Leaving this foolish film aside, is there anyone out there who is interested in talking about the battle in a serious way? Were Custer's dispositions all that wrong, or did Reno let him down? It would be very nice to hear from anyone interested in Custer and his last campaign.
TGOC
[deleted]
Dear Salino,
Very many thanks for your response.
I can only say that you have expressed the matter in exactly the words that I would have used.
I have read that, in material that comes from the "Native American" history of the battle, that Reno's initial assault threw the NA's into a state of serious alarm, and that, had he pressed on, the outcome might well have been very different. Custer's plan to attack from the flank has always seemed to me very sensible. It has always been assumed that he was a fool to have attacked so many with so few, but history is full of examples of small disciplined forces overcoming irregular enemies who outnumbered them vastly. Obviously, Reno had not read those books.
As you say, Custer may not have been a person one can admire, but his military reputation is another matter. Perhaps the lesson to be learned is that he should have had a better relationship with his senior officers; they might have supported him better.
Thanks again,
TGOC
[deleted]
Dear Salino,
Many thanks for your response.
Neither am I a 7th Cav or Custer fanatic, rather I am simply interested in the battle AS a battle. Also I would wish to be fair to Reno and Benteen; we all should know how easy it is to second-guess from a position of safety.
Obviously, had Benteen and the troopers with him arrived in time, the outcome might have been quite different. But what interests me most is the question of Reno's initial attack towards the native village. Clearly, there were far more "hostiles" than he or anyone else had been led to expect, and his dismay can be readily understood. But, even so, military history is full of accounts of small bodies of disciplined soldiers -- mounted and otherwise -- routing much larger bodies of irregular antagonists. Think, for example, of the charge of the Heavy Brigade at Balaclava, in which they saw off a much larger force of Russian Cavalry who were only marginally less well-trained and well-led than themselves. Where Reno was concerned -- the numerical odds aside -- he had every reason, on the face of it, to press on, in accordance with his orders. We can add to that, in hindsight, the fact that, as I said, the hostiles seemed to have been thrown into confusion and dismay by his initial advance. Reno himself, of course, could not have known that, but still ...
All that I have read about Custer and this battle has left me with the conclusion that if Custer is to be blamed for anything it should be the fact that he obviously failed to instill in the senior officers under his command the bond that should have existed between them and him. If he had done so, they might have had a better grasp of his tactics and a greater willingness to support him. Obviously, Custer, both then and now, acquired the reputation of being an irresponsible glory-hound. That is neither here nor there. What he should have acquired was a better relationship with his officers. Again, military history demonstrates that this is an essential for any successful leader.
I look forward to hearing your thoughts. And thanks again.
Yours,
TGOC
[deleted]
Dear Salino,
We are both of us amateurs, but I would like to think that that need not prevent us from enjoying each other’s company in pursuing this discussion.
I take your point about Reno’s advance, but is it true, do you think that they dismounted? If so, there would have been the one-in-four ratio of horse-holders, but if they had pressed on mounted, this would not have been the case. Obviously, after their advance had been repulsed, and when they were retreating to what later became known as Reno’s Hill, or Bluff, they must have dismounted.
Lend me your lights on this matter, if you would be so kind: it would seem that Custer had a much better relationship with his junior officers than he had with those whom we would describe as field-grade. As you say, it would seem that the latter were not prepared to follow Custer blindly. But where that leaves them with respect to the honour of the regiment is another question. We both know that in the British Army the regiment is everything. Think of the 44th on the retreat from Kabul. I have read a little about the Fetterman Massacre – and indeed disciplined troops can loose their heads, but perhaps they were not all that well-disciplined or trained. Remember the South Wales Borderers at Rorke’s Drift.
On the whole, I am inclined to retain the impression that Reno let Custer down; as you quite rightly say, “he didn’t act on this direct order.” Reno should have pressed on. At the same time, I think that Custer is to be faulted for not having established a better understanding with his senior officers.
It is for me to thank you for this discussion. Please, let us continue it. Is military history one of your interests? If so, we could have many a chat in future.
Yours ever,
TGOC ( Tom O’Connor)
[deleted]
[deleted]
I'm sure I could talk at length about Custer's tactics, but I find it hard to do so when the OP calls Little Big Man 'foolish'. In what way? This was never intended to be a documentary, and as a movie it is very well made indeed.
share