A bit of a lose cannon but a great General. Good at tactics, so why did he split his forces at the Battle of Little BigHorn? Was he on a mission to "Go Out" in a blaze of glory? Or was it just a tactical error?
2006-07-15 01:59:08 · 12 answers · asked by Anonymous in Entertainment & Music ➔ Polls & Surveys
Good to get the views. I know very little (If nothing about him, apart from that battle)
Thank you.
2006-07-15 05:48:14 · update #1
The only person who truly knows is not talking.
2006-07-15 02:03:52 · answer #1 · answered by Curious1usa 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
First of all, Custer was a Colonel when he died. Custer was a Brevet (temporary) General during the Civil War. He graduated dead-last in his class at Westpoint. He was arrogant, self-absorbed, egotistical and (this led to his downfall) vainglorious.
He had been pumped up by politicians from the eastern states. They were grooming him for a run for President and knew that a victory in the Indian wars would probably boost him into the White House.
Jim Bridger, a scout for the Army, warned him to leave the Indians alone. Bridger knew that the tribes in the area were in no mood to "messed" with. Because of his ego, he ignored Bridger and went out to find and engage the Indians.
There has been speculation that Custer split his forces because he did not want to share any glory with Major Reno, the commander of the forces that were split off.
Custer either grossly underestimated the number of warriors he would be facing or thought his forces and their superior weapons would prevail.
Custer got what he had coming at the Battle of the Greasy Grass (also called Little Big Horn.)
2006-07-15 09:17:04 · answer #2 · answered by Albannach 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
He was a great General when he was a General but he was not a General when he was killed. I just think he did make up his mind too fast to win! Alot of Indians were around that he did not know of. So it was a tactical error he made on his last move. He should have known by that time that the Indians were not fighting like the South did in the Civil War. He became Great in one War but fell down in another.
2006-07-15 09:07:18 · answer #3 · answered by ? 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Ah, one of my pet peeves. Custer was more than a 'bit of a loose cannon', he was a glory hunting sob who needed a brilliant military victory (over women, children and old men) in order to run for president. Instead he ran into warriors, who beat his butt.
Splitting the forces was an act of extremely poor judgement. He wanted all the glory for himself. He was warned by his scouts, and Major Reno that there were more Indians around than he anticipated, he ingnored them, gave Reno direct orders and sent him off to draw fire.
Reno and his forces actually held off a sizable attact and Reno brought home most of his men. For this feat he was pilloried, crucified, and eventually court martialed (Elizabeth Custer was real pissed at him, and brought her influence to bear.)
2006-07-15 09:06:44 · answer #4 · answered by Caffiend 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
custer was an arrogant victim of his own previous success and very bad intelligence whereby he badly underestimated the indian's strength and misjudged their positions. no tactical advantage he could have had would have made a difference against such overwhelming numbers.
2006-07-15 09:10:13 · answer #5 · answered by el.tuco 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I did a paper on him when I was in college. He was last in his class and he was not that great of a leader, not all that likeable, but very charasmatic...sort of like Tom Cruise is today.
Bottom line is, he just screwed up and underestimated his opponent and didn't realize it until it was too late. We wanted the underdog to win in this one, but he just did not...in a BIG WAY!
2006-07-15 09:06:18 · answer #6 · answered by bottleblondemama 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
His Big Ego got him and his men killed,
Tactical Error
2006-07-15 09:05:23 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
He got what was coming to him. He was an arrogant, shallow man who wanted to control everything and everyone. Shame all the men under him had to die. The Natives were a beautiful people (the peaceful ones were even better) and what the our gov't did to them was disgusting. My opinion.
2006-07-15 12:14:21 · answer #8 · answered by Nora T 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Just so not a great general - one of the worst in US history from military acadamy on.... such were his elaborate mistakes it was said of him that his men would follow him anywhere but mainly out of curiosity
2006-07-15 10:08:46 · answer #9 · answered by eriverpipe 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
He was insane.
Good general?......How' bout a cold blooded murderer.
That's if you want a point of view from the American Indian and not the white-washed history book versions.
2006-07-15 09:04:28 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋