Home  »  Military  »  “I Never Saw Soldiers So Brave Or So Fearless”

“I Never Saw Soldiers So Brave Or So Fearless”



Apr 16, 2010 10 Comments ›› Pat Dollard


  • http://www.killingjanefonda.com C.L.Lucas

    Interesting–what was the “little big horn” movie?

    Thoughts–

    History is what history is and Custer’s stand is forever part of it–
    1. I’m a southerner–Custer was a flamboyant yankee and invaded my parts
    2. I’ve got plenty of Indian in me
    –so I’d be torn who to pull for
    But–I’m in the military so I’d probably be in a conundrum.

    But why the cover up?

    • GRIZZ

      Cant remeber where I read it,but it was suggested that Custer was banging either a daughter,or wife,of one of his superiors.
      ?
      As for Jane,her scalp would look good on a coup stick

  • Julie Weathers

    Custer was an ego-maniac. His pretty young Indian “translator” who traveled with him didn’t speak a word of English. So much for his faithful marriage to Libby who defended him to the end even though that wasn’t his first reported “transgression.” Indian accounts of the battle give a pretty detailed report of the battle. Custer died in the river crossing early on, not bravely on some last stand.
    His men recovered his body and retreated. The reason the Indians didn’t scalp him was not respect, it was because they couldn’t find his body.

    This “brave” campaign was to slaughter men, women and children to the last person. Thankfully, the Indians stopped one such massacre.

    • Blade Runner

      In graduate school we did a study in military history; my research and paper was on “Custer’s Last Stand.” This included extensive research into Custer’s background, military career, and the Indian side of the story.

      Your assessment here is terribly flawed. If I understand it, you imply that Custer was a homosexual (don’t have a clue where you came up with that BS), and you assume that the Indian accounts are accurate, when, in fact, Indian accounts are notoriously imprecise. The Indians have an entirely different world view than do we. (I know, I grew up with them. I graduated from HS on a reservation and was the only Wasicu in the class.) For instance, the Indians did not use the same names for terrain features, if they had names for them at all. Every tribe had a different name for the same thing–i.e., Greasy Grass vs Little Big Horn.
      In 1983, a wild fire burned off the vegetation on
      Custer Battlefield allowing an archelogical team to uncover a wealth of clues to what happened. The research was extensive and revealed a very different picture than the consensus of what “probably happened.” This evidence points to a breakdown in tactical cohesion very early in the fight. And still, the bottom line is that no study of this thoroughly over-studied battle has ever concluded what really happened at the Greasy Grass.

      P.S. Probably gonna be a good movie. I just hope Pitt doesn’t get carried away in his role as Custer.

  • http://sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash1/hs467.ash1/25647_10150149031405523_662580522_11876696_1773356_n.jpg T-Bagg (Unapologetically American)

    Fascinating.

  • Xcrypto

    “Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.” John Adams.

    Slowly, the truth will be known. Custer was betrayed. Whatever your feelings about him, you cannot dismiss the responsibility Reno and Benteen had as soldiers. Both were cowards.

  • mike3481

    @4:20 :arrow: Author – “Custer had split his force before with tremendous success, no problem”.
    ___________

    And he kept doing it until the known odds caught-up with him.

    Custer divided his force, no one ordered him to do it, he did it and in the big picture, the battle was lost right there.

    • Blade Runner

      It wasn’t as simple as that. Custer’s decision was based on too many unknowns and a critcal breakdown in communication between him, his officers, and the scouts. True, his over-confidence in his regiment’s fighting qualities played a major role, but he never really had an accurate assessment of the number of Indians he faced until his battalion was actually engaged. By then it was too late. Custer didn’t hang around to see what effect Major Reno’s charge on southern perimeter of the camp would have.

      As it happened, Reno’s charge failed almost the moment it began and he and his troops were already retreating and setting up defenses at the top of the bluff when Custer made contact four miles north. With Reno’s troops routed and going into defense, the Indians were able to quickly send warriors north to reinforce against Custer. Apart from the numbers of fighting age warriors, the Indians had the distinct advantage of tight interior lines of communication. In dividing his regiment as he did, Custer’s ability to communicate and/or reinforce was severely hindered. Crazy Horse’s end run pretty much sealed Custer’s fate.

      It is true, that had Custer kept the regiment intact and assaulted in force, the outcome may have been different. In any case, I don’t recall the exact figures, the regiment had a significant number of new and untried troopers. Archeological evidence has revealed a definite indication that Custer’s battalion experienced a rapid breakdown in tactical cohesion.

    • mike3481

      “…too many unknowns”.

      Then one doesn’t dare divide their force, which would be something you only do with absolute certainty as to what one is facing, strength in numbers and all…

      Anyways…

      My opinion is based on a subscription of Military History Magazine I had 15 years or so ago. Their Little Big Horn account was based not from Custer’s family members, but on U.S. Army after-action reports the authors had read.

      Never-the-less, I’ll say this, we’ll probably never know for certain what is or is not the perfect truth as to the events of the Battle of Little Big Horn.

      Have a good weekend Blade. :wink: :beer:

  • Storm 0311

    the lay out of the shells and arrow heads and other evidence at the site was pretty eye opening.

    Mounted light cav. on the plains are pretty hard to beat without a superior rate of fire.