New Article on Custer's Last Stand

And I'm still waiting for a step-by-step explanation of how the village could have be reconned on the morning of June 25 without the Indians escaping. No one has even attempted to do that other than to mindlesly repeat "he should have reconned".

Maybe that part of the mission wasn't in the cards.

Whatever was possible that day, the course Custer chose didn't work and ended in disaster.

Maybe it was possible for the battle to be won, maybe not. But even in a defeat or draw, a result other than annihilation should be possible. Live to fight another day is also an option for the cavalry. Maybe not a popular one, but better than being dead.
 
The "home" team? I wonder about that. The Sioux and the Cheyenne were two of the most vicious, predatory tribes in the Americas. There was a reason that the Crow and the Arikara were only too happy to help the U.S. Army go after the Sioux and the Cheyenne (they had been brutalized by them).

The Sioux and the Cheyenne acquired most of "their lands" by violent conquest and subjugation. They would then claim huge tracts of land as "theirs" even though they only occupied a tiny part of that land.

This is not to excuse the federal government's bad acts and broken promises toward the Indians, but there is another side of the coin that rarely gets attention nowadays.

The intertribal conflict in the Western plains came about as most conflicts do: increased competition for limited resources. Tribes we think of as western plains tribes came out of the upper midwest, pushed by inflow of Whites into the region. This pushed some plains tribes south creating another conflict with the tribes already there.

Not to say the tribes were peaceful, just that the specific conflicts mentioned up thread were not indigeneous but driven by the larger war of conquest in play.
 
Sorry, counterinsurgency tactics still revolve around carrying out reconnaisance to locate, and fix enemy forces. the principles of warfare do not change because you are not facing a "near peer" foe. Charging straight at where you think the enemy is is a recipe for disaster.

Custer threw the book out the window because he was overconfident, and overly agressive.



You seem to be under the impression that Custer could either advance to contact, OR conduct a reconnaisance - it is entirely possible to multi-task. What it would have taken is a slower advance to the Little Big Horn so that advance scouts could determine:

a. The location and size of the camp;
b. Approximate numbers;
c. Enemy activity; and
d. Terrain analysis.



I have read the description of the Crow's Nest events - the camp is not visible from the Crow's Nest. All the scouts saw was part of the pony herd and smoke. From that they could deduce that there was a village there, but not size.
This. Exactly this. "My bosses might think I looked cowardly" is not an excuse for discarding good practice. This battle is the case study for why.
 
This. Exactly this. "My bosses might think I looked cowardly" is not an excuse for discarding good practice. This battle is the case study for why.

"OCdt Custer please explain to the syndicate why you felt it necessary to split the platoon into three groups, did not employ a reserve, failed to observe the terrain to determine it's effect on possible battle and did not conduct a more detailed recce than looking through your binoculars at a distance of 22km before launching an attack against an enemy force that outnumbered yours approximately 4 to one? Had this been an actual attack you would have been destroyed in minutes."

"Sir, you have emphasized that an officer needs to take agressive and decisive action. I didn't want you to think that I didn't have what it takes.."

"Mr. Custer, if this had not been a training exercise, you would have destroyed your platoon as a fighting force and failed in your orders to locate and fix the enemy force. There is a difference between calculated agression and thoughtless beligerence, which I had hoped you would have grasped by now. At this time, I will be recommending to the progress review board that you cease training. "
 
My understanding is that the terrain was (and remains today) deceptive. From a high point, it looks like one can see out onto pretty flat undulating hills. However, the terrain hides ravines, carve-outs, and soft sand cliffs that make it easy for someone to sneak up on a position undetected.

Of course, if Custer hadn't divided his forces, actually used his scouts for recon, and had fought a head-on battle rather than trying to trap the women and children, he might have been able to overcome this.

Having been to the Little Big Horn Battlefield several times, I can testify the first paragraph is true. It's terrain that is textbook perfect for concealment and ambush.
BTW if you visit, you definently want to tour the whole park,not just the "Last Stand" hill site.
 
"OCdt Custer please explain to the syndicate why you felt it necessary to split the platoon into three groups, did not employ a reserve, failed to observe the terrain to determine it's effect on possible battle and did not conduct a more detailed recce than looking through your binoculars at a distance of 22km before launching an attack against an enemy force that outnumbered yours approximately 4 to one? Had this been an actual attack you would have been destroyed in minutes."

"Sir, you have emphasized that an officer needs to take agressive and decisive action. I didn't want you to think that I didn't have what it takes.."

"Mr. Custer, if this had not been a training exercise, you would have destroyed your platoon as a fighting force and failed in your orders to locate and fix the enemy force. There is a difference between calculated agression and thoughtless beligerence, which I had hoped you would have grasped by now. At this time, I will be recommending to the progress review board that you cease training. "
I see we share some experiences.
 
You seem to be under the impression that Custer could either advance to contact, OR conduct a reconnaisance - it is entirely possible to multi-task. What it would have taken is a slower advance to the Little Big Horn so that advance scouts could determine:

a. The location and size of the camp;
b. Approximate numbers;
c. Enemy activity; and
d. Terrain analysis.

I have read the description of the Crow's Nest events - the camp is not visible from the Crow's Nest. All the scouts saw was part of the pony herd and smoke. From that they could deduce that there was a village there, but not size.

Thanks for the additional details. The scouts were able to ride a short distance ahead of the columns as they advanced. Maybe they could have gotten farther ahead of the columns, I don't know. Could they have reached a point where they could have seen the village without alerting the village to their presence and provoking an attack? There were Indians on the east side of the river. Any approach of scouts would likely have been seen by these Indians and the word carried to the camp. The Little Big Horn is open and semi-arid with trees only along the water courses. There was no good way to sneak up on the camp.

To your four points, I would say that he in fact did have that information, or if he didn't, getting the information would have made little difference, except in one instance, as noted below.

A) He knew the size of the village (see my previous posts). He knew the approximate location of the village: it was some distance downstream of the mouth of Reno Creek. The exact distance was immaterial to his plans.

The one thing that he didn't know was whether there were additional villages strung out along the river. He ran into that problem at the Washita. This concern may have been the impetus for Benteen's scout to the left. If he could have ascertained this ahead of time, and kept Benteen with the main columns, that would have been very helpful. I grant you that.

B) He knew the approximate number of warriors. Peeking over a hill at an Indian encampment a mile away would have provided no additional precision.

C) He didn't know enemy activity but as it turned out, he got the best possible scenario: the village was standing; the women and children were in camp; the pony herd was outside camp; and the Indians were unaware of his approach.

D) He had scouts with him who knew the terrain. But having said that, I think the nature of the terrain played a big part in what happened.
 
In 2001, Major Jonathan T Neumann produced a small book titled "The Military Decision Making Process and the Battle of the Little Bighorn". In it, he analyzes how Custer's decisions stack up against the standards set by the current Military Decision Making Process (MDMP). He emphasizes that Custer's decisions should be evaulated based on what was known at the time, not on the "20/20 hindsight" so common to battle analysis.

Here are some of his conclusions: "Custer did not have the Military Decision Making Process or a battle staff to assist in developing a course of action for this battle. Were he to have it, though, it appears his decisions might have been very similar. ...
Based on his background, education, training, and the information available at the time of his attack, Lieutenant Colonel George Armstrong Custer made good decisions as he lead the 7th Cavalry in its defeat at the Little Bighorn...Custer's military decisions are very similar to those a current leader would make using current military decision making doctrine."

Interesting, I guess Major Neumann is as dumb as Custer.
 
Having been to the Little Big Horn Battlefield several times, I can testify the first paragraph is true. It's terrain that is textbook perfect for concealment and ambush.
BTW if you visit, you definently want to tour the whole park,not just the "Last Stand" hill site.

There were no ambushes at the Little Big Horn.
 
Having been to the Little Big Horn Battlefield several times, I can testify the first paragraph is true. It's terrain that is textbook perfect for concealment and ambush.
BTW if you visit, you definently want to tour the whole park,not just the "Last Stand" hill site.

Having just done that at the end of June, I heartily concur. First time I'd been out to the south, despite having grown up less than 100 miles away. I was really glad they took down the awful iron fence around the memorial pylon.
 
This. Exactly this. "My bosses might think I looked cowardly" is not an excuse for discarding good practice. This battle is the case study for why.

I wasn't implying he was worried about looking cowardly. Not attacking would have gone against standard, accepted practice in the Indian wars. Period.
 
Last edited:
Maybe that part of the mission wasn't in the cards.

Whatever was possible that day, the course Custer chose didn't work and ended in disaster.

Maybe it was possible for the battle to be won, maybe not. But even in a defeat or draw, a result other than annihilation should be possible. Live to fight another day is also an option for the cavalry. Maybe not a popular one, but better than being dead.

I agree with you completely. I was hoping for a reasoned exchange about the details of what happened, which I find endlessly interesting. Instead what I'm seeing is some version of "Custer was a moron because he didn't conduct a recon and then split his forces, case closed." Followed, of course, by everyone patting each other on the back for their brilliant analysis.

Custer was not a moron. He was a highly competent, decorated, experienced cavalry officer. Maybe, just maybe, there were reasons for what he did. Would anyone be interested in exploring what those might have been? No, of course not...Custer was an idiot.
 
Last edited:
You keep asking how Custer could have done a proper recon without alerting the Indians and allowing them to escape.

The Indians weren't planning to escape. His scouts were the ones telling him they would get away. Custer wanted to wait until nightfall to attack, but the scouts claimed that the Sioux had seen their campfires.

Had Custer trusted his instincts he might have been successful. Instead he improvised a plan based on poor intelligence.

The Crow scouts could have handled recon.
 
You keep asking how Custer could have done a proper recon without alerting the Indians and allowing them to escape.

The Indians weren't planning to escape. His scouts were the ones telling him they would get away. Custer wanted to wait until nightfall to attack, but the scouts claimed that the Sioux had seen their campfires.

Had Custer trusted his instincts he might have been successful. Instead he improvised a plan based on poor intelligence.

The Crow scouts could have handled recon.

I'm trying to emphasize that you have to look at decisions based on what Custer knew at the time. It doesn't matter whether the Indians were really planning to flee or not; he believed they would, as did everyone else in the army. This was based on prior campaigns and the strength of the three columns in the field. This complete assurance that the Indians would run and that every step must be taken to prevent that was without a doubt a contributing factor to the disaster that ensued. But that was not an attitude created and promulgated by Custer. That was a general belief in the army.

Normally, when soldiers approached an Indian village, the braves would ride out to engage the soldiers while the camp was struck and the women and children made their escape. After providing a protective screen, the warriors would retreat, joining the women and children in flight.

The ideal for the army was to catch a village while it was still standing where they could inflict the maximum damage and force the Indians to return to the reservations. This was difficult to do because usually their approach would be discovered and the usual screening action would ensure.

One way to catch a village by surprise was to make a night march, when the Indians were less vigilant, and attack the village at dawn. This was Custer's plan at the Little Big Horn. This would have allowed every one to cross to the Little Big Horn together and attack together, and within supporting distance of each other. This was the plan. It was a good one and Custer was very reluctant to give it up even after he was told about the Sioux having spotted them.

Custer asked his scouts if there was any way to cross to the Little Big Horn without being discovered by the Indians. They assured him there was not. That left him with no choice but to make a rapid advance and make the best of what was a bad situation.
 
We have hundreds of pages of Court of Inquiry testimony, letters, and interviews by the surviving officers of the 7th Cavalry, including those who hated Custer, like Reno and Benteen. In all those comments, there is not a single criticism of Custer's decision to advance on the village with no further delay. NONE. Does that carry no weight with anyone here?

By the way, I confirmed the above info using John Gray's "Centennial Campaign", p 170. I've been away from the battle too long to make that statement based on my own memory alone.

At some point, don't you have to ask yourself "Hey, maybe I don't know as much about what should have been done as the trained, experienced cavalry officers who were there?" Is that a possibility for anyone? Or is everyone enjoying too much the smug self-congratulation being exchanged up thread?
 
Last edited:
We have hundreds of pages of Court of Inquiry testimony, letters, and interviews by the surviving officers of the 7th Cavalry, including those who hated Custer, like Reno and Benteen. In all those comments, there is not a single criticism of Custer's decision to advance on the village with no further delay. NONE. Does that carry no weight with anyone here?

By the way, I confirmed the above info using John Gray's "Centennial Campaign", p 170. I've been away from the battle too long to make that statement based on my own memory alone.

At some point, don't you have to ask yourself "Hey, maybe I don't know as much about what should have been done as the trained, experienced cavalry officers who were there?" Is that a possibility for anyone? Or is everyone enjoying too much the smug self-congratulation being exchanged up thread?

In that case I feel you should clarify what you want to talk about.

1. Did Custer do anything wrong? I think most here say yes. Hard to argue different, if the result was annihilation of Custer's unit.
2. Did Custer make the right decisions, based on the information available to him at the time? That one touches on point 1, but is different enough to get it's own number.
3. Were Custers actions/decisions inevitable based on the socio/political and doctrinal circumstances in the army at that time? It seems to me, you're arguing a bit for this one, based on the fact that it was apparently expected to attack immediately.
4. something else?
 
In that case I feel you should clarify what you want to talk about.

1. Did Custer do anything wrong? I think most here say yes. Hard to argue different, if the result was annihilation of Custer's unit.
2. Did Custer make the right decisions, based on the information available to him at the time? That one touches on point 1, but is different enough to get it's own number.
3. Were Custers actions/decisions inevitable based on the socio/political and doctrinal circumstances in the army at that time? It seems to me, you're arguing a bit for this one, based on the fact that it was apparently expected to attack immediately.
4. something else?
As an interested lurker, I am not experiencing any difficulty in working out what WayneK wants to talk about.
 
I'm trying to emphasize that you have to look at decisions based on what Custer knew at the time. It doesn't matter whether the Indians were really planning to flee or not; he believed they would, as did everyone else in the army. This was based on prior campaigns and the strength of the three columns in the field. This complete assurance that the Indians would run and that every step must be taken to prevent that was without a doubt a contributing factor to the disaster that ensued. But that was not an attitude created and promulgated by Custer. That was a general belief in the army.

I agree with you here, but what did he know?

a. He did not have any idea of the size of the village other than "it's big";
b. He did not have any idea of the size of the OPFOR at the village;
c. He did not have specifics on the local terrain;
d. He did not have any idea of what actions were happening at the village;
e. He did not have positive confirmation that he had been detected;
f. He did know that the estimated overall strength of the FN was 800-1000 fighters (which as we know now was incorrect, as it only took into account the warriors available on one of the reservations, not on the combined forces. However, Custer could not have known prior to contact with the village at the Little Big Horn that his intel was grossly inaccurate);
g. He did know that if the FN detected his presence that the warriors would engage in a holding action while the rest of the village scattered; and
h. His orders were to locate, and fix the village, and to eliminate the FN as a threat by either getting them to return to reservations, or by military action.

Custer was an aggressive commander of cavalry, with an eye to possible political office, and a somewhat narrisistic personality (wanting the right people to know he had the chops for his duties and not being afraid of self-promotion) that rubbed a lot of people the wrong way. He did not get along with, or have the confidence of his senior subordinates, but did have the confidence of the rank and file.

A slower advance to the village with a scouting and screening force deplowed would have probably allowed Custer to get positive information on points a to e. Custer's mission focus was to locate and fix the village to eliminate the threat, but his aggressive nature and possibly the idea that if it was his force that eliminated the main threat that he could parlay that success into possible political office cannot be discounted as factors that caused him to advance at a pace that generally precluded scouting ahead.
 
I agree with you here, but what did he know?

a. He did not have any idea of the size of the village other than "it's big";
b. He did not have any idea of the size of the OPFOR at the village;
c. He did not have specifics on the local terrain;
d. He did not have any idea of what actions were happening at the village;
e. He did not have positive confirmation that he had been detected;
f. He did know that the estimated overall strength of the FN was 800-1000 fighters (which as we know now was incorrect, as it only took into account the warriors available on one of the reservations, not on the combined forces. However, Custer could not have known prior to contact with the village at the Little Big Horn that his intel was grossly inaccurate);
g. He did know that if the FN detected his presence that the warriors would engage in a holding action while the rest of the village scattered; and
h. His orders were to locate, and fix the village, and to eliminate the FN as a threat by either getting them to return to reservations, or by military action.

Custer was an aggressive commander of cavalry, with an eye to possible political office, and a somewhat narrisistic personality (wanting the right people to know he had the chops for his duties and not being afraid of self-promotion) that rubbed a lot of people the wrong way. He did not get along with, or have the confidence of his senior subordinates, but did have the confidence of the rank and file.

A slower advance to the village with a scouting and screening force deplowed would have probably allowed Custer to get positive information on points a to e. Custer's mission focus was to locate and fix the village to eliminate the threat, but his aggressive nature and possibly the idea that if it was his force that eliminated the main threat that he could parlay that success into possible political office cannot be discounted as factors that caused him to advance at a pace that generally precluded scouting ahead.

Actually, most historians feel Custer had an eye to redeeming himself with the Aumy high command more then an eye to poltical office at the time. For a variety of reasons, he was in trouble with his superior officers at the time of the lIttle Bighorn.
The whole "His wanting to be President was behind Little Bighorn" theory has been pretty much discarded. Custer was an egomaniac,but even he knew tht the White House was beyond his grasp in 1876,
 

Back
Top Bottom