was custer a hero or was he a dam fool that got himself and all his men killed?
100889
Saturday, June 25, 2005\nGeneral Custer-My Perspective \n\nToday is the 129 anniversary of what us whites call Custer's Last Stand or the Little Big Horn. The Lakota, Ogalla, And Cheyenne call Gressy Grass. There are several reasons that this is important and I will get into it later.\n\nFirst of all the Rank at the time of Gressy Grass was Lt. Colonel, but due to his brevetted Rank in the Civil War was Major General. So if a person were to address him it would be General. It is the same as we refer to President Reagan after he left office, becaue he earned the title. The only way he would have lost the right to be called General is if he was demoted due to an infraction of military law. At the time he was posted here at Fort Lincoln Southwest of Bismarck, Dakota Territory was the need for generals was not as great.\n\nDuring the Civil War he was considered the North premiere Calvary General were he perfected dividing his force and strategy that generations of historians would pan him for the last four decades.\n\nFirst off, General Custer was arrogant, or maybe just overconfident. Although is it really arrogance when you can do what you think you can.\nIf he were as bad a character that the modern day historian claim he was.\n(There is a theory that Reno and Benteen set him up to fail.)\n\nHis orders were vague, he and the seventh Calvary was supposed to meet up with General Terry sometime. He was offered gattlin guns. Some historians think that this might have saved him. There are three problems with this the terrain is incredibly hilly with a lot of coolies making it hard to get them set up. A gattlin gun weighed over a ton and would slow down a Calvary unit (the Calvary Unit of the 19th century were considered to be akin to our special forces today. The Calvary units were quick attack units. Third, black powder had a tendency to jam regularly. I wouldn't have wanted them.\n\nI think that he found the village to soon. The rule of thumb if you could see an indian They KNEW you were there. I will grant you that he didn't listen to his scouts, but the number of warriors in the village I don't think anyone would have comprehended. There is a possibility that he was going to fight a holding action. Trying to hold out tell the three columns of Sheridan and the other Generals. Sheridan and the other two Generals were held up they weren't where they were late because they encountered other Nations on the way.\n\nThe morning of the battle Custer divided his command of about 100 troopers into three commands under Reno and Benteen. (Later in Reno's military career his was court martialed for assaulting his commanding officers daughter). This was so they could surround the village. The last order out from Custer was for Benteen to "bring packs big village." He didn't. Reno was surrounded for a time but when one of his sergeants brains were blown out Reno took off running.\n\nHere is the victor's perspective. Months before the Battle Sitting Bull had a vision of soldiers falling into the village. The interesting part of the vision for me was the warning not to take anything from the soldiers or they would loose the war. His warning was headed. (Kinda harkens back to Joshua and the fall of Jericho when he warned them not to take anything, but Achan did and they lost the next battle Joshua 6-7 Makes me ponder what would have happened if the Nations would have heeded the warning).\n\nCrazy Horse was a very formidable General. The terrain really lent a hand to the way the Lakota, Ogalla, and Cheyenne fought. It gave the warriors a lot of cover. The yellow boy Winchester 10 round magazine repeating rifle for close quarter fighting is very formidable against a single shot Spencer carbine. Not including recurve bows. The warriors were trained from an early age to fight one-on-one. The stiff formations of the Calvary didn't work well because the Warrior fought outside of the box.\n\nThe importance o
426493
no his not he was one cool character unfortunately no one under stands what pressure he was under, people of today forget what it was like to hunt for your own food and protect the ones that you love and besides drinking the blood of his enemy who really give a flying f**k. I mean when you kill an animal you eat its liver right so what is the problem.\n\nVIVA VLAD THE DRACUL (THE BLACK DRAGON) LONG LIVE HIS BLOODTHIRSTY HISTORY LIKE THE ONE AND ONLY LADY BATHORY
629666
Unfortunately only those that were there would know, but remember in the adrenalin pumping, scared, action happening all around you, noises everywhere, no clear enemy kind of situation they were in, mistakes can and do happen. He was a great man and a hero, however he died.
428326
From the way it has been explained to me, a warrior isn't simply someone who fights, but someone takes care of the people.  And there is a kind of morality joining to protect the people.\n\nBy allowing the warriors to enter first, it's a place of honor, honoring those who put their lives on the line.\n\nWhile the Nations and the US were enemies, it shifted towards the beginnings of WWI or WWII, maybe even after Geronimo was captured and was touring with Buffalo Bill.\n\nI don't know that I really buy the concept of a wholesale genocide.  While I know in certain localities it was attempted, everything I have read doesn't point to the federal government pushing this  concept.  \n\nWhile these are very poor examples why I don't think the National government was pushing this in the 19th century mindset try to "protect" the Nations.  Sending the Apache to Florida (really bad idea) Oklahoma, the Nez Pierce being pursued by General Howard.  \n\nWhile slaughters did happen at Sand Creek, Wounded Knee, I haven't really seen anything that points to a concerted effort (other than by Sherman) to end the Nations.\n\nWhy they join, maybe it's to get off the reservation, maybe it's because that's just what they want to do with their life.  I would guess it's like anything else a person chooses their own way in life
741949
In the book written by John L Anderson he claims that Che was killed by a  Cuban Ameican CIA trianed individual named Felix Rodriguez. That book is very well reearched so I am proned to believe the author's claim. Do I think his death was justified?  He was rather ruthless at times, but that is not for me to decide. I guess you can say that by living the revolutionary life, he had to know his end would not be pretty. I will say this, he did not die a coward.
745179
no, cos you would kill more of your own then the enemy, i mean look at the u.s military they killed more allied troops in friendly fire incidents then the enemy did, proof that short sighted ppl are a danger to your own side.
447550
The foolosh man wanted the wise man's brain, so he killed him!
608114
I think he had a horrible childhood and became mentally ill towards the end. I mean the control had something to do with it but some of the things this guy did were unspeakable. I can't figure out why the people that did his killings and tortures forced themselves to do it unless they enjoyed it too. I know you do what your leader tells you but I would think all it would have taken was a bunch of people to just blow his a$$ away .
297567
OK nevadog, if you cant tell the differance between a SAW firing, and anything that the Iraqi's or insurgents fire, AK 47, RPK, or PKM, you are an IDIOT. If you can tell, why did you duck when you heard a SAW firing AWAY from you?  I simply say this to let everyone know that you are trying to write a colorful story about something that may or may not have happened. Regardless, you have the wrong perspective. If that story really happened. The soldier who did the firing was trying to protect his own life and yours. Overzealousness is better than overcautiousness .
235074
Jesus the Christ. He was mocked, whipped and slain, all for our salvation. He is a true hero.
486871
Bush is a man of action.\nClinton is a coward.\nKennedy was a man of action and they killed him for his beliefs. (Watch out Bush.. the Democrats might be taking aim at you).\nReagan scared Iran to death. They knew he meant business.\nGeorge Washington was a war hero.\nAbe Lincoln was a man of the people. Some people didn't like his stand on the equality of blacks and whites. Of course those who disagreed with him killed him. (Watch out Bush. Last time I checked 70 % of Americans don't approve of how you are running the country).
252386
Simply put, I don't think he did.  I think that man created all of the fire and brimstone, believe in me for your own good or I'll kill you stuff.  Only a complete ego centric would create us just so we can worship and glorify him.  That's not my idea of a higher power.
255735
You might be right...Hood wasn't a particularly good commander overall, but his men fought well. But it's really hard to judge who's tougher than who...I mean, each of the divisions fought in many different battles, in different circumstances. For instance, the Battle of Lookout Mountain or whatever it's called during the Chatanooga campaign pitted Braxton Braggs men against the men of George Thomas. That wasn't a fair fight at all. Braggs men were demoralized and tired, and the last thing they wanted to see was an armed brigade climbing up their mountain with bayonets and knives. \n\nOn the other hand, the men of Nathan Bedford Forrest (like the other guy said) had a much easier job. All they had to do was slip around Union armies and harrass supply lines and such.
148721
I certainly dont think so. I think that the whole broke back bs is an dis on the men & women that had the balls to tame this great country.   ;-)
142570
Hector was the son of the king and the Trojan hero?  But he wasn't really because he choose protecting his dishonorable cowardly brother over the safety of the people of Troy.  He was killed in single combat outside the walls of troy by achellies (sp)
156470
In war you have to be no less ruthless then your adversary.  When you are dealing with a dictator who for decades ruled thru terror, force and corruption you have to respond with greated force.  He felt if you wanted to defeat an army you have to kill an army.  What great military leaders weren't ruthless?  Ruthless - Yes.  A bastard - please do some research and form your own opinion.
418926
He was to Red China..And he was prety good at making war..on a church full of  AMERICAN women and children. (He thought the kids were abused so..he just burned them to death)