Custer's Civil War Career

[SpartanGSG]

Originally Posted by ole

Custer never did prove that he was anything more than a loose cannon to be released when the division or corps commander felt the need of a smashing blow. But in that slashing, smashing, hell-for-leather operation, he was rarely equalled. He was very useful at brigade command -- a classic example of avoiding the Peter principle.

Ole

Cant say I see where being categorized as a loose cannon argues for or against Custers competency under the scenarios discussed. When one views the war time contributions of Ashby, Forrest, Mosby, Buford, Custer, Pleasanton, etc, can't one within the context of traditional army
theory and practice view them all to various extents as "loose cannons"? Heck in many ways thats what made them audacious and thus very effective at times. It is also at times what made them impediments to the greater success of the armies they were attached to, such as the more publicized Stuart foray around the Union army at Gettysburg. Nbforrest makes very fcompetent arguments for Custer's rapid development in the Federal cavalry arm, I was merely responding to the what if posed earlier about Custer's defense of Gettysburg at that stage of his development in July of 1863.

I would pose the question when it came time to discussing Custer's overall fitness for high command later in his career, if my fellow posters believe he had a handle on both the strategic and tactical situation at Little Big Horn?

[ole]

On the contrary, Spartan, loose cannons can be very valuable. I'd suspect in any overall commander's menu is someone who can be counted on to do the impossible with a better than average chance of success. You want a quiet, cautious probing movement, you select this one. You want to create maximum confusion while doing serious damage you select that one. Custer was that one.

Of the cavalry commanders you listed, I'd count Custer among the top "loose cannons," and that is not in a perjorative sense. Each of those commanders had his special qualities, all had their brand of expertise. I select Custer as the one to send if you really wanted to destroy something and raise hell.

There is much to be said about each and his specialty. I'll leave that to further discussion. For now, this thread is on Custer.

Ole

[SpartanGSG]

Originally Posted by ole

On the contrary, Spartan, loose cannons can be very valuable. Ole

Indeed, I posted as such in addition to an example (Stuart/Gettysburg) of a loose cannon that can play an adverse impact on a campaign.

P.S. one of my favorite Federal officers on the infantry side whom I consider a loose cannon was Phillip Kearny, who unfortunately met his maker at Chantilly and was denied the opportunity to reach his full potential. But I digress.....

[whitworth]

I've noted that the aggressive Custer in battle, always had the weapons advantage over his opponents. Almost always. From Gettysburg through much of his Indian war experience, Custer's troopers had the multi-shot lever action Spencer rifle.

At Little Big Horn, his divided troop had Springfield carbines, single cartridge firing weapons. The Indians had a good quantity of lever action Winchesters.

[larry_cockerham]

Custer could have learned from Forrest. Forrest never attacked Indians.

[brett4733]

"I've noted that the aggressive Custer in battle, always had the weapons advantage over his opponents."

While I agree with this assesment of the relative advantage in small arms Custer's men enjoyed, to me, his real genius was in the use of a much more primative weapon; the saber. At a time when so many of his contemporaries were trying to claim the day of the saber charge was long gone, Custer proved more than willing to utilize this tactical option, and with quite a bit of success to boot.
Cheers and Fairwinds,
Brett Silver