this topic is being dealt with, one more time.... [size=6][red]CALVARY[/red][/size=6] [img]http://www.christusrex.org/www2/baram/A-sepulchre3-s.jpg[/img] [red][size=6]CAVALRY[/red][/size=6] [img]http://www.uscavalry.org/photogallery/hill.jpg[/img]
Link Posted: 6/3/2003 5:15:21 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Fruit_of_the_Looms: A meadow lark also told Sitting Bull...
View Quote
You mean the globe trotter?? [img]http://harlemglobetrotters.com/history/img/leg_lemon.jpg[/img]
Link Posted: 6/3/2003 5:39:55 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Fruit_of_the_Looms: SOP for Gatling Gun use at the time was to use it as field artillery. Long range, indirect fire. Direct fire against persennel with a machine gun did not come about until WWl.
View Quote
Actually, a brief perusal of Brassey's reveals that Major General Benjamin F. Butler purchased 12 Model 1862 Gatling guns for $1,000 each, in 1863 and employed them successfully at the battle of Petersburg. These guns were not used as one would use a howitzer or cannon.
Link Posted: 6/3/2003 7:25:46 AM EDT
Actually, a brief perusal of Brassey's reveals that Major General Benjamin F. Butler purchased 12 Model 1862 Gatling guns for $1,000 each, in 1863 and employed them successfully at the battle of Petersburg. These guns were not used as one would use a howitzer or cannon.
View Quote
US military doctrine at the time treated Gatling Guns in the same manner as field artillery. I suspect Butlers guns at Petersburg were used mostly in indirect fire. There could not have been that much the opportunity for much direct fire against Confederates at Petersburg they were in defensive positions. Almost all Gatling Guns of that period were towed and took some time to setup. I think the real historical “what if” in question if Custer had take those Gatling Guns is… would the Indians know what to do with them after they captured them. The way Custer walked in to the Little Big Horn would have given him no opportunity to deploy the weapons.
George Armstrong Custer was an extremely competent officer.
View Quote
He was in no way competent when it comes to the Little Big Horn. He command was wiped out as a direct result of his incompetence. He failed in a basic requirement to do proper recon. He split the command without know the disposition of the enemy. He then blunders into a close contact ambush that immediately broke his unit cohesion. His men never had a chance. I doubt his men would have been able to survive if the Indians had possessed no firearms. If his men had had the time to get in to any kind of defensive position they would have been able to fight off the Indians. Reno and Benteen with their part of the command did this and managed to hold off the Indians and survive. He may have done well in the Civil War but he as much as murdered his men at the Little Big Horn.
Link Posted: 6/3/2003 8:01:31 AM EDT
IMHO, Custer was the quentesential 19th century man. He was bold, dashing, brave and overconfident in his own abilities as a military commander. Unlike some however, he had empathy for the indians but wholeheartedly believed in manifest destiny. At the Little Big Horn he ran into the largest assembly of native tribes ever assembled to resist the US Army. There was no way of knowing that at the time he planned and executed his attack. He probably could of/should of retreated but that wasn't in his nature. By the way, Custer also had a cousin or two with him as well as a brother-in-law.
Link Posted: 6/3/2003 8:50:50 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 6/3/2003 8:52:41 AM EDT by Max_Mike]
IMHO, Custer was the quentesential 19th century man. He was bold, dashing, brave and overconfident in his own abilities as a military commander. Unlike some however, he had empathy for the indians but wholeheartedly believed in manifest destiny. At the Little Big Horn he ran into the largest assembly of native tribes ever assembled to resist the US Army. [b]There was no way of knowing that at the time he planned and executed his attack.[/b] He probably could of/should of retreated but that wasn't in his nature.
View Quote
He sure did have a way to know, Custer was warned by his scouts about the size of the Indian force and chose to ignore the information and then did not follow up with necessary recon. Custer was a gold plated turd, you strip away the gold plating and you have the turd. He also happen to have the best PR person who ever existed his wife. After the Little Big Horn she managed to turn him in to a martyr instead of the boob he was. He did provide valuable and heroic service to the north during the Civil War… but even then showed what a stupid shortsighted ass he was. At one point during the war Custer decided that the proper way to treat Confederate soldiers who were captured was to hang them. So he hanged several… with the obvious result. Lee had no choice but to respond in kind and picked several union soldiers to hang in retaliation. If my memory serves me right Lee only had the stomach to have two of them hanged. Shortly thereafter Grant put a stop to this stupidity by Custer.
The gist of it is that he was a good small unit commander but a lousy General. He was very aggressive. He had no time for intel or tactics. He found the enemey and he attacked.
View Quote
Exactly, Custer would have probably done well if he had never been allowed more than a company command or at least no independent command. From everything I have ever been able to find out he was not fit for higher command. He did not maintain proper disciple amongst his men, did not see that they took care of their equipment, and he took rash chances when they were not needed. His men paid for his stupidly with their lives.
Top Top