|
|
Post by tbw on Nov 22, 2013 16:05:44 GMT -5
Was Custer addicted to danger? Its an honest question. There's nothing trick about it. We all know the type, you know them as "adrenaline junkies", "daredevils" and just downright "idiots" or as we might say today Eval Kanieval wannabee's when we spot one on a fast moving motorbike headed for a hairpin curve on a mountaintop.
What say you? Was he addicted to danger?
|
|
|
|
Post by whitebull on Nov 22, 2013 20:10:20 GMT -5
I say yes!!! If you read about Custer's battles in the Civil War, you will read about a man who seemed to enjoy mixing it up with the rebels in combat. A man who even wore a uniform that helped him to kind of stand out when facing the enemy.
How many horses did he have shot from beneath him? Five or six? Did that stop him from getting on another horse and starting the whole cycle over again? Absolutely not!
For some men being in a tight situation brings out the best that they have. the adrenalin begins to flow and the energy starts to overflow.
Other than fighting I can't recall any type of success in Custer's life other than a wife that seemed to worship him. Even his little brother adored him.
At the Little Big Horn a lot of commanders would have traveled just a little bit slower and taken on just a little bit less risk but, but not Custer. The man took bravery to a whole new level and got himself killed as a result.
|
|
|
|
Post by joewiggs on Nov 23, 2013 16:38:57 GMT -5
I don't agree. Addiction has a fanatical connotation that, I believe, does serve justice to General Custer. Did he have an abundance of courage? Absolutely! Courage combined with a reasonable expectation of probable outcomes of proven, military tactics constitutes probable cause for success in the theater of war.
What can not be anticipated nor accounted for is the failure of 2/3's of the commando's failure to respond to the aid of the other portion of the command. I am not suggesting that Custer was capable of winning this specific battle with the resources he dad at his command. I am saying that he had enough personnel to at a minimum, withdraw to safety, regroup the command and, submit his re-combined resources to additional tactics to bring the warriors to bay.
In summation, Custer's bravery was profound but not responsible for his failure at the Battle of the Little Big Horn. If one accepts that premise then a cognitive supposition is that he was not addicted to "danger"
|
|
|
|
Post by stumblingbear on Nov 23, 2013 20:17:57 GMT -5
Was Custer addicted to danger? Its an honest question. There's nothing trick about it. We all know the type, you know them as "adrenaline junkies", "daredevils" and just downright "idiots" or as we might say today Eval Kanieval wannabee's when we spot one on a fast moving motorbike headed for a hairpin curve on a mountaintop. What say you? Was he addicted to danger? I believe he was addicted to danger but not because he was a "Kanieval wannabee" because danger was an opportunity to do what many others could not do. I believe it takes a special person to face possible death without fear. I believe Custer was one of those special men. |
|
|
|
Post by joewiggs on Nov 24, 2013 19:35:42 GMT -5
I say yes!!! If you read about Custer's battles in the Civil War, you will read about a man who seemed to enjoy mixing it up with the rebels in combat. A man who even wore a uniform that helped him to kind of stand out when facing the enemy. How many horses did he have shot from beneath him? Five or six? Did that stop him from getting on another horse and starting the whole cycle over again? Absolutely not! For some men being in a tight situation brings out the best that they have. the adrenalin begins to flow and the energy starts to overflow. Other than fighting I can't recall any type of success in Custer's life other than a wife that seemed to worship him. Even his little brother adored him. At the Little Big Horn a lot of commanders would have traveled just a little bit slower and taken on just a little bit less risk but, but not Custer. The man took bravery to a whole new level and got himself killed as a result.
Only on a few occasions did his decisions plunge him and h men into an untenable situation, and even then his actions were not simply impulsive;by it's nature, cavalry warfare required lightning-quick tactics. None of his officers or men thought him impetuous." Jim Donovan, page 56 Captain Manning D. Birge, Sixth Michigan Cavalry: "Some called him rash but that is all bosh. He had just as much judgment as any man...He always displayed a great deal of bravery, but I don't think that you could call it rashness. He never took his men in any place where he couldn't get out." p.56-57. The exception of course occurred later at the Little Big Horn, however, Custer was unaware that a substantial portion of his Army would leave him in the clutch with no support! |
|
|
|
Post by whitebull on Nov 24, 2013 20:01:19 GMT -5
Like the man said, "for the most part." What about the rest of times? separating his men the way he did certainly did not help his cause did it?
|
|
|
|
Post by joewiggs on Nov 27, 2013 20:01:13 GMT -5
WB, you assume that Custer's separation of troops was the single cause of his failure to subdue the village;it was not. There were not so many Indians that victory was impossible. That is a myth designed to hold Custer responsible for attacking in the first place.
The Indians would have have dispersed leaving behind a rear guard action if there had been a concerted effort by Reno to move forward. When he hesitated and faltered, Custer was doomed because only a definitive charge would have broken the Indian "vise" that destroyed his command.
There were too many Indians to subdue them, however, the command could have been extricated and save if Reno had not been in a drunken stupor.
|
|
|
|
Post by stumblingbear on Nov 30, 2013 12:14:14 GMT -5
Sometimes I think it's just convenient for some people to find one solution for a problem then stick with it regardless of other,possible, causes. too many Indians is a notion that begins to wear thin when you think of all the other possibilities. Besides, too many Indians fits nicely with the excuses of those who survived when their friends did not.
questions were asked of the survivors which must have been a little hard to reply to other than, "there were just too many Indians!"
|
|
|
|
Post by joewiggs on Nov 30, 2013 19:36:49 GMT -5
Sometimes I think it's just convenient for some people to find one solution for a problem then stick with it regardless of other,possible, causes. too many Indians is a notion that begins to wear thin when you think of all the other possibilities. Besides, too many Indians fits nicely with the excuses of those who survived when their friends did not. questions were asked of the survivors which must have been a little hard to reply to other than, "there were just too many Indians!" Excellent point! The less explanation an individual has to put forth in explaining any complex situation the less chance one must face from inquiring minds. In a historical era when the main stream population digested and believed the unbelievable lies that de-humanized other groups of human beings, the most insufferable and idiotic lies became a reality. The superiority of the "White" race over the "Red" was so prevalent that the most lubricious explanations of what happened at the battle were quickly accepted:"Too many Indians and Custer was an idiot" wrapped everything and all questions into a neat, tidy package, "It must have happened that way!" |
|
|
|
Post by whitebull on Nov 30, 2013 19:45:14 GMT -5
No offense intended but, sometimes I think you get just a tad bit to serious. People of every time came to believe or disbelieve in things that affected their lives and why things happened the way it did. It don't mean that everybody needs to be hypnotized into believing that it's okay to kill some while not okay to kill others!  Get a gripe dude! |
|
|
|
Post by stumblingbear on Nov 30, 2013 20:39:34 GMT -5
I think the "grip" has been gotten! Joe has not said anything that is extraordinary or crazy. Life is sometimes "crazy" and each and everyone of us have to find a way to deal with it.  |
|
|
|
Post by tbw on Dec 17, 2013 13:09:10 GMT -5
I think that the term "addiction" I used has been misinterpreted. Think of it like someone 'addicted' to an illegal drug. Is it something they need help with? Then look at that in context with the times/era he lived in. Patton once said about war, "god how I love it". He clearly was addicted to "war", did that make him a bad person? Clearly upbringing and their journey through life brings those so addicted into contact with something they love to do, but being addicted to warfare's killing nature is hard for most people to understand. Is it rashness? Is it reckless? Impulsive? Impetuous and a thousand other words that, in an attempt to understand their nature, we deconstruct their character rather than try to understand their addiction and what caused it. And I personally don't think for a moment, it had anything to do with bravery, honor or dying for a cause.
|
|
|
|
Post by joewiggs on Dec 20, 2013 13:09:42 GMT -5
tbw, of course you are right when you point out the unbelievable complexity in defining the word"addiction."
A word that encompasses so many emotional catalysts that range
from the insignificant to the to the majestic, from the serious to the inconsequential, from the benign to the barbaric.
All of the possibilities that result from the above or any combination thereof that lay within the heart of man;ready to pounce out at any second of time.
|
|
|
|
Post by stumblingbear on Dec 20, 2013 21:28:46 GMT -5
I think that the term "addiction" I used has been misinterpreted. Think of it like someone 'addicted' to an illegal drug. Is it something they need help with? Then look at that in context with the times/era he lived in. Patton once said about war, "god how I love it". He clearly was addicted to "war", did that make him a bad person? Clearly upbringing and their journey through life brings those so addicted into contact with something they love to do, but being addicted to warfare's killing nature is hard for most people to understand. Is it rashness? Is it reckless? Impulsive? Impetuous and a thousand other words that, in an attempt to understand their nature, we deconstruct their character rather than try to understand their addiction and what caused it. And I personally don't think for a moment, it had anything to do with bravery, honor or dying for a cause. If anything you wrote may be misinterpreted let the reader beware. You are always a gentleman, you give a lot of great information, and I think you are the bomb!  |
|
|
|
Post by tbw on Dec 21, 2013 13:39:49 GMT -5
I think that the term "addiction" I used has been misinterpreted. Think of it like someone 'addicted' to an illegal drug. Is it something they need help with? Then look at that in context with the times/era he lived in. Patton once said about war, "god how I love it". He clearly was addicted to "war", did that make him a bad person? Clearly upbringing and their journey through life brings those so addicted into contact with something they love to do, but being addicted to warfare's killing nature is hard for most people to understand. Is it rashness? Is it reckless? Impulsive? Impetuous and a thousand other words that, in an attempt to understand their nature, we deconstruct their character rather than try to understand their addiction and what caused it. And I personally don't think for a moment, it had anything to do with bravery, honor or dying for a cause. If anything you wrote may be misinterpreted let the reader beware. You are always a gentleman, you give a lot of great information, and I think you are the bomb! Well I do bomb a lot. And have been bombed more than I've an excuse to say that I shouldn't have been. It's those smart bombs that one can't evade that really keep one on their toes, there isn't a hole deep enough that I could dig fast enough to save my sorry @$#&%!!! ;D Merry New Years and Happy Christmas, and for those not included in such greetings May only Peace and Happiness grace your homes. |
|
Get a gripe dude!
