I think the guy was a coward: he chased the Indian women and children and sent Reno in first to do the dirty work. Thoughts?

The Indian tribe was bigger than he expected it to be so he took the chance to go check it out. In the process of the surprise attack however a man lost control of the horse the horse ran right into the Indians tribe making the surprise attack not so much of a surprise. He did though try to spare his men after these mistakes by taking a route that he thought would buy him and his men some time while he waited for backup to come. They were to late though and him and his me were outnumbered and slaughtered. So was this man a coward or a man with bad luck and intelligence?

Not to mention he was the youngest general in the United States Army. However, he was overconfident that the indians would not put up much of a fight and that he was only up against one tribe. His intelligence was faulty, and he paid the price.

no doubt, however, reckless and foolhardy are not two distinguishing traits unless you are very very lucky. Catch my drift?

quote:

Originally posted by Hydrok:
While I'm not in a position to make a call on courage, I dont think that having the highest casualty rate speaks volumes of a leader....but thats just me.

I'll bite.

Custer was promoted to Brevet Brigadier General for meritorious action by General George Meade (a hard man to impress, known as "Snapping Turtle")

Let's refer to Wikipedia:

Custer's style of battle sometimes bordered on reckless or foolhardy. He often impulsively gathered up whatever cavalrymen he could find in his vicinity and led them personally in bold assaults directly into enemy positions. One of his greatest attributes during the Civil War was luck and he needed it to survive some of these charges. At Hunterstown, in an ill-considered charge ordered by Kilpatrick (but one that Custer did not protest) against the brigade of Wade Hampton, Custer fell from his wounded horse directly before the enemy and became the target of numerous enemy rifles. He was rescued by the bugler of the 1st Michigan Cavalry, Norville Churchill, who galloped up, shot Custer's nearest assailant, and allowed Custer to mount behind him for a dash to safety.


Custer fought at Gettysburg, and led successive charges against Rebel cavalry regiments repulsing them after hours of fighting.

Custer fought with Sheridan in the Valley Campaign and was the leading pursuer of Lee's army after the evacuation of Petersburg/Richmond. As already alluded to, Custer's brigade frontally assaulted a division of entrenched Confederate infantrymen, and Custer rode at the front of his men.

Custer received the first flag of truce from Lee, and was personally present at the signing of the armistice at Appomatox in acknowledgement of his gallantry during the war.

Obviously, his contemporaries maintained a respect of the man's abilities.

While I'm not in a position to make a call on courage, I dont think that having the highest casualty rate speaks volumes of a leader.... but thats just me.

Coward? Hardly.

The man was famed for his daring cavalry charges during the American civil war. He commanded a brigade of Michigan troopers attached to the Army of the Potomac.

As a testament to his bravery, he is noted as being one of the commanders who charged entrenched Confederate infantry and drove them from their works at Five Forks.

His brigade had the highest combat casualty rate of any cavalry brigade in the war. Cowardly? I think not.

I really don't know if you could call the guy a coward. He was extremely brazen in many of his attacks, almost to the point of stupidity. If he was a coward, Little Bighorn would have never happened. The guy thought he was invincible and went into a terrible tactical situation.

coward yes but an okay tactician and negotiator would've ended the indian wars much earlier if not for that jumpy solider who shot Chief Crazyhorse