custer and the LBH

I believe that Custer's most critical mistake was when he decoded to send Benteen off on the scout. If Custer needed the information he should have waited and if he didn't need it why scout in the first place. Its likely that Custer could have captured enough women and children if he had his whole force at the start, even though Reno was retreating. By having to wait for Benteen to return Custer lost his surprise and that gave the warriors enough time to react.

 

Not entirely correct Steve. Benteen orders were to attack on the flank of the camp, as Custer was doing upon the other flank in an effort to prevent the 'hostiles' from escaping as they so often did normally. It was, however, a mistake to split his forces in the face of a superior force. It was also a mistake not to trail the band until the main column could reach Custer. A full on engagement against a force 3 to 5 times your size is a recipe for disaster.

 

Custer....vainglory at it's most tragic. A colourful personality, I have heard it said that in an era when most people look dead in photographs, Custer leaps out of the photo at you.

He had a distinguished career in the Civil War, with brother Tom the rare recipient of not one but TWO Medals of Honour. Some sugessted that "Armstrong" had a hand in getting his brother decorated, but this ignores the fact that, despite his exploits, Georgie could never quite 'finnagle' one for himself. It also overstates the importance and relative influence of one Brevet Brigadier General, however famous he might be.

Sitting Bull, Gall and Two Moons were better armed than Custers men, fresh to the field, defending their hearth and home, and their troops were far more mobile. "Yellow Hair", as he was known, was an old enemy for them, and Sitting Bull had already had a vision of American soldiers fallng into the camp up-side-down. The Sioux were about as fired up as they would ever be, all the omens pointed to a victory, all they needed was for Custer's legendary impetuosity to get the better of him. And sure enough, without proper recon, Custer decided to attack with what he had on hand, rather than letting the Sioux melt back into the countryside. But, with all the baggage of a move like that, it was likely to be slow. So, better to wait for Terry's column to arrive, with hopefully a 'Gatling' gun or two tagging along. Anything else was glory hunting of the worst kind, and Custer went for the Glory

 

" Crazy Horse " has been my "favourite" but seems like his part is not well known...

 

Benteen's orders were to see if there was another village and to atack it if it was. But the fact that Custer had to stop and wait for Benteen was fatal.

 

I always find it a little tragic that, even if Custer's gamble had paid off, it would not have altered the fate of the Plains Indians one little bit. Government policy was to forcibly round these people up for resettlement on reservations, or to wipe them out altogether. Custer's defeat. coming as it did on the 100th anniversary of Nationhood, sent shockwaves through the country that guaranteed the further, more brutal implementation of that said policy.

Nothing was going to save the Sioux. All they got out of their biggest victory was a brief feeling of utter glory, followed by a world of hurt that destroyed them as a functioning people.

Thats got to be the Phyrric Victory to end all phyrric victories.

 

Funny, too, how this is one of those rare battles that is 'named' by the vanquished.

The Indians referred to the region as "The Greasy Grass". It should have been called that, "The Battle of the Greasy Grass." I thought the winners got to bestow a name. Not forgeting that, no matter the result, the Indians were going to come out as losers. So maybe thats why it has passed down to us as "The Battle of the Little Big Horn".

 

V.B., the area surrounding the battleground is indeed called the "Greasy Grass", but the battle was mostly fought on or near the Little Big Horn. The LBH is a minor tributary to the Bighorn River which wasn't named by the native Americans. It was named by a French trapper in 1805 because of the Bighorn Sheep he saw grazing on its banks. I am unaware of the name given by either the Crow (their area really), or what the other tribes called it if or when they passed by.

The Sioux, Arapahoes, and Cheyenne called it the Battle of the Greasy Grass, but it was fought on what is today Crow land, and really was then as well. In the late eighties, the Crow started a petition to change the name of the place, and in 1991 President Bush (GHW) signed a bill which changed the name of the monument from Custer National Monument to the Little Big Horn. That was the name chosen by the Crow. Those Amerindians who DON'T live there didn't have a say in the name change.

Calling it the Battle of the Little Big Horn is a major improvement over what it used to be called. Custer National Monument. Then it really was named for the vanquished. The site is about 45 miles away from my front door, I stopped going over for the reenactment a few years ago when some "do gooder" made the pit BBQed Bison illegal because it wasn't cooked in an FDA/USDA approved kitchen. I used to really enjoy going over and chowing down on a few pounds of pulled bison and "Indian fried flat bread". Now it is just another rodeo.

 

Thankyou Clint!
I've been past the site on ski bus tours & always wished we had stopped. The Bar be que loss is a real shame. Pit barbeques , properly done, are actually safer for the public since the 'outdoor kitchen' has no residual bacteria left behind by repeated 'residual disinterested cleaners.'

Unfortunatley, bar owners drive health inspectors crazy, & th e- coli =effect spils over....

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
One difficulty faced on the frontier was the poor pay & provisioning which trickled down to the troopers. Trooping inthe 1870's was oftern an immigrants' first job off the boat',and turnover rates were very high.

 

When I say "pit bbq", I mean a real hole in the ground, not one of those roll around steel barrels or something. This was a set of real holes in the ground, lined with brick, and big enough to hold a half a bison in each one. The halves were rubbed with oils, and wrapped in wet burlap, then chicken wire to keep it all "together" lowering and retrieving the beast from the pit. It was very nummy, but somebody really didn't like the idea of eating meat cooked in the dirt I guess.

I heard later that if the meat sandwich had been "free" they could have kept up the practice. Since the tribe charged a buck a sandwich or so, that made it a commercial enterprise and had to meet the food safety regulations for restaurants, grills, and cafes in Montana.

 

I have been there once and would love to go again.

 

double post

 

I read a National Geographic article, (still have it somewhere), that described the cutting edge archeaological dig associated with the site. Apparently, a grass fire went through major portions of the area; it was the best thing that ever happened, principally because of the work on the site that the fire pushed forward. The site was divided into computer 'boxes'. 'Taggers' went through and flagged artifacts that they found, with the exact location recorded using satellite navigation.

Soil from thes 'boxes' was sifted in the manner of other digs, and artifacts that were uncovered for the first time included an entire skeleton of one of Custer's troopers. Because no identification was possible, the skeleton was called 'Mike'. Archeaologists noted the fact that 'Mike' had a slipped disc, and was wearing boots sizes too big for him. Spent ammunition was 'tracked' by computer, with examples of this work uncovering a wealth of information about the fight itself, and the aftermath. 'Mike' was discovered in a ravine, and he must have been one of the men from Custer's unit that attempted to escape the debacle.

All in all, it was an interesting read that I kept for many a year, with an aerial photo of the site that helped put some of the moves of the participants in mind, and a lovely photo of Sitting Bulls drawing of the battle, including the soldiers falling 'up-side'down" and drawing of the 'atrocities' committed by the victors, making sure the dead would have no peace in the afterlife.

They also made mention of a rubbish dump discovered in a ravine. Apparently, it was the junk from the survivors of Reno and Benteen's command that ditched their unwanted baggage before moving on from the field. At the time of publication, (a while ago), this dump was still unexcavated, but it promised a wealth of artifacts, including discarded rifles, that could expand the museum's collection of battlefield related objects by a big margin.

 

By the way, my Maori wife Arlene points out that the 'pit BBQ' you refer too is very similar to a Maori 'hangi', (pronounced HUNG-EE). They also wrap their food in wet canvas,(in a cage of chicken wire or similar) and bury in a freshly dug pit full of heated rocks,(modern Maori prefer railway sleepers). The end result is just gorgeous food; That pit sounds like it could produce the same ecstatic result. Arlene also points out that there are many similarities between the two warrior cultures, even though the Maori are of Polynesian extraction.

The whining bastards that shut that particular feast down sound like a bunch of killjoy-do-gooders to me.

I've eaten hangi food and have never been sick from anything out of the turf.

 

In my experience, "do-gooders" rarely do any actual good. Especially when it comes to banning BBQ.

Given the lionization of Custer after the LBH, it is not surprising that the monument was named after him. Having said that, I prefer that it be named after the location, rather than one of the participants. Generally, locations are less controversial than the personalities.

I found a few interesting links regarding the archaeology at the LBH Battlefield:

Archaeology of the Battle of the Little Bighorn - National Park Service

How the Battle of the Little Bighorn Was Won - Smithsonian

Friends of the Little Bighorn Battlefield

And, to add a bit of controversy, I thought I'd also include the following website:

The Archaeological Fraud - Custer and the Little Bighorn

Whether or not you agree with the views on this website, it does raise a valid challenge to drawing any absolute conclusions from archaeology at the LBH Battlefield.

 

I am reading a book about Custer as a general and I was surprised that Custer was charged with abandoning his command while in charge of the 7th. He thought Libby was coming and was so concerned when he didnt hear from her that he took off in search. About 10 men sent to find him were killed. He lucked out somehow and was not removed from command.

 

I agree that the archaeological effort was far from perfect, and that the protection (or lack thereof) of the scene of the battle was lamentable. Trophy hunters, re-enactors, and just about every Tom, Dick and Harry wandered over the site for a hundred + years. I do think it did, however, more closely reproduce what happened than earlier efforts, and especially as it seems to verify the Amerindian testimony more than the Army's whitewash and blame game.

BTW, the BBQ still goes on it is just now done in those "approved" steel roll around type things rather than in a real "pit" as in the past. And the last time I was there (a few years ago admittedly) the price had gone up by a factor of five or six, and the taste wasn't the same at all, and the "Indian Fry Bread" wasn't done in a lard anymore, but some new "good for you oil", again far from a decent substitute. For those who never laid a lip over the "old stuff", they don't even know what they missed. Ah well...

 

I have much empathy with this, except I am not particularly interested in whose side of the story it supports. I think the Smithsonian article was pretty good and seemed to be evenhanded. It does use American Indian accounts, but also includes a discrepancy in those accounts. It even includes a discussion of American Indian atrocities and mutilation of bodies on the battlefield as reported in American Indian accounts. I'm not making a case here, just pointing to the fact that the article doesn't shy away from facts that might be seen as controversial. I like my facts the way I like my whiskey - straight up.

 

Did you know Tommy that the only mutilation of Custer himself was piercing of his ear drums with knitting needle like sticks? That was to emphasize that he was "deaf to warnings on earth, and now deaf forever". The Amerindian warriors all seemed to have respected him for his bravery, and courage in battle, but found him lacking in "hearing and listening to what he was told".

 

Little know fact: Crazy Horse was a US Army Sergeant. Several months before he died he was enlisted as a Sgt of Scouts.
Some of us celebrate 25 June as a holiday and believe “Custer died for your (white men’s) sins”.