Why do we still care about the Battle of Little Big Horn

[quincannon]

Two reasons I think.

For the world at large, I agree with Mac. It is the mystery, and who does not love a mystery?

For the Army it is a case study in what went wrong. It is in fact easy to determine that for a tactician. We know all that is necessary to know in regard to tactical decisions made, in that they are well documented. All decisions made after the split sending Reno in and Custer to the bluffs are immaterial. The win-lose decision was made at that point, and no battle winning recovery possible.

The truth is though that this battle was a small relatively unimportant affair, only a paragraph in the story of westward expansion. This country's story is a story of westward expansion from its earliest days. Some of those stories are far more important than others. Lewis and Clark, Fallen Timbers, San Jacinto, the Bear Flag Republic, the explorations of Pike, the tales of the trappers, and several more rank far higher in my opinion, than LBH ever would or will.

[Beth]

I am embarrassed at how uneducated I was at my first trip to LBH. I had read Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee as well as other early '70's books about Native American history. In 1978 I was headed with a group of friends to someplace in Montana and found that we went right by the Battlefield, so we pulled of the road and went to the monument at LSH. I remember from that one spot, I looked all around where the village was across the river, the higher ground behind me and decided with that infinite wisdom one thinks they have at 20 and decided Custer was an idiot. I realize now I was an idiot as well to dismiss LBHB with a mental shrug.

I probably didn't think very much again about LBH for years--until we relocated to Idaho. I tend to always take an interest in the area I am living. Idaho was an awakening experience on exactly how little I knew about western history. Our house was very close to the Ward Massacre which had an effect on the Oregon Trail. People heading west would have roamed over our neighborhood hunting for game while the family wagon stayed closer to the river about a mile away. Suddenly 'the west' was a real place for me and it looked nothing like Monument Valley.

On one of the trips back to family we took a route that took us right by LBH so this time I did my homework and read about the battle before we left so I would know what to look for. When we got there though, I feel in love with the land--it was a slice of the past left preserved for generations to come.

I also realized what a huge factor the land itself was to the battle--it's kind of like having a 3rd army their dictating how the other two can move. I firmly believe the side that was able to use the land to it's best advantage would have won and unfortunately for the 7th, it was not them.

Also on that visit, there was also an emphasis on battlefield archaeology which brought a whole new aspect of the battle for me.

[Beth]

Jul 11, 2016 16:06:23 GMT quincannon said:

The truth is though that this battle was a small relatively unimportant affair, only a paragraph in the story of westward expansion. This country's story is a story of westward expansion from its earliest days. Some of those stories are far more important than others. Lewis and Clark, Fallen Timbers, San Jacinto, the Bear Flag Republic, the explorations of Pike, the tales of the trappers, and several more rank far higher in my opinion, than LBH ever would or will.

Very true, but I think that LBH was a touchstone moment in history, a point were everything changed.   It pushed US policy into moving all the remaining NA into reservations--that 'we' were no longer going to even try to share, they had to do to what 'we' said.

 Custer became the image of the West as we imagined it, not as it was.  When you think of the western US in 1876 it is a wild land with battles with savages and outlaws.  It is totally opposite of what was going on in the rest of the civilized world which was thriving in a Victorian world of science, discovery, and industry.

[BrevetorCoffin]

Jul 11, 2016 10:37:36 GMT yanmacca said:

David, you missed out Arnhem mate, another balls up turned into a glorious defeat by the media.

This is nice though;

Upon finally surrendering in the ruins of Arnhem, with no ammunition and virtually starved, a German officer reputedly said to a British officer: 'I fought at Stalingrad on the eastern front but I have never seen troops as good as you at city fighting - where did you learn this?', to which the officer replied 'well it was our first time - but we'll try to do better next time!'

Ian I am sure I missed a lot of battles! The only thing with Arnhem is that I doubt either side underappreciated the fighting capabilities and technical savviness of the other. On the other hand Hitler considered the Russians as an inferior race fit only for extermination or slavery, therefore fits the civilization v savage hubris. Just my 2 cents worth.

Best,

David

[dave]

What is the part of us that is always stimulated by disasters? I fall into the same trap as others when passing a wreck to always slow down and rubberneck and then move on muttering a prayer. Military disasters such as the sinking of the 3 American cruisers off Guadalcanal, the Alamo, sinking of the USS Indianapolis coupled with civilian ship disasters as the Empress of Ireland, Titanic, Lusitania and SS Eastland have always grabbed my attention.

I suppose my lack of ability to concentrate on just one event has created my scattered attention and retention of information on so many tragedies preventing a skilled knowledge of any one activity. I begin to study in depth on a particular event only to be sidetracked with tangential thoughts on a particular participant or another disaster. Being uninformed on so many facets of the Little Big Horn battle and its participants has enabled me to be continually educated and entertained. The down side being my propensity to display my ignorance by posting my thoughts and opinions which I hold fiercely. I hold honesty in the highest regard and respect those who have honor.
Regards
Dave

[deadwoodgultch]

Dave,
I wish you would stop using the word ignorance, as it should only be for those unable to learn(although that could be unfair), those who refuse to learn, those with closed minds and those unaware of the topic.

Regards,
Tom

[dave]

Tom
Ignorance is not a sin but stupidity is. I know I lack knowledge on many subjects which interests me far more than attempting to show my knowledge on small areas of a topic.
I reserve the right to show my ass as much as the next poster and "Do not go gentle into that good night" is my motto. Besides the socialists need my Social Security check to continue their campaign till they get down to their own money.
Regards
Dave

[quincannon]

I am surprised that anyone remembers the Empress of Ireland.

Don't forget HMAS Canberra which was lost with Astoria, Quincy, and Vincennes. I probably alone in all the world do not consider First Savo a disaster. Those four cruisers were outmatched and outfought, but they still stopped the IJN from getting to the transport anchorage. That would have been a disaster.

Nor was the Alamo a disaster. You cannot measure these things in lives lost. You must measure them in objectives achieved. At the Alamo the objective was buying time. Well done. It would have been a disaster if Santa Anna rolled into San Antonio on 23 February, and rolled out on 24 February.

I probably see these things a little differently than most of you. To me LBH was a disaster, but not a disaster because of the number of lives lost. The disaster was in the number of lives lost with no objective gained. Had the same number of lives been lost, but the Sioux-Cheyenne confederation destroyed forever, would it be considered a disaster, or just a very tough, hard fought engagement  but one with decisive results?

[Beth]

QC I am curious, I've always kind of thought that BLBH was a battle that never should have been fought--that the wiser plan would have been to continually harass the hostiles preventing them from gathering winter supplies, hunting or even resting. Perhaps not the plan you would get when you hand something over to the Department of War.

[azranger]

More like when the Secretary of State has an influence on support.

[quincannon]

Beth: It depends. I suspect if you turned the exact same situation that confronted Sherman and Sheridan over to one of our combatant commanders today, you would get a variation of just what was done in 1876. If on the other hand you turned that situation over to JSOC (Joint Special Operations Command) they would address the same matter by being more unconventional than the unconventionals.

I believe the second way works better. The first way generally gets the job done, with untold expenditure of national treasure, but leaves a complete mess in its aftermath. The second way takes longer, and requires oodles more patience, and if done correctly has long lasting positive results.

Put another way you could take a hundred extremely well but unconventionally trained soldiers, and fifty guys who know how to run UPS, and defeat the Sioux and Cheyenne nations. It would take the hundred about five years, but when they returned to the reservation the fifty UPS guys would be ready for them with a reservation that ran like a well oiled machine, to feed them, clothe them, shelter them, and get them back on their feet and ready to transition into the world at large within a generation, instead of the poverty and social ills of a stagnant, putrid reservation system. If you were clever enough to work with the Indians you could do it in a manner where they maintain all of their traditions, while still being part of modern society.

 

[quincannon]

The first steps in thinking outside the box are to clearly identify the box you wish to think outside of, and have the will to do it.

This lesson was lost then, and is still being lost today. It will not always be that way, but to do it the military forces of the United States must cease being a bludgeon and take on the identity and function of the rapier. We are getting there, but it will not be in my lifetime or yours. Our grandchildren in their infirm years will see it though, for the nature of war and the strategic imperatives that surround war are evolving to the point where it will not be a matter of choice, but rather necessity.

Warfare, like all other human actions is a process of evolution. That is why LBH and all other such conflict in the past is important, as a building block toward the future. We must know what not to do, before we know what to do, then discover ways in which to do it.  It, like all other aspects of the evolutionary process take time, a long time, and those who are not patient with the process need to find a new line of work. Do not expect dramatic change in ten years or twenty or even fifty, but rather look at the change of two hundred. You will be amazed, then translate that into two hundred years in the future.

[deadwoodgultch]

Jul 10, 2016 15:03:26 GMT Beth said:

I am currently reading "A Warrior Who Fought Custer" which is Wooden Leg's account.  In the publisher's notes there is this question.  "Why do people still care about this?"  I am asking the same question.  Why do we still care?

This vivid portrait is part of this lady's course work and is provided by the "Friends" group. I thought you might enjoy as a bit of companion. Fictional.

www.friendslittlebighorn.com/woodenleg.htm 

[Beth]

It's 'link not found"

[deadwoodgultch]

See if this one works.

www.friendslittlebighorn.com/lolamauer.htm