Custer Forrest or Custer

[BillO]

Certainly not trying to denigrate Forrest as he was a great commander of independent cavalry.....not so much in support of an army. Custer was no fool, although he could be impetuous at times. At the Little Bighorn he employed standard tactics which turned out to be wrong......not his fault, but the Lakota/Cheyenne/Arapaho were more numerous, better lead and more willing to fight than anyone in the US Army realized.

Well yes it was his fault. He was in charge and he screwed the pooch big time.

 

[Frito]

That Guy could out-general That Idiot on any given day of the week.

 

[Yankeedave]

No, but a week ago or less I saw a joint interview with Stiles and 3 other writers, all of whom were candidates for somebody's best military history of the year award. (It was won by a book on the French and Indian War.) By his own admission, Stiles falls into the category of Custer-basher seeing the Boy General as a product of his times, which in itself sounded interesting. According to him, there's virtually nothing in it on the Little Big Horn, but it sounded to me like he was all-too-ready to accept the negative narratives of haters like Benteen, etc.

Do you know what book on the the french and indian war? I have always been a fan.

 

[Yankeedave]

I have to say both. Each one leading a contingent. Forrest, who was best when given free reign, would be the flanking force with custer delivering the final punch.

 

[James N.]

Do you know what book on the the french and indian war? I have always been a fan.

Unfortunately, no; after working on Last of the Mohicans I got interested in it too, and have been fortunate enough to have visited most of its sites here in the U. S. I've ploughed through Parkman and of course Freeman and Flexner but my favorite was the most recent book by Fred Anderson, The War That Made America.

 

[Yankeedave]

Its an offbeat target but it looks to be a possibilty for my future reenacter thing. cant waite. Zwell i have too,

 

[Bee]

Well yes it was his fault. He was in charge and he screwed the pooch big time.

I don't want to mess up this thread with too much focus on Custer, but I often wondered if these two decisions were an indication of bad leadership, or bad timing regarding the gathering of the tribes.

1. Leaving the gatling guns behind

2. Dividing his troops in the manner he did

 

[Eric Wittenberg]

Here's a view of Custer from someone who fought under him:

"Brave but not reckless; self-confident, yet modest; ambitious, but regulating his conduct at all times by a high sense of honor and duty; eager for laurels, but scorning to wear them unworthily; ready and willing to act, but regardful of human life; quick in emergencies, cool and self-possessed, his courage was of the highest moral type, his perceptions were intuitions. Showy like Murat, fiery like Farnsworth, yet calm and self-reliant like Sheridan, he was the most brilliant and successful cavalry officer of his time. Such a man had appeared upon the scene, and soon we learned to utter with pride the name of -- Custer." [James H. Kidd, Personal Reflections of a Cavalryman, p. 130]


"Stars of the first magnitude did not appear often in the galaxy of military heroes. Custer was one of the few. The popular idea of Custer is a misconception. He was not a reckless commander. He was not regardless of human life. No man could have been more careful of the comfort and lives of his men. His heart was tender as that of a woman. He was kind to his subordinates, tolerant of their weaknesses, always ready to help and encourage them. He was brave as a lion, fought as few men fought, but it was from no love of it. Fighting was his business; and he knew that by that means alone could peace be conquered. He was brave, alert, untiring, a hero in battle, relentless in the pursuit of a beaten enemy, stubborn and full of resources on the retreat. His tragic death at the Little Big Horn crowned his career with a tragic interest that will not wane while history or tradition endure. Hundreds of brave men shed tears when they heard of it--men who had served under and learned to love him in the trying times of civil war." [James H. Kidd, Riding With Custer: Recollections of a Cavalryman in the Civil War, p. 131]

You realize that this is the same book, right?

As much of a fan of Kidd as I am--there are no bigger--he's not exactly an objective or unbiased observer.

 

[Yankeedave]

I saw you were there. I am going to hand you or somebody you agent? Some money. Trevillians was great. I road horses and i could smell the horse. Cant waite to get to kidd.

 

[Gerry Seaquist]

KKK vote for NEF

 

[cash]

Definitely true. If you have someone like Reno, who you don't completely trust and perhaps even question his ability you don't give him such an important assignment. Give that job to Benteen or Keogh and keep Reno close to you where you can see what and how he's doing.

Or give Reno the wagons instead of Benteen.

 

[cash]

You realize that this is the same book, right?

As much of a fan of Kidd as I am--there are no bigger--he's not exactly an objective or unbiased observer.

Yes, I copied and pasted the two in from other things. I thought about aligning the citations, but got lazy.

True, Harvey Kidd was not unbiased, but even an unbiased observer should be heard every now and then.

 

[cash]

I don't want to mess up this thread with too much focus on Custer, but I often wondered if these two decisions were an indication of bad leadership, or bad timing regarding the gathering of the tribes.

1. Leaving the gatling guns behind

2. Dividing his troops in the manner he did

Leaving the Gatling guns behind was the right move. The terrain was too rugged for them. Dividing his force wasn't the problem.

 

[BillO]

KKK vote for NEF

8 year olds write stuff like that

 

[BillO]

I don't want to mess up this thread with too much focus on Custer, but I often wondered if these two decisions were an indication of bad leadership, or bad timing regarding the gathering of the tribes.

1. Leaving the gatling guns behind

2. Dividing his troops in the manner he did

1. The Gatling guns really wouldn't have been to effective in Custers' attack to begin with although I guess an argument could be made that Custer would have employed different tactics if they had been there. This is a "what if" thing and as such it would be impossible to argue either way.
2. He devised his plan with bad intel, in fact, he discounted the intel he did receive as it wasn't what he wanted to hear. This smacks of arrogance and yes, this is a very bad thing in a combat leader.

 

[jackt62]

No, there was no possibility of communication between them from what I've seen.

Custer wasn't lured. That was his plan from before the action started. When Reno lost his nerve and retreated, that freed the warriors to concentrate against Custer.

Correct me if I am wrong about this, but wasn't Custer's major blunder at the Little Big Horn in dividing up his forces while lacking sufficient intelligence about the terrain and enemy capabilities?

 

[cash]

Correct me if I am wrong about this, but wasn't Custer's major blunder at the Little Big Horn in dividing up his forces while lacking sufficient intelligence about the terrain and enemy capabilities?

Not necessarily. Had Reno not panicked and run away, Custer could have made it to the rear where the noncombatants were. Once he captured the noncombatants, the warriors would have stopped fighting.

 

[48th Miss.]

No, he wasn't a true cavalryman. Eric Wittenberg has posted a great deal on this.

http://civilwartalk.com/threads/top-three-corp-commanders.77960/page-4#post-696779

http://civilwartalk.com/threads/gen...te-army-of-tennessee.92859/page-2#post-766926

http://civilwarcavalry.com/?p=21


As Eric said, trying to compare Custer to Forrest is an apples to oranges comparison.

http://civilwartalk.com/threads/gen...te-army-of-tennessee.92859/page-2#post-766955

Custer was a cavalryman, Forrest wasn't.

Just ran across this old post. Not sure who to believe as I am unstudied in this but Man what a treasure trove of knowledge, debate and thought. Heck, I never even thought there was a question. He rode horse with others who rode a horse into Battle, to me that was Cavalry. Now I have to rethink that. Thanks for splitting the verbal atoms again guys.

 

[cash]

Just ran across this old post. Not sure who to believe as I am unstudied in this but Man what a treasure trove of knowledge, debate and thought. Heck, I never even thought there was a question. He rode horse with others who rode a horse into Battle, to me that was Cavalry. Now I have to rethink that. Thanks for splitting the verbal atoms again guys.

You're welcome. Bedford is nearly worshipped on this forum. In fact, I made a few jokes about him on another thread that were apparently considered blasphemy, because the thread was locked and my posts were deleted. Well, not everyone worships at the Forrest altar.

The horse, by the way, is a means of travel. You put infantry on a horse to get them to the battlefield and then they fight as infantry, they're not cavalry, just as if you put infantry on a bunch of tanks to give them a ride and they aren't in the tank corps.

 

[48th Miss.]

You're welcome. Bedford is nearly worshipped on this forum. In fact, I made a few jokes about him on another thread that were apparently considered blasphemy, because the thread was locked and my posts were deleted. Well, not everyone worships at the Forrest altar.

The horse, by the way, is a means of travel. You put infantry on a horse to get them to the battlefield and then they fight as infantry, they're not cavalry, just as if you put infantry on a bunch of tanks to give them a ride and they aren't in the tank corps.

I get the tank deal. Just never thought of the issue of the horse. It will be an interesting thread to read over I think. A lot easier than the cause of the war. Well, Maybe not as you said. We will see. Seems your knowledge and opinion base is extremely broad. Of course you have been at it a long time. Your not glued to the chair or a hostage in your home, are you??