So Custer? Great General, or Greatest General . ?

[Pruitt]

Originally Posted by FluffyBunnyFeet

Again primacy affect, "when forms an initial belief from an initial source they are inclined to reinforce it, rather than question it.

You do realize this applies to you as well?

Pruitt

[Massena]

[QUOTE=FluffyBunnyFeet;2774959]uhm? name a commander that never lost and I'll show you a guy that led one battle... Alexander despite his propaganda lost battles especially in India are they now bad commanders?QUOTE]

Louis N. Davout, Marshal of the Empire never lost a battle, and he definitely fought more than one and commanded alone at Auerstadt in 1806, Eckmuhl in 1809, Moghilev in 1812 and in the fighting in northwest Europe in 1813-1814, including his famous unyielding defense of Hamburg.

Wellington never lost a battle as a commander, and he fought in India, the Iberian peninsula from 1808-1814, and in Belgium in 1815.

Another British commander, Marlborough, never lost a battle either.

And if you believe that Alexander lost a battle, name it, please.

So, there you have at least three. Care to up the ante?

Now get off your high-horse and actually pay attention to the others here-you might actually learn something. And there are plenty of members who have admitted mistakes here. Perhaps when you've been here just a little longer, and also grow up a little, you might fit in well-though I doubt it as most of your postings are just piles of manure.

Sincerely,
M

[Cyberknight]

Originally Posted by Wooden Wonder

Custer was no battlefield master tactician. He made the same sort of blunders at Little Big Horn, as Chelmsford made about 4 or 5 days later at Isandlwana.

Things like underestimating the opposition, and splitting up his forces in enemy territory without sufficient fore-knowledge of the oppositions' deployment and intentions.

That those two events occurred so close together always intrigued me.

[Bdell]

Originally Posted by Urban hermit

he under estimated them just as you do now.

When you are outnumbered between 3 to 1 and 5 to 1, it doesn't do to underestimate anybody. I'm not underestimating the Indians but am not crediting them with military genius, either. Considering how bad Custer's tactics were it would have been surprising if the Indians DIDN'T win.

[Bdell]

Originally Posted by III Corps

Custer's tactics hastened the disaster since, we now know, it was going to happen that afternoon in June anyway.

Not true at all. If he had kept his Regiment consolidated......as he should have. Kept his reserve ammunition with his main body.....as he should have. He had every opportunity to win a victory. Remember, history is replete with examples of small units of soldiers defeating masses of tribal warriors. The battle was not un-winable.

[TacCovert4]

Originally Posted by Bdell

Not true at all. If he had kept his Regiment consolidated......as he should have. Kept his reserve ammunition with his main body.....as he should have. He had every opportunity to win a victory. Remember, history is replete with examples of small units of soldiers defeating masses of tribal warriors. The battle was not un-winable.

Quite. He was trying to do what had been fairly common practice with gatherings of Indians. Set up blocking forces and then push through the village with an attack. The Indians would run rather than engage and be caught by the blocking forces.

He underestimated the competition. And he arrogantly and arbitrarily decided that they'd behave in exactly the same way that they always did, because they were afraid of direct confrontation.

He did have intel that this gathering was bigger than average. And yet he did not do anything to prepare his command for more than a skirmish and pursuit, because he believed that's all that would happen. Reno was meant to be the hammer, driving the indians into the Anvil, with Benteen in pursuit.

Nobody thought about what to do if the Hammer got mobbed.......and the Anvil got smashed.....

With the Gatlings, extra ammo, and not dividing his command so much, he could have taken on Crazy Horse and Sitting Bull's force in a field battle, which they might have initially offered, and crushed them. The Indians were raiders after all, not professional soldiers. They tended to quickly balk at casualties.

Instead he went for a repeat of previous successful attacks on small villages....

[Massena]

Custer did demonstrate, however, that the central position was not always an advantage.

Sincerely,
M

[Massena]

Originally Posted by Cyberknight

That those two events occurred so close together always intrigued me.

Except that Chelmsford was not present...

Sincerely,
M

[Wooden Wonder]

Originally Posted by Massena

Except that Chelmsford was not present...

Sincerely,
M

The 'synchronicity' of unconnected events, both commanders did however have commonalities in their personalities, which inclined them to similar action and error.

[Arnold J Rimmer]

[QUOTE=Massena;2775084]

Originally Posted by FluffyBunnyFeet

uhm? name a commander that never lost and I'll show you a guy that led one battle... Alexander despite his propaganda lost battles especially in India are they now bad commanders?QUOTE]

Louis N. Davout, Marshal of the Empire never lost a battle, and he definitely fought more than one and commanded alone at Auerstadt in 1806, Eckmuhl in 1809, Moghilev in 1812 and in the fighting in northwest Europe in 1813-1814, including his famous unyielding defense of Hamburg.

Wellington never lost a battle as a commander, and he fought in India, the Iberian peninsula from 1808-1814, and in Belgium in 1815.

Another British commander, Marlborough, never lost a battle either.

And if you believe that Alexander lost a battle, name it, please.

So, there you have at least three. Care to up the ante?

Now get off your high-horse and actually pay attention to the others here-you might actually learn something. And there are plenty of members who have admitted mistakes here. Perhaps when you've been here just a little longer, and also grow up a little, you might fit in well-though I doubt it as most of your postings are just piles of manure.

Sincerely,
M

Didn't Thomas in the ACW make a zero loss record as well?

[III Corps]

Originally Posted by Bdell

...Not true at all...

We can agree to disagree. You look at things which could have happened. I look at what actually occurred.

[Bdell]

Originally Posted by III Corps

We can agree to disagree. You look at things which could have happened. I look at what actually occurred.

I don't know what you're talking about. The point of the thread is Custer's ability as an independent commander, and what I am pointing out is not something that didn't happen , but what SHOULDN'T have happened.
The one over-riding fact is that Custer was confronted by a massive collection of Indians. How he dealt with that fact, determined how that battle was to be fought. However you try to cut it, Custer had a great deal of information and could have formulated a winning strategy. But he refused to face the reality of his situation, and instead tried to use such tactics as had been used on other occasions, which is why I say he did not possess good deductive reasoning skills.

[TacCovert4]

Originally Posted by Massena

Custer did demonstrate, however, that the central position was not always an advantage.

Sincerely,
M

Id argue that since he split his forces up and they became separated..... that the Sioux had the central position.

[Massena]

Originally Posted by Bdell

I don't know what you're talking about. The point of the thread is Custer's ability as an independent commander, and what I am pointing out is not something that didn't happen , but what SHOULDN'T have happened.
The one over-riding fact is that Custer was confronted by a massive collection of Indians. How he dealt with that fact, determined how that battle was to be fought. However you try to cut it, Custer had a great deal of information and could have formulated a winning strategy. But he refused to face the reality of his situation, and instead tried to use such tactics as had been used on other occasions, which is why I say he did not possess good deductive reasoning skills.

Same difference. III Corps is correct.

Sincerely,
M

[Massena]

Originally Posted by TacCovert4

Id argue that since he split his forces up and they became separated..... that the Sioux had the central position.

Interesting point of view, since the Indians had no need of it because of overwhelming numbers. The strategy of the central position is used when outnumbered, as Napoleon did in Italy in 1796 and in Belgium in 1815.

Sincerely,
M