Worst commanders

[kellysartin]

Compare the battle of little Big Horn with the battle Wills-st. Claire of the infant U.S. Army in 1791 (?) and Braddock's defeat in the French and Indian war. All three seemed to spring from the notion that the Indians could not field an actual disciplined army ( true ) and would not stand and fight - unless they were facing a single troop of girl scouts. ( true 90% of the time ) As for Custer, it was my understanding that he was what it is expected of a commander of shock cavalry to be: a brave, brainless idiot. by the way , if he HAD NOT DEVIDED HIS FORCE THRICE would the Indians have stood an faught? I suspect they fought because the single-troop-of-girl scouts condition had been met. He rode down into the valley with nothing, and this fact was clearly and convieniently visible to the Indians in the valley looking up at his exact number on the hillside.

[Gwynn Compton]

How is the history of Little Big Horn taught in American schools? I've always been under the impression that it was taught as if Custer was some hero...

On the same line of thought, how is the history of Wounded Knee taught? Is it portrayed as the massacre or as an actual battle?

Gwynn

[HJ Division Grenadier]

What about Mark Clark, he was a bit of a t*t in my opinion

[Zachary]

No, in American schools they defend the Indians, and say that the early presidents and army generals were wrong. (Kind of like the way they name slaves now) In the Battle of Little Bighorn, they are rather neutral. We didn't get to it that much in 5th grade, and next year I get American History, so I'll know more about it.
Regards,
Zachary

[Gwynn Compton]

In my history lectures at Uni we virtually ignored the battle of Little Big Horn, but we're focusing a lot on Wounded Knee (I've got a 2000 word essay to do on it). And with the Primary Source material we've been supplied, it's amazing to see opinions at the time, and see how white thought towards indians was so varied at the time.

Gwynn

[cptstennes]

Oddly, this discussion seems to have resolved itself into the issue of Custer. There are two books on Custer which are very good "Son of the Morning Star" and " A Good Year to Die". I have read the first and not the second. Custer made a fundamental mistake in dividing his command in the face of a superior force but, as I understand it, some of his subordinates, Reno and Benteen, hated him and did not come to his aid. His last message, to my memory was "Big Village, Come Quick, bring packs." This, I think to Reno, who was by now besieged on a hilltop. Custer was caught in the open and his force, about 250, was cut to pieces, shooting their horses for bulwarks and fighting in small groups with trap door Springfields that jammed. The Indians had repeaters. Custer was killed as well as his brother Tom, his cousin Boston and his brother in law Autie Reed. That ended what was called the Custer Gang in that army. Custer also did not wait for Crook who had also been driven back. Custer simply did not believe his intelligence and relied on tactics that worked. Charge in and the shock would do the rest. Still he was not a complete idiot. It takes a little bit more to be a total fool. If you look at Nathaniel Banks at the Red River, then you see planned stupidity. Banks abandoned his riverine support and marched up the road in a way which obviated his numerical superiority. Completely defeated by an inferior force, he had to fall back and lost even more on his retreat. Or, you can consider Burnside who managed three incredible defeats. Antietam, Fredericksburg and the Battle of the Crater. Of course, Burnside did have the integrity to tell his superiors that he was incompetent. They just did not believe it! Imagine, at the Crater, he "forgot" to remove the abatis in front of his position so that his own men got tangled up in his defenses.
I should also mention, in passing, Marshal Bazaine, who got shut up in Metz in 1870 after his ridiculous performance in Mexico. Regards, F.

[Aristotle]

Just a note on 'General' Custer.

He was a Colonel when he was killed at Little Big Horn. His General's rank was a temporary promotion for the Civil War.

Daniel.

[prj453]

Daniel is right--Custer was a Brigaider General of Volunteers 29.6.1863 and a Major General of Volunteers 15.4.1863. When the Civil War was over, he reverted back to his Regular rank of Captain. He was promoted to Lieutenant Colonel of the 7th Cavalry on 28.7.1866, which was the rank he held at Little Bighorn; however he also held the Brevet rank of Major General in the Regular Army dated 13.3.1865.

Most schools in America tend to stay away from battles and focus more on the social/political history of the Indian Wars, which is probably why there is more of a focus on events such as Wounded Knee.

-Patrick

[Gwynn Compton]

Wounded Knee is the major focus of my history paper, I've got an essay due on it next Monday, joy of joys

Gwynn

[Brannik]

Zhukov,no doubt about it.Incompetent and cruel,his fame is only due to his own endless boasting about himself.

[Andy]

Zhukov was very good in my opinion. One of the worst would have to be Samsonov who was crushed at Tannenburg and I think he was also defeated during the Russo-Japanese War, another really bad General was Nivelle who claimed in could win World War I in 48 hours but his offensive failed miserably. One more would have to be Hannibal Barca..... Just Kidding.


Three Cheers for Nelson!

[Gwynn Compton]

Well contrary to popular belief, Hannibal's elephants did not make it over the alps. The Romans kept them in the story as its all the more impressive when the enemy has elephants

Gwynn

[Brannik]

Ah,and how could I forget good old fat Joffre,tout-a-fait inutile!
Regards

[Victor]

Well contrary to popular belief, Hannibal's elephants did not make it over the alps. The Romans kept them in the story as its all the more impressive when the enemy has elephants

Gwynn

Only one made it over the Alps.
The Romans did not mention any elephant charges, I know of.

[Aristotle]

...another really bad General was Nivelle who claimed in could win World War I in 48 hours but his offensive failed miserably...

It didn't just fail it led to the mutiny of most of the French Army who refused to die in any more of Nivelle's personal glory missions. If teh Germans had realised that the French had mutinied they could have strolled over no-mans land and driven striaght through teh holes left weakly defended by the mass mutiny.

Nivelle almost lost World War 1 in my opinion.

And if we are mentioning Hannibal we should surely mention the three Roman general's (whose names I have forgotten) sent against him who all walked into traps and got their men slaughtered, before the 'Delayer' came along and saved the day by burning the crops so that Hannibal and his army had nothing to eat.

Daniel