Looking for two or three good book recommendations about Custer and the battle.

'The Last Stand' by Nathaniel Philbrick.

He also wrote 'In The Heart Of The Sea' about the true account of the whaling ship 'Essex'...which was the inspiration for Moby Dick; and 'Isaac's Storm' about the 1900 Galveston hurricane. He's a good and enjoyable historical writer.

"Son of the Morning Star" by E. Connell, IIRC? and "A Terrible Glory" by James Donovan. "Wooden Leg a Warrior who Fought Custer" is a good book on Cheyenne culture and his views of the battle.

I have been studying this for some time now. There is an abundance of books and literature on this battle, probably the most researched and written about battle in American History.

"A Terrible Glory" by James Donovan

"Last Stand" by Nathaniel Philbrick

Both these books have been historically researched and documented. There is more information on the battle and the people involved than has been assembled before. So much of what has been written is folklore and poorly written accounts with little historical background.

Walter Camp spend decades collecting eyewitness accounts from both Indians and Cavalry alike to get a better understanding of what really happened. Both authors used Walter Camp's notes to write these books.

Don't let what you have previously heard about Custer or the battle influence what you will find in these books. So much of what was written before was the same old myths and stories retold that were never authenticated and the whole battle and the people involved have been glorified in some aspects and smeared in other.

Get those books and read them, you will be surprised at what you will learn. If you have a desire to investigate more, let me know, we are still researching and documenting some lesser known aspects of the battle...

Another good book is "Custer and the Little Bighorn: The Man, the Myth, the Mystery" by James Donovan. More than half of this book discusses Custer and his involvement of the Civil War. After reading this book, you will have a better understanding of Custer himself and how great a fighter he really was...

Shrap,

What is the name of Camp's book or books?

Thanks.

Also Shrap, have you read "Killing Crazy Horse" What did you think of it?

I was at the Little Bighorn just a few weeks ago, in the late afternoon.

That place has always intrigued me.

Don't ever do that again and not get in touch. I would meet you there and show you some things you couldn't see otherwise...

Thanks gents

I have not read "Killing Crazy Horse", Walter camp collected a bunch of depositions from the survivors, but never made a book of it. "Custer In 1876" is a book form of his notes. They were acquired from his widow in 1933 and assembled into this book. It doesn't read like a book, but it certainly has historical significance and isn't littered with supposition and lies...

Shrap,

I expected that you would respond. I'm not a huge history buff, but if ant history intrigues me, it's the "Western" era. And I fully expected that if there was going to be a knowledgeable guy, it would be you.

Putting your recommended books on my list. I like Joe Picket and Jack Reacher, but a guy needs to expand his horizons every now and then.

Eric, good, sound advice here!

Shrap, I've done some reading in the past and one thing I remember that I'm interested in is Reno, any thoughts on his not being in too big a hurry to get back and help Custer due to his dislike for the man? Any truth to that theroy?

These books will cover that. Reno and Benteen, both, despised Custer. Benteen was sent on a reconnoitering mission first, before they got to the Lone Teepee on Reno Creek. It was Benteen that was delayed in supporting Custer. He did take too much time getting back into the battle, by which time Custer had already headed down river to the center of the Indian encampment.

Reno was sent from the area of the Lone Teepee in pursuit of about 40 Indians that they encountered about 5 miles from The Little Bighorn River and Indian encampment. Reno was to engage the Indians from the South, Custer was to hit them farther North from the East and Benteen was to follow and catch Custer in his attempt to attack the Indian village...

This picture is taken from the Reno-Benteen battlefield looking East-Southeast. I am pointing to the Crow's Nest where Custer's scouts had first seen the Indian village about 15 miles away. The timber on the nearer hills are on the Battlefield side of Reno Creek and not far from where they first encountered the Indians near the Lone Teepee...

OK got it, have my Reno and Benteen mixed up. Remembered that Custer basically sent one of them off on an out of the way mission so they would miss out on the battle and not be able to share in the glory.

From the other side of the Teepee.
"Soldiers falling into camp"
Oral history recorded by grand children of Sioux and
Northern Cheyenne.

This again, is not true. Benteen thought that Custer may have done that to keep Benteen from the fight and the glory, but Custer's intentions were pure, in the sense that Benteen was to look to the South and West in case the Indians had started to pack up and leave. By this time, their presence was already discovered by the Indians and a Surprise attack was the only way Custer had to defeat a large number of Indians.

The Indians did know of the approach of the Cavalry, but they still didn't believe they would get attacked when they had such a large encampment. They also had no idea that Gibbon and Terry were to converge there within a 24 hour time frame either...

Shrap,

I find it interesting , and maybe even a bit telling, that Custer after he approached the river and was rebuffed from crossing, retreated NORTH.

AWAY from his other approaching armies, supplies and reinforcements.

It lends alittle credence in my mind that he was indeed shot and perhaps unhorsed at the river, and his party, in disarray made a fateful, terminal decision to flee in the worst direction possible to survive.

I would think If he was still thinking straight, he would have retreated the opposite direction, the way they came, after seeing the size of the camp,and knowing the odds.

Perhaps he didn't make the decision because he was already wounded.

Another very interesting book is "Indian Fights and Fighters," by Cyrus Townsend Brady, originally published by McClure, Philips & Co., � 1904; soft cover edition Univ. of Nebraska Press, � 1971.

Among many of Brady's interviews with soldiers and Indians who were at the Battle of the Little Big Horn, are interviews with certain officers who discussed pros and cons whether or not Custer disobeyed a direct order from General Terry, before Custer and his men left camp. Many believe it led to the disaster at the Little Big Horn River.

There is still controversy to this day about it. Who knows?????

L.W.

Peter Thompson, one of the Medal Of Honor recipients of the battle, was actually separated from his detachment and was making his way down the river with another soldier and actually saw Custer up on the bluffs for over 15 minutes, not engaging the camp. He testified of this in the hearings of Reno and Benteen after the battle. No one then or now gives that statement any credence, for what reason, I don't know.

This would indicate that Custer was in fact, waiting for Benteen as his adjutant had sent a message to Benteen to hurry and bring packs of ammunition as they encountered a big village. Supplies and the pack train were miles back and there was no expectation of that kind of support.

The Gatling gun theories are worthless as well, as there is no way they could travel this kind of country and pull those carriages with condemned horses.

There are theories of Custer being shot down by the river and then brought back up on Last Stand hill by his troops, as some Indian accounts said they had seen the removal of an important person that could have been Custer. Nothing proves this, but the theory still exists.

He didn't retreat North, he actually was more East of the camp where he and his command were killed. Once you see the battlefield, you can get a feeling of how desperate they were as fragmented as they were and nowhere to go. There are also accounts of a couple survivors that did flee the battle and we are researching that possibility...

This is another myth. Here is the most of Terry's orders to Custer and it is clear that General Terry knew of Custer's zeal and drive in the Indian wars, but you can see here that Custer did not disobey any orders in this regard...

Yes Shrapnel, North EAST.

I read a terrific eyewitness Indian account of Custers attempted crossing and shooting/unhorsing, which obviously, I cannot find at the moment.

When I come across it, Ill send your way partner. Maybe it offers something new for you as a serious student of the battle, maybe not.

Shrapnel, any other books on MT history that you recommend?

Shrapnel

You mentioned there are accounts of a couple survivors. I watched a show over the weekend that was called something like Lone Survivor of the Battle or something like that. The man lived in Washington State until he died in the 30's I believe.

Is this one of the survivors you are talking about? If so, do you believe his story?

I hope to go see the battlefield some day as well! Have read most of the Custer books, and have been to his home in Monroe Michigan, also the monument of Custer on his horse in Monroe. pretty Cool, wish I had a pic of it drove by it so many times.

After I visited the battlefield with Ruffcutt a few years back seeing the lay of the land, it sure help understanding a lot more of the battle.

Sharapnel I'd be happy to hear any input:

Relative to Custer and his judgement; I believe Custer legitimately had no reasonable expectation of encountering a camp containing 2,000 enemy combatatants (not including women and children).

Likely the largest Indian force present anywhere at any time on one battlefield across our whole 200 year plus Frontier period.

Just to put things into perspective; at the Battle of Newtown in 1779, the Iroquois could muster only around 900 effectives, even though their very survival depended upon them stopping the Sullivan Expedition into their heartlands.

In 1799, Arthur St Clair's in his defeat on the Wabash in present day Western Ohio lost 632 men in a single battle against Miami Chief Little Turtle's assemblage of warriors. The Indian force is thought to have numbered around 1,000, a huge force in context.

The Great Comanche (actually Comanche/Kiowa) Raid of 1840 here in Texas is thought to have involved around 1,000 Indians. Again a huge number in context, and likely only possible because it came right after the big 1840 intertribal peace treaty assembly at Bent's Fort.

2,000 armed Indian combatants in one place? Unheard of.

Birdwatcher

A number of years ago, Wolfe Publications (Handloader and Rifle) published an excellent book on the Battle of the Little Bighorn. I've got it somewhere in my library, but can't find it now so I can't give you the name.

Call or check with Wolfe.

Also, ABE (American Book Exchange) has a large number of used Bighorn books for sale at great prices.
see: http://www.abebooks.com/servlet/SearchResults?kn=battle+of+the+little+bighorn&sts=t

Well George Custer, got caught, he had no Idea what he was facing and the ground gave every advantage to the enemy! He lost the fight before the first shot was even fired, because he didn't know what was what, he lost the information battle and thus he lost when the shooting started, nothing new in this, he was not the first or the last to loose a battle! Its studied along with other Battles in other places at schools were they teach the profession of arms- its serious business, mistakes can cost you your command or worst yet lost of a Nation State. Besides I find his brother Thomas to be more interesting!

I like the movie Little Big Man!

The whole affair surrounding the campaign is one of some intrigue and WTF.

There are some accounts that leave one wondering.

But a good subject.

I found 2 books on the Little Big Horn in my library:

1. "The 7th and the Sioux In the valley of the Little Big Horn - June 25-26, 1876 by Robert C. Kain, Beinfeld Publishing, 1969

2. "The Custer Fight - Captain F.W. Benteen's Story of the Battle of the Little big Horn, June 25-26, 1876", E.A. Brininstool Publisher. 1940

Both are excellent and might be found on the used Internet book market.

Ya, but such audacity had repeatedly served him very well in the War Between the States. Notable among these being his accepting 4 to 1 odds against his own force when charging JEB Stuart's Invicibles head-on at Gettysburg

Custer may well have been a real tool on a personal level, but he compiled an exemplary combat record overall. And like I said, the likelyhood of 2,000 enemy combatants being present weren't too far removed from the odds of the Lakotas deploying A-10 Warthogs or something.

JMHO,
Birdwatcher

Those that malign Custer, know little of his accomplishments. When you hear of Gettysburg, you hear of Pickett, Lee, Chamberlain and so on. On the back side of the ridge, Jeb Stuart was attacking with several thousand troops and ran into Custer and the Michigan Wolverines, a total of around 500 mounted Cavalry and Custer turned Stuart and his larger forces back.

It is interesting when you read more about this stuff, and find out what really happened, it changes your ideas about the battles and the combatants.

The Indian force that Custer ran into on the Little bighorn was closer to 4000 warriors, a much superior number than had ever been know to assemble...

There is little doubt that guy is a fake. The survivors of the battle that have been talked about, may never have survived to later years, but at least to have gotten away from Last Stand Hill...

These were in 1971. I want to go back one of these days.

There is so much about what happened previous to the battle that no one today is aware of. There were reservations all over the West with guardians to attend to the Indian Affairs on those reservations. They were also to have a count of Indians on these reservations and those numbers were what determined how many Indians were on reservations and how many they suspected weren't. There were over 10,000 Indians and 4000 warriors waiting on the Little Bighorn.

For whatever reasons, the numbers were not accurate and it seemed that there were less "Hostiles" off reservations than there really were. Intelligence of the day would have led the U.S. Army to believe that the Indian forces would not be anywhere near the size it was due to bad information.

Indian fighting in those days when it came to attacking an encampment, was not much more than a heated attack and sequestering non combatants to bring the warriors into submission. This had worked in all indian engagements of this type and there was no reason to suspect any different outcome at the Little Bighorn.

When Reno attacked the south end of the village, he was met by an attacking force of mounted Indians, something never seen before and the battle went worse for the Army from that point...

My old hunting partner A U Stanley was a friend of Crazy Horse (who gave him his first bow and taught him how to use it). Would sure be interesting to chat with A U about what Crazy Horse told him about that battle. (Why is it that we so often fail to appreciate our old-timers as sources of historical detail until after they die and can't be interviewed?)

Crazy Horse showed A U where they'd scuttled some of Custer's weapons, but A U refused to reveal that information. Off a bluff, into an extra-deep stretch of the river, if I remember correctly.


A U was a genuine Montana old-timer � came to Miles City with a cattle drive in 1895, when he was 16. Rode round-ups with Roosevelt's ranch hands. Broke horses in Mexico for Pershing. Had a memory like a tape recorder. Hunted with a .300 Weatherby in his nineties. I really miss the old geezer.

On a lighter note, when I first noticed the title of this thread, I figured Flave was posting improper pics of himself.

A Terrible Glory is an excellent book.

A good measure of how stupid a person is, or isn't, is their remarks about Custer. If a person has lots of negative schit to say about him, you can all but guarantee that person is an idiot.




Travis

This is all extremely interesting & I've been to the battlefield several times & I'm sure I'll go yet again.

Read a few books that were very interesting but I'm neither a student nor an expert.

There is just too much information not accurately known to really know with certainty exactly what happened.

My only thoughts are that Custer was overconfident & reckless, had little advance knowledge of what he was heading into & was caught up in the moment. It's not at all clear to me whether or not he actually could have safely withdrawn or not & really had no choice in the matter.

Just because he pulled off an unlikely feat at Gettysburg doesn't mean it would happen in every circumstance & I tend to lean towards him being highly overconfident at the Little Big Horn. I may be being too harsh though.............

I'm going to get Donovan's books & read some more as they sound very interesting.

MM

You'd have a very hard time not being chock full of confidence based on prior skirmishes with Indians up to the time of Little Bighorn.

Matter of fact, any commissioned officer that wasn't chock full of confidence when it came to Indian fighting would pretty much meet the definition of a coward.



Travis

Gettysburg is only one of Custer's little known Civil War accomplishments. Jeb Stuart was the pride if the Southern Army and was killed at the hands of Custer's command at Yellow Tavern.

There is a reason Custer was a General at 23 years of age. Custer was at Appomattox when Lee surrendered. Phil Sheridan bought the table that they signed the terms of the surrender on and gave it to Libby Custer with a note stating that the war would not have come to as early a conclusion without the heroics of her husband...

Some of the first Indian battles did not exactly instill confidence in the Army on the Frontier. The Battle of Platte Bridge and the battle of Red Butte, at Casper Wy, was a win for the Indians.
Great post and new information ,for me on, Custer's Last Stand.

For this reason, Montana shudders when Travis and I end up in the same truck with more than a 7mm-08...

Very interesting and thanks Schrap. I was lucky enough to go to the battlefield last year after our hunt in WY was over. It's incredible to see the size and scale of the battlefield and equally humbling to see all of the markers everywhere where the soldiers and indians fell. I read a couple of the books you suggested prior to going to the site and I definitely agree that you truly gain a different perspective when you are able to actually see and stand where the battle took place. I try to make a special effort to visit at least one significant place each year when we go out to hunt WY (which is 16 years now for me and over 30 for my father). We've been to a number of great places but I will get back to the battlefield again, hopefully sometime soon. Thanks again for your insight here.

Craig

This is true and we are in the middle of investigating this cache. There are several Indian accounts of this and there was a record of where. Among poor care taking of certain documents describing what and where, this document has disappeared. There is still evidence that needs to be investigated to try and find this cache.

The value isn't in the contents of the cache as much as the historical significance of its existence...

fascinating thread, has given me a lead on some books I want to buy for cabin reading


and shrap ugly guys with guns always leave folks a bit nervous

There is another little known battlefield on the Tongue River that involved Crazy Horse and Nelson Miles, the following January of 1877 in below zero, winter conditions...

You are undoubtedly a deeper historian than I am, & not to belabor the point, but I don't think Custer really had much to do with Stuart's actual death.

The Union Cavalry outnumbered the Confederate's but more than 3 to 1 at Yellow Tavern & Custer's 5th Michign was actually more or less in retreat when Stuart was shot by one of its soldiers.

Generally speaking, prevailing in a 3:1 battle isn't an exceptionally overwhelming military feat.

I'll have to go find some other books on Custer, but taken on the whole, the Union won the Civil War with overwhelming forces & resources (repeating rifles for one), not because of necessarily better generalship, though the Union's latter military planning finally took advantage of its manpower & resources to the inevitable end.

MM

Crazy Horse died in 1877. It is unlikely your friend ever met him, possible I guess, but unlikely. Crazy Horse would have been dead 2 years before AU was born...

You aren't from the South are you?

If one studies Custer's Civil War record they'll see that the man made things happen.
His troops captured the most enemy battle flags of any command.
I've read that his troops captured every piece of artillery that fired on them and that he never lost any of his own to capture(though he had to take some back,from the enemy,a time or two).
He was one of the first to go up in a hot-air balloon to be a Forward Observer(he volunteered for that duty and was under heavy fire).
In a drawn sabre cavalry charge he was always in the lead even as a General(there are many accounts of this occurring).
General Grant thought so much of him that he gave Custer and not the President the table that the surrender was signed on.

Shrap,are you familiar with the Crow Rock Fight? I've heard that Sitting Bull was in that one.

I am not familiar with that battle. The table that the treaty was signed on at Appomattox was purchased by Sheriden and given to Libby Custer due to Custer's influence in the war...

Laughin' here.

Yeah, I am.............Chattanooga to be exact; but nonetheless, fact are facts.

Manpower & resources tend to win wars; obviously, leadership is vital, but even leadership can only overcome some level of lack of the other two.

Custer's loss at the LBH should be a classic example of that even if he was an extraordinary military genius, which is subject to some level of conjecture.

MM

There are accounts of a cavalry mount found dead at the mouth of the Rosebud. It was saddled and the saddlebags contained rations and ammunition with a carbine laying nearby. There are also Indian accounts of a Soldier riding out to the north early in the fight...could he have been sent to find Gen. Terry or could it have been Curly?

Crow Rock is north of Miles City...the Lakota and Crow had a running fight from the Powder with the Crow ending up on this large rock outcropping sticking up from the prairie with the Lakota surrounding them for a couple of days. This occurred sometime during the 1860s.

MM [/quote]

Gettysburg is only one of Custer's little known Civil War accomplishments. Jeb Stuart was the pride if the Southern Army and was killed at the hands of Custer's command at Yellow Tavern.

[/quote]

A little off topic, but I have always wondered what would have happened if Custer had come up against Nathan Bedford Forrest.

Standing there, with the wind blowing around me, I got one of the eeriest feelings that I could imagine.

I stand corrected. Thanks!

(If C H died before A U was born, why say "possible but unlikely?" Why not say, flat-out, 'impossible?'")

Old Fart memory is feeble. I don't remember which of the Custer-massacre chiefs was A U's mentor. Said "Crazy Horse" as a sort of logical guess. Whoever he was, he's well known to history. Don't remember the names of any of the other chiefs.

'Tain't easy bein' senile � especially in the company of better informed youngsters who're compelled to expose every little error of rickety memory.

A U was certifiably reliable. He's on the cover and prominent in the books Before Barbed Wire and its sequel, and in my presence, he accurately named most of the people in those old L A Huffman photographs. (Should I have corrected him when he called Hitzfeld "Hitchfelt?")

My former in-laws' greatest social delight was what I called "negative conversation." Every statement had to be argued. Say casually, for example, "It's two o'clock," and they'd promptly argue (loudly) "No, it's seven seconds after two."

I was wondering about that statement myself?

Some other key Indian from the battle perhaps?

Take careful note, everybody!

Campfire posts that touch upon history must be as precise as historians' records. Never mind the point of any post. The crucial mandate is to pick the nits out.

(Except for spelling, grammar, and punctuation, of course!)

Sheesh!

Ken,

You may want to hit your Life Alert button, it appears you have fallen and hit your head...

"Myth" or not, there was still controversy about it, from several officers who were very close by to Terry and Custer when they were talking the night before Custer left. I certainly don't know as I only state what some historical writers have published. I reference again, "Indian Fights and Fighters," by Cyrus Townsend Brady, originally published by McClure, Philips & Co., � 1904; soft cover edition Univ. of Nebraska Press, � 1971.

It is also interesting to read in that book the account of the battle as given by Crazy Horse, and also the account given by Rain-in-The-Face, later. Also interesting is the map that Rain-In-The-Face drew on the back of a buckskin shirt of the fight at LBH that day. He was the leader of a band of Unkpapas.

At the time of the publication, 1904, that map was the only known map drawn by an Indian who was there in the fight. It is illustrated in the book.

If you have a chance and can find one, that book might add to your collection. Perhaps some information you don't yet have.

L.W.

I'd bet a $100 bill that Custer would have rather had a few 1-7" twist A15's, but what do I know. Fast twists are a fad...

Yeah, a little off topic, but who cares now?

Given equivalent resources to Custer & Bedford, I've little doubt as to what the outcome would have been.............but who knows, just idle speculation.

As I said earlier, the Confederates didn't lose the war because the Union had better generals or better leadership..........

MM

Walkie talkies would have helped more than fast twist...

Electronic communications are a fad.

Fast twists or not, I imagine a couple of dozen AR's and 3-4 M60's could probably have saved the day.

MM

I dunno - the black powder would have fouled their gas ports pretty quick...

They ain't hard to spot... grin.




Travis

I think shrapnel's response was a helluva lot more tactful than you'd get just about anywhere else.



Travis

Closest I've come to that sort of thing was when I drove a pickup load of blankets and winter coats collected by churches in NY State to Pine Ridge in the winter of '83/'84.

When I was there I was taken by his relative to visit the then ~90 year old Frank Fools Crow at his home on the res. Born in 1890 or thereabouts when the Little Bighorn generation was still very much around, and hidden from being taken away to boarding schools as a child. A stocky, barrel-chested man, still hearty and mobile despite his age. The closest I personally have come to meeting a living link to the old days.

Birdwatcher

It also appears that I can well afford to get along quite well with fewer brain cells lighting-up with any regularity.

edited to add �

I'd be glad to send you some if I had the right kind of envelope.

That was completely uncalled for..........

Damn Yankees ain't hard to spot either.

Does that mean we can't be friends anymore?

GFY

MM

In the East, the Army of the Potomac invaded Virginia several times, got stopped in a major battle each time, turned around and went home.

During that time the Army of Northern Virginia invaded the North twice, got stopped in a major battle both times, turned around and went home.

In Kentucky/Tennessee/Mississippi the North won more or less steadily, beginning to end, Chickamagua being a minor setback as it turned out.

When they brung Grant east it was all over but the bloodletting.

Birdwatcher

The other thing is, Jeff Davis weren't even in the same ballpark as Lincoln when it came to being a CinC. Whether you think he was sent by God Hisself or the Devil Incarnate or somewhere in between, no denying that Lincoln was a prodigy.

No way a Lincoln would ever have left a Braxton Bragg in charge for so long in the West, neither would he have carefully accommodated the egos of his Generals the way Davis did.

OTOH, Lincoln didn't have to deal with States Rights issues the way that Davis was obliged to.

Off the original topic I know.

Birdwatcher

The difference is the Custer battle ended in 1876, the Civil War still rages on in the South...

Not really. We lost the first one. The rematch is coming. Last time, the Yankees had all the people, the industry, the firearms, the military bases, and the money. Guess where the majority of those are now?

California??

L.W.

And we shake our heads in bewilderment over the never-ending grudges that cause such hatred in the middle east.

As long as the same old supercilious arrogance continues to compel "furriners" to judge the South and Southerners the same old tattered ways, the South and Southerners will continue to resent it. Rightfully, IMHO.

Pretty interesting info on the Little Bighorn. I am a history buff, but actually know very little of this battle. I need to track down some of these books.

tag

How about "furriners" who just want to treat and be treated in a manner based upon mutual respect but are instantly judged on the basis of their geographical location?

I had previously never been big on visiting the old battle sites. Respect the soldiers' bravery and sacrifices, absolutely - but not go there. I went to Pearl Harbor early this year, and it was a moving experience. LBH seems like a good one to visit as well.

I have never much studied Little Bighorn, but the main "myth" I'd always heard was that the Indians had repeating rifles, and Custer's troops only had Trapdoor Springfields. Correct, or not?

As I use it, the term furriners refers to those from whatever geographical scruff who can't keep their damned opinions of the South and Southerners to themselves.

Takedown.
Two points for Shrap.

Profiling?

That sounds fair. I would expand it to read "...the South and Southerners and/or the North and Northerners...".

We visited the Little Big Horn on a gray misty day. The day and the headstones gave a eerie feeling to the battle field and I was very surprised at the distances involved. The interpreter we had was quite good to the point of creating interest to retrace Custer's footsteps.

The 7th Calvary outpost in North Dakota is interesting to see the level of luxury that Custer left behind to travel to his death. Given that five Custer family members died at the battle including a nephew he took along as a horse handler makes me wonder if he thought the Indian issue was no longer serious.

Pictures of the inside of the residence (Libby's piano) and barracks. On the end of the beds in the barracks the name of the solider and their fate is posted.

It was interesting to see fates other than the Little Big Horn





The guide at the North Dakota site said Custer's widow had to vacate the home within 2 to 4 weeks of notification of Custer's death.

Different times and some real interesting history.

I have a trapdoor that was passed down from my grandfather that was of little interest:



until it's serial number was found on a list of guns connected with the LBH. it is the eighth Trapdoor on THIS LIST. this is confirmed by a letter from the Springfield Research Service.

That is very interesting!

Now that's neat!!

Custer lost more men then anyone else of similar rank.
Those "accomplishments" were purchased with the blood of his men, who's welfare he held subordinate to his own personal glory.

A very good book for reading of Custer's Civil War years is Custer Victorious by Gregory J. W. Urwin...it tells of the table that Gen.Sheridan purchased for Mrs. Custer for $20 in gold but fails to tell if it was one $20 coin or two $10 coins.

For books regarding Custer and/or the Little Bighorn campaign Custer's Last Campaign by John S. Gray is one that I recommend.
It tells of the 7ths movements on their way to the Battle and also it tells about Mitch Boyer(a half Sioux Army Scout that chose to stay with Custer to the end) who lived a very interesting life.
Another book about the Little Big Horn that I found difficult to put down is Archaeological Perspectives on the Battle of the Little Bighorn by Douglas D. Scott,Richard A. Fox,Jr.,Melissa A. Conner,and Dick Harmon.It tells of the 1984/85 digs and what was discovered.

Lastly,one that I found informative is Crazy Horse and Custer The Parallel Lives of Two American Warriors by Stephen E. Ambrose.

When Custer was promoted to Brigadier General his immediate superior was Gen.Hugh Judson Kilpatrick nick-named Kill-Cavalry by troops under him.
He was Custer's superior officer during Gettysburg and was well known for losing many men including brigade,regimental,and squadron commanders.

GFY

MM

You might look up General Longstreet and Gettysburg...

You sure got butt hurt over being told your story was a steaming pile of bullschit.



Travis

Few women could write it so plainly.



Travis

The Indians did have repeating rifles, but that didn't turn the course of the battle in their favor. There were less than 300 repeaters attributed to the Indian warriors. There were still lots of bows and arrows and some Sharps rifles.

There is always the thought that Custer was derelict in not bringing Gatling guns. He left them at the fort, as there was no way to use a carriage mounted gun such as that in an Indian campaign on the plains. Gatlings were also slow and heavy, drawn by condemned Cavalry horses, so getting those guns anywhere and in any reasonable amount of time was impossible. Anyone shooting any black powder can attest to the unreliability to the mechanism from fouling.

As far as repeating rifles, the Army had tried various firearms and found that under the conditions of the West and Indian fighting, a Trapdoor rifle was the better choice for more reasons than one.

Cavalry were trained to fight in skirmish lines with volley fire and they found that sustained fire was more suitable with a single shot than a repeater that could get shot empty and take the soldier out of the fight while he would reload the magazine.

The repeaters of the day were mostly Henry and Model 1866 rifles which were not high powered cartridges. The necessity of a trapdoor to shoot longer range and also to be able to put down a horse, was criteria that made the Trapdoor more suitable...

If you divided up all the 50,000 casualties of Gettysburg alone, there would be enough to go around for all the officers and get the same kind of data...

Am I correct in remembering that a big problem with the trapdoors was the copper-cased ammunition that would stick in the chamber, rendering them useless?

Another misconception about the unreliability of the Trapdoor. Copper cases did tend to stick more than brass will, but the failure rate was around 2%. It did fail, but not at the rate some people think.

Inside and rim primed cartridges were not perfected and reliable detonation wasn't always the case. There are plenty of picked up cases from the battle that have multiple strikes on the primers to get them to fire...

I remembered you talking about this....but your picture of all those books surely must be from Venturino's table.

Yep, and the same logic allows Al Sharpton to get all the jigs wound up cause great-great-great Jemima was a slave.

The same vitriol fuels Obama....go figure.

Looking at Sharpton, she must have been ugly too...

The gastric bypass job makes him look even more loveable.

I have a Vietnam vet friend who went to the battlefield at LBH. He said it reminded him of a battle where the North Vietnamese over whelmed the South Vietnamese in Cambodia. He figured most of Custers Last Stand was an all out every man for himself desperate retreat.
He gave me a book to read about the LBH. The book tells of a horse from the battle walking into a livery stable under its own power somewhere near St. Louis.
I am under the impression there never was a photograph taken of Crazy Horse.

Was at the battlefield a few years back and again last July with my wife. each time I go I am more intrigued by the course of events that led to it. I've read both Philbrick's The Last Stand, Donovan's A Terrible Glory as well as Ambrose's Crazy Horse & Custer and enjoyed them all. I've also read and recommended Utley's work on Sitting Bull titled The Lance and The Shield.

While we were there we listened to a talk by one of the rangers who wrote about the maps used by the troops, we chatted with him afterward and I am still kicking myself for not getting a copy of the book while we were in the bookstore, I'll admit to being a bit of a map junkie.

From the Horse of the Week site.
It was Comanche, the favorite mount of Capt. Myles Keogh, who had valiantly rallied the men of "I" Company right up to the end, when they were overwhelmed by the charge of warriors under Crazy Horse and Gall. The horse was on its haunches, seemingly too weak to move any further. He had apparently sustained at least seven wounds, and his coat was matted with dried blood and soil. CPT Nowlan ordered the men to get water for the horse from the river. Several other troopers coaxed the horse onto its feet and led it away. The farrier field dressed the wounds. Comanche marched with the command to the junction of the Little Bighorn and Bighorn Rivers, and was loaded aboard the steamer "Far West" with the battle casualties, heading home to Fort Lincoln.
More to the story is on the site.

�.now stuffed and on display at the University of Kansas---not sure why--must have been a connection to Ft. Riley or Leavenworth.

The same things were said about Patton...War is a dirty business and men die.

As far as I am aware, Custer customarily led from the front, an easily identifiable target at the head of his men. I'm recalling he had three horses shot out from under him in that single climactic charge against Stuart at Gettysburg. AFAIK he didn't ask anything of his men in battle that he wouldn't do himself.

That OTHER Union General, Hugh Judson Kilpatrick, AKA "Kill Cavalry" so far as can be determined really may have been a self-serving pr&ck, certainly he needlessly sacrificed Farnsworth at Gettysburg, after accusing the man of cowardice. Prob'ly did more too than any other one man, to wreak havoc upon the populace during Sherman's March to the Sea.

Birdwatcher

[/quote]
�.now stuffed and on display at the University of Kansas---not sure why--must have been a connection to Ft. Riley or Leavenworth.
[/quote]

Horse was taken and lived a long life then taxied as being the lone survivor of the battle. The 7th actually were formed p for the expedition at Ft. Hays.

A few years back I had the time to take a trip that included Leavenworth, Riley, Hays, right on up into the Greasy Grass site and various other sites in WY and MT. Very interesting travel that year.

Birdwatcher,that is my understanding of Custer's character also.
He did lose that unit at the Washita and another on the Kansas plains but I don't think that they were willingly sacrificed for his glory.

Custer was a very aggressive commander,but that was what was needed for a cavalry commander...to take the fight to the enemy.
Also,he did not try to conceal his identity in battle but dressed to standout from the troops which would have made him a desirable target for enemy guns.

One failing of his that cost the 7th dearly was not listening to the scouts about the size of the camp. I believe it was Bloody Knife that said that there were enough Sioux to keep them fighting for 2 or 3 days and I think that Mitch Boyer was concerned whether they had enough ammunition and said it was the largest camp he'd ever seen.

It's easy being an armchair quarterback after the fact,and we'll never know,but if they hadn't been spotted and weren't worried that the camp was scattering then he probably would have waited for Terry and Gibbon's forces and the outcome would most likely have been very different.

One thing for sure,he was a very brave man who had been in many terrible fights.

I visited the Battlefield years ago, the Park Service bus tour was pretty good. I heard there used to be an interprtive exhibit there that said "No one survived the battle of the Little Bighorn". The Indians objected, saying there were thousands of Indians who actually did survive the battle.....

Elliot left on his own, without clearing it with Custer. The Indian battle went on without Elliott and they ran out of daylight and another Indian camp from down the river was alerted to come in aid of Black Kettle. Custer faked another charge, retreated and saved the immediate command he had charge of, Elliott didn't fare so well. Some blame Custer for deserting Elliott, but he had to save the majority of his command that he did have control of and as such Elliott was left. ..

This is all little understood historical truth about the battle. Custer was to send a scout back to Terry after investigating Tullock creek and finding out where the Indians were located. Herendeen was the scout that would have been deployed to cover that expedition, but when Custer realized they had been discovered by the Indians, it was time to move in a manner to keep the Indians from separating and dispersing into the plains of Montana.

Had Custer not been discovered, he most likely would have stayed another day in the Wolf Mountains, waiting for Terry and Gibbon...

7th Cav at LBH..was forced to fight on foot.

The horses they had were of poor quality and not cav trained for horseback shooting.
So Custer ordered that should a fight ensue they dismount and fight on foot.
Ever tried to hold a scared plunging horse and shoot a trapdoor at the same time?
I imagine some soldiers held multiple mounts while their riders fired but still cuts your forces firepower.

The Indians had a huge advantage there.

The plunging fire from the Indian arrows was actually a fair advantage when you look at it.
They lacked in repeaters but many carried single shots of all sorts.

The Indians were constantly harassing the Cav horses thereby making matters even worse for the soldiers.

For that matter a fair majority of his troops were very poor. Largely untrained and many of them old by military standards.

The pack trains caused them constant headaches as they moved excruciatingly slow.

The plains Indians were very derisive of the Cavs fighting abilities particularly their shooting.
But the soldiers did have some spirit and guts.

So Custers force was a liability...

Up against the best the plains Indians could muster at the time.
Prolly the best light Cavalry in the world!
Also way too many of them for the Cav force to fight.

Small wonder they were massacred...
Sad ending for some very brave and unlucky soldiers.

So why were there so many Indians gathered together at one place at the same time?

That is a book in and of itself. The expansion of the white culture and settling the vast prairies and mountain West, was finishing the encroachment that was started decades before in the East.

Tribal/nomadic lifestyles of most of the American Indians, didn't fit the development that was certain with the European lifestyles and progression.

Plains Indians were forced to Reservations and the reservations weren't all that inhabitable. The Indians that wouldn't accept a forced "Welfare State" rebelled and stayed outside the constraints of the U.S. government set aside reservations.

Custer was one of many tools the Army used to bring the Indians into submission over the decades of Indian wars during the 19th century. The assembled tribes of Sioux, Cheyenne, Arapaho and other sub tribes of those, were all together sharing the safety of numbers at the Little Bighorn River. The Crow were natural enemies to the Sioux and Cheyenne and helped scout for Custer to assist in the destruction of their enemies.

There had never been such a large gathering of Indians before and due to the circumstances of the western migration and treaties, made and broken, the Indians had come together, knowing their way of life was threatened, but they were not giving up without a fight...

After the Little Bighorn battle was Sitting Bull's group the only Indians to eventually seek refuge in Canada?

Lakota Noon is a good book that gives the Indians narrative of the battle. The author uses interviews given by Indian's testimony of the actual details of the battles and has put them into the time sequence of the entire battle. It can be a hard read at times though with the timeline of the different accounts.

A little more than a year later, in 1877, Nez Perce Indians fleeing Oregon and Idaho made a fighting retreat almost to Canada, where many eventually surrendered. Some Nez Perce did break away, chose not to surrender, and joined Sitting Bulls group in Canada.

Things were happening really fast by that point, not ten years earlier the Lakotas had actually obliged the US to backtrack, and close down forts along the Bozeman Trail.

By 1876 though they were fugitives where less than a decade earlier they had been free to roam. Even though the reservation back then was big, if they left it they had been served notice that they were subject to attack.

Again all this was recent, and would have been tough enough to swallow even if they weren't both aggressive and nomadic by custom.

It shouldn't be assumed that they were unanimous though, IIRC about half of each of the tribes present were still back wherever the home reservations were, these "hang around the forts" fully as brave and resentful, just not agreeing with that course of action for whatever reason. Also, there was a great deal of travel between the reservation crowd and the holdouts, as to be expected, since most had family in both groups.

IIRC the actual catalyst for this particular gathering was the Lakota Sun Dance, which had always been a major occasion drawing folks together. This particular one was of likely of even greater significance given the perilous uncertainty of the time.

Two years earlier in 1874, the Kiowas and Comanches had put on a sun dance, which was not one of their prior customs. Again who attended it were primarily the more disaffected half of the tribes, by that time many Comanches especially had been settled down for some years. The sense of it is is that this sun dance was put on out of desperation, by some of the younger men in the tribes, at a time when the old social orders were breaking down under pressure of cultural changes and the increasing prevalence of White Americans.

They dispersed from that sun dance to go and raid, and to war on buffalo hunters, which resulted in the fight and Billy Dixon shot at Adobe Walls.

But... like with the Sioux, even while raiding they were still fugitives in what had not so long before been uncontestedly theirs.

Birdwatcher

What was REALLY happening is that the country was filling up, "Whites like rising flood waters" as Mari Sandoz put it.

While to our eyes the country would still look empty, 1876 was a whole different ballgame than 1868 when Red Cloud's boys had actually turned back the tide for a while. The final nail in the coffin for the Indians was the discovery of Gold in the Black Hills in 1874.

Basically the main reasons the Lakotas and Northern Cheyennes were still a force to be reckoned with in 1876 was first of all they had largely escaped the devastating Northern Plains smallpox epidemics of 1837, which effectively removed the Mandans, Hidatsas and Arikaras, nearly wiped out the Blackfeet and hammered the Pawnee. The Lakotas filled in the power vacuum, prospering and multiplying over the next few decades as well as being joined by more of their Santee kinsmen from Minnesota.

The BIG reason tho is that they were simply out of the way of mainstream White settlement until close to the end of the Frontier period. When the deluge finally turned their way they were promptly overwhelmed, pretty much like all the other tribes before them.

After the close of the 1870's all that was left was the Apaches in the as-yet sparsely settled desert Southwest, but even they were living on borrowed time by that point.

Birdwatcher

U.S. Army doctrine had been for cavalry to be used as mounted infantry for several decades by 1876. The mounted charge was used to inflict surprise and shock, the cavalry "melee" was little used even during the War of the Rebellion.

Rapid fire weaponry had made the mounted charge a much less effective tactic.

Every fourth cavalryman was designated as a horse holder, the horses headgear included a "link strap" for the purpose of connecting the four. Yes, a 25% reduction in fighting force.

Airmobile infantry continues the doctrine and uses helicopters much the same way, to deliver troops rapidly to the battlefield, and then provide mobility upon the battlefield.

The quality of cavalry mounts was good, it is the condition of those horses during a long campaign that was limiting. The 7th had marched from Ft. Lincoln, and then made an arduous forced march to arrive at the Little Big Horn. Cavalry horses required grain and could not subsist on poor grazing while being marched. This required wagons or a pack train. It should be noted that Gen. Crook made his pack trains a priority and was very successful.

The horses were very well trained and often responded to bugle calls without their riders.

Ever see a wild horse, or a picture of a mounted Indian? Their horses were pony sized and while being well adapted to the plains environment required that a rider have multiple mounts, hence the idea of wealth being a large pony herd.

Refer to the books by Fox and you will find that the 7th was well represented with a mix of veterans and recruits. Age was not a factor. No question that the training was inadequate as a result of budget reductions by Congress. During the 1870s' an officer often had to purchase ammunition for his troops target practice.

"Plains Indians best light cavalry in the world?" Not hardly. Ever hear of the Cossacks? Plains Indians were more guerilla fighters, hit and run raids. Fixed battles were rare and usually resulted in defeats with the Rosebud and Little Big Horn being the exceptions.

The Little Big Horn fight and Custers' 7th is a fascinating subject but wrapped with much myth and misinformation. The book Lakota Noon is one of the best and uses the archaeology as well as oral accounts to provide a very credible scenario.

One of the bloodiest actions against Indians on the Plains occurred on October of 1840 Col. John H. Moore led a force of some two hundred men deep into what was then Comancheria and, guided by Lipan Apache allies, surrounded and surprised a Comanche Camp on the Red Fork of the Colorado. Best estimates are around 180 indians killed. Loss on the Texian side was negligible

This slaughter is notable for three things....

1) It is all but forgotten nowadays.

2) Most everybody was using flintlocks, one guy did have a Colt's repeating carbine and noted the slaughter he was able to inflict with it. Moore hisself by that time may have had a revolver or two, but they were way-expensive back then.

3) For their supply train they brung an actual herd of cattle and so were limited on the way in by the slow pace these beasts could travel. That one could propose to sneak up on a Comanche village while driving a herd of cattle is remarkable, and says a lot about how empty the Plains must have been back then.



IIRC, feats of warriors riding 100 miles in a day were not uncommon when pressed, for which of course multiple mounts were needed. I dunno horseflesh that well, are you suggesting fewer mounts would have been needed for those sorts of ordeals if they had bigger horses?

Interesting to relate, I'm recalling Mongol mounts weren't that impressive either but that they conquered most of the Old World on 'em.

Birdwatcher

Thanks for the info on the 1840 fight, I'll have to look that one up.


It's not uncommon to use more than one mount during a hard days work with cows in the mountains, and these are big, strong, and well conditioned horses.

We make several long pack trips each summer and fall which include some 10k' passes. We usually limit our travel to 15 miles a day, and on longer trips sometimes throw in a day for rest. Our horses and mules graze when grass is available, during hunting season we usually pack in and cache hay prior to the season.

The frontier cavalry was limited to one horse per rider because of the requirement to bring feed. A cavalryman would carry some feed on his horse but only several days worth, as well as arms and personal requirements. A larger and stronger horse was a requirement as well as a logistics tail to support the mounts.

Plains Indians traveled light and were not limited in the requirement for feed, their mounts were well adapted to grazing, and smaller as an evolutionary result. On a long and fast retreat they would use as many and whatever horses as they had available. Run em' til' they drop.

Think of it this way. An NFL lineman and a marathon runner are both well conditioned. Over a distance the marathoner will beat the lineman every time, unless you make them both carry 90 pound packs.

Different horses, used in different ways.

Great topic and some good discussion.

AJ

Rooster Cogburn to Ranger LaBoef in "True Grit" ..."How long have you Texicans been mounted on sheep?"

Cavalry mounts were not bought from just any provider. Custer was also a very good judge of horseflesh and would have diferent companies riding different colored horses. Forced marches were not only hard on the soldiers, horses had to be good too. In those days they hung horse thieves, horses were your link to survival...

If you practice a bit, it is not too hard to have a second arrow on the way before the first one hits.
Some of us used to fool around with this at the Fort Dodge, Iowa Horse Archery rendezvous.
We did it standing on our hind legs and the distance had to be long enough to have enough time.
More impressive were the better horse archers winning their events with 3, 4, or 5 arrows on 3 targets in a few seconds from the back of a galloping horse. That is not easy.

Just shooting almost straight up, I think the record is eleven or better before the first arrow hits the ground.