Comments Posted By J. Ewing
Displaying 11 To 11 Of 11 Comments
THE BATTLE OF GREASY GRASS CREEK
My own theory, formed after some study, is that Custer made a large number of serious tactical blunders:
1. First of all, he was on the wrong mission, trying to kill or imprison Indians who might have still been able to be accommodated without bloodshed. While not Custer's fault, his dedication to this flawed mission led him to other mistakes.
2. He was working on bad intelligence regarding the strength and weaponry of the Indians. He had no idea he was not only outmanned 10 to one, but outgunned. There may have been more Indians with Henry repeating rifles than Custer had in his whole command, who were still using single shot flintlocks.
3. He made a very bad tactical assessment, assuming that the Indians were fleeing when they were actually mounting up to attack. This led him to hasten his attack, which again precipitated further blunders on his part.
4. He failed to follow the sensible Powell doctrine of 150 years later, of mounting overwhelming force against the enemy before an attack. According to his papers, he believed he had that.
5. He failed to establish proper lines of communication, and at one point sent a runner who spoke no English back to bring up reinforcements. The message was misinterpreted and, of course, the reinforcements never arrived.
6. He failed to establish proper logistical support for his attack, leaving behind much of his ammunition and at least one Gatling gun that might have been crucial to the outcome of the battle.
7. He split his forces (into three, not two).
8. He failed to retreat when the nature of the threat became obvious. It may not have been entirely possible once the battle was fully engaged but a commander less bold (or foolhardy depending on your viewpoint) might have avoided total defeat.
9. He cut off his own retreat and mobility by shooting his horses and using them as shields.Without these mistakes, for whatever personal failings may have created them, he might have survived, to what end no one knows. History is, as we all believe, fixed, and only interpretations differ. I was pleased to see that the National Park Service interprets this battle in reasonably objective terms, as the clash of two great cultures and two heroic leaders.
Good analysis. I agree with almost all of what you've written. Some of it was 20/20 hindsight such as shooting horses probably seemed a very good idea at the time to troopers who were exposed on a bluff with no cover and no time to dig in and surrounded by about 1000 Lakota and Cheyenne. But overall, you nailed it; bad intel, bad judgement, bad battle management. All of that equalled disaster.
ed.
Comment Posted By J. Ewing On 26.06.2008 @ 09:04
