To the list:

We went through the Custer discussion pretty well in the Culvericon list. It would be nice if there were a way to archive that discussion onto this site.

I kind of changed my mind about Custer, or refined my opinion anyway, result of that discussion. And I did a little reading too. Custer was pretty good when he could see an enemy who was formed up facing him. Anything you could take with a weight of horseflesh and metal, Custer was your man. He wasn't too good at sizing up a complicated situation - like at Trevillian Station where he didn't notice that artillery battery until it was too late, or the three Confederate regiments coming up on his flanks and rear.

The more of these discussions I get into, and the more I read, the more convinced I am that Custer's tactics that day were pretty good, given the tactical objective. One of the guys on the list summed it up "Oh did I mention, there were too many Indians?"

In any case, contrast Custer's approach with Howard's during the Nez Perce War. Miles and Sturgis got the glory, but it was Howard and his men, slogging along, dragging their artillery and gatlings, always arriving late, that maneuvered the Nez Perce into their defeat, while avoiding at least one potential disaster along the way. Not much dash there, but a lot of common sense. IMHO


jn