Saying Reno and Benteen failure to follow their orders is a cause for the loss at LBH is lame. Reno's last orders from Custer were to "Pitch into them and you'll be supported" and Benteen's written orders were to Come quick and bring packs was mentioned twice.
Reno "pitched into them" for around a half hour (W.A.Graham, the story of LBH) until he got driven to the heights across the river by hundreds of Winchester armed Indians.
After Benteen got the note from Martini sent a runner to fetch the pack train and came upon Reno's command. "I've lost half my men" Reno said to Benteen. Benteen took over defacto command.
Weir did go to find Custer while Benteen organized what was left of the 7th. While under fire and amid the din of cries of wounded men and animals just as he began to follow, Weir came rushing back with more than enough Sioux on his heels to take care of the troopers.
Cooke's note mentioned packs twice and knowing Custer, Benteen wasn't going meet him without the packs.
I suspect you comments on Reno and Benteen's failure to follow orders is a way to get responses to the article.

By Barney Cooney on Sep 7, 2008 at 10:33 am

What Barney said. Maybe an absence of courage, but not disobedience. Reno's three companies were decimated; for Benteen to ignore a Major so crippled and threatened and to at the same time increase his distance from McDougald and place the packs at risk, would have likely struck Julius Caesar like a bad idea under the same circumstances.

By airborne on Sep 13, 2008 at 10:47 pm

The company commander assignments were made based on
seniority, not favoritism, except for Company C. There is a great
explanation of seniority and how the company and battalion
assignments were made in a book called, "To hell with honor." As
to the Benteen scout to the left, I believe it was to follow the spirit
of Terry's orders, "…to feel constantly to your left." Reno—-
Certainly displayed a lack of real leadership in the valley. Being
the first one out of the timber and across the river is not the way
of a battalion commander. Had Reno held for 30 minutes longer
in the valley, I think Custer would have prevailed. After Reno
retreated, the only thing that would save the Custer battalion
would have been a renewed attack on the southern end of the
village by Benteen.

By Eric Kerska on Nov 7, 2008 at 3:17 pm

"Saying Reno and Benteen failure to follow their orders is a cause for the loss at LBH is lame. Reno’s last orders from Custer were to “Pitch into them and you’ll be supported” and Benteen’s written orders were to Come quick and bring packs was mentioned twice."

You say it's 'lame' and then make the author's point for him. Both had orders as you stated and neither followed them, effectively taking out 2/3 of the force available for the fight, leaving the Indians free to deal with Custer separately.

"Reno “pitched into them” for around a half hour (W.A.Graham, the story of LBH) until he got driven to the heights across the river by hundreds of Winchester armed Indians."

Reno lost control of his nerves and his battalion. Most authorities on LBH agree that Reno should have been able to hold his position in the woods. Reno was not 'driven' anywhere by the Indians. He caused most of his own casualties by running.

"After Benteen got the note from Martini sent a runner to fetch the pack train and came upon Reno’s command. “I’ve lost half my men” Reno said to Benteen. Benteen took over defacto command."

Why did Benteen take over defacto? I guess you are now agreeing that Reno was not fit to command. Benteen is still under orders to come to Custer with his men and packs. Does he even try? No. Weir takes off on his own.

"Weir did go to find Custer while Benteen organized what was left of the 7th. While under fire and amid the din of cries of wounded men and animals just as he began to follow, Weir came rushing back with more than enough Sioux on his heels to take care of the troopers."

Again, what was left was almost 2/3 of the command. Wier has no more than 45 men in his Troop. Once the packs arrived, Benteen should have been able to quickly organize a strong battalion of several hundred troopers to try and get to Custer. Regardless of what he felt towards Custer personally, he was under orders and men from his regiment were in trouble. Weir has to beg for permission to go to Custer, and then takes off on his own. Benteen's conduct is only slightly better that Reno's, IMO.

By Tar Heel on Nov 30, 2008 at 12:09 pm

Do u have any information on : SITTING CROW/Chief Sitting Crow? Thank u

By JOYCE on Dec 2, 2008 at 8:56 pm

The main problem with this article is that it gets the timing of the battle all wrong. Custer's own fight was heard to start by the scout Girard whilst he was hiding in the timber some 15 minutes after Reno's flight. This would have been a few minutes before Benteen arrived on Reno Hill.

Custer's fight probably lasted 45 to 50 minutes thus his command was already destroyed by the time that Weir's company reached its viewing position. other later reports of gunfire from those, like Girard, in the timber and from McDougall with the pack train were either warriors firing ast dead bodies or more likely the sound of Weir's men skirmishing with warriors on Weir Peaks.

There was literally nothing that Benteen could have done. Even if he had ignored Reno and the 900 or so warriors in the valley and ridden straight on he still would not have got to Custer before his battle had finished.

Reno's charge to the bluffs actually pulled around half the warrior force away from the village and gave Custer an opportunity to strike. Unfortunately there were more than enough warriors still in the village to hold Custer off and then overwhelm him.

There were no villains at LBH – Custer mounted a reasonable attack based on the enemy he expected but there were too many well armed warriors and his tactics led to his own forces being defeated in detail. Reno's actions probably saved the majority of his command and Benteen through no fault of his own was just in time to save the remnants.

Regards

Mike

By Mike Fox on Dec 3, 2008 at 5:07 pm

After the initial charge and halt Reno commanded nothing and caused the death of several of his men. Benteen disobeyed orders plain and simple. The above are supported by the facts, facts-not conjectural biased bull. A good unbiased research will show that the 1879 court of inquiry was a cover-up that has extended to this very day. It just wasn't the 7th that had a part, but Crook, Terry, and the other higher-ups including president Grant. All of them contributed to the debacle at the Little Big Horn. Custer was a lot of things, but a lousy commander wasn't one of them.
Its time to quit blaming Custer and give the blame where it is due. Also give the Indians credit for there outstanding perfomance, at least during the battle. Afterwords they resorted to the ways that made people dislike them so much. And lets be truthful about them also and the way of life they pursued.

By Apache105 on Dec 8, 2008 at 4:25 pm

Custer will always be a subject of discussion and nobody will ever know the exact truth as the timing is very important and there is not enough witnesses around to tell who did what when facing several hundreds of angry and proud sioux with 2 great leaders.
Benteen and Reno were human and why would they fight their men to death just in the sake of save a company allready lost.

I just react to the above comment that says about the indians :
'afterwards they resorted to the ways that made people made dislike them so much"
To speak about "biased bull" (quote apache105) any indian warrior made a better horseman and fighter than a white army servant. they rode and fougth all their lives. their lack of command and strategy fighting mostly amongst each other and not whites was their only failure in combat.
their culture was in the opinion of many people 1 of the most beautiful and inspirational ever …

By wolfgang911 on Jan 27, 2009 at 8:21 pm

Unfortunately so many stories and over-ups. I believe that George Armstrong Custer was not stupid and was a very good commander. That said he would have taken the steps necessary to have a planned attack. I do believe that Reno and Benteen covered up much of the true facts. They both changed their stories many times since the battle. The difference in stories between the officers and the unlisted men and the officers before the inquiry and after. The inquiry it self was obviously a fraud.

Now we have two camps, one who side with a competent GA Custer and one who still thinks Custer was a drunken fool. My own sister-in-law who really knows nothing about Custer and the LBH believes that Custer was a drunk and only wanted glory. The press has done a very good job convincing society of this through movies like Little Big Man and many cartoons.

It is unfortunate that a movie cannot be made to show the world who GA Armstrong really was and what probably happened at the Little Big Horn, a man who went down fighting waiting for two captains who disobeyed orders. That much we know for sure

By Cal Luchuck on Feb 19, 2009 at 5:01 pm

It seems to me that it was Custer's own fault for his defeat. For you see, Terry's orders were percise to stay and wait for more troops.

Custer got hungry for Glory and decided to go ahead and divide his regiment into three groups and such. Simply saying that it was Benteen's or Reno's fault for the defeat is covering up for Custer's mistake.

This doesn't make Custer nessacarily a bad man though. he was doing his orders, though, I wish he did have more of a heart. For slaughtering Indian children and women was truely cruel. Insane even…

But, back to the point. Historians keep debating who's fault it was exactly for LBH. I've even heard that it is Terry's fault for not knowing how many Indians were in the camp. Why would somebody blame him? For, was it not Terry who sent away Custer to find out how many Souix and Cheyenne were in the camp?

I think I've stated my point. And yes, I respect other's opinons. But I'm in eigth grade, and feel as though it was George Custer's own fault for "The battle of Little Big Horn." Pointing the finger at Reno and Benteen is, as quoted by Tar Heel, "lame".

Custer was not stupid. He was a good, intellegant man, he just slipped up this time.

-Anonymous

By Anonymous on Mar 20, 2009 at 2:17 pm

****ADD ON****

I feel like an idiot. ^-^

The quote "lame" is not from Tar Heel.

But from Barney Cooney.

I apologize for the mess up.

-Anonymous <3

By Anonymous on Mar 20, 2009 at 2:25 pm

For whatever reason, as an Australian, I have always been fascinated by George Armstrong Custer and whathappened on the Little Bighorn – June 25 th 1876. I have read all of the comments above and appreciate the sentiment with which they have been written. George Custer is a highly controversial figure and there is much that could easily be read into his personality from many different perspectives. Do I believe that he was a competent commander? Yes I do. Do I believe that he was a deeply flawed and exceptionally vain man? Absolutely. Do I believe that he squandered the lives of over 250 of his men due to his own personal ambitions? No I do not! Do I believe that Major Reno and Captain Benteen deliberately disobeyed orders by not coming to Custer's aid? No – I am not necesarily convinced that this was the case.

There are so many things that are not mentioned in the above account. The fact that Custer marched his men to the point of near exhaustion – though understandible given the circumstances – is heavily underestimated in most accounts of the battle that I hav read. The entire 7th Cavalry was exhausted on the day of the battle and Soiux accounts have been often been quoted as saying that the soldiers appeared to be simply exhausted during the battle. Perhaps Custer's greatest fault may have been the fact that he may not have been able to understand the inability of his soldiers to match his own personal ability to endure quite intense physical hardship.

The most overlooked aspect of the battle – and an aspect that I have not read anywhere personally – although I am certain that someone has documented it – is the role of General Crook after his 'supposed' victory – as he claimed at the battle of the Rosebud about one week before the Little Bighorn debacle. From what little I have read, General Crook was experienced in the way that the Plains Indian fought. He, like Custer, never believed in his wildest imagination, that the Soiux would come out and confront a force of over 1000 US soldiers in an oen battle. More to the point was the fact that they fought almost as a coordinated group of warriors – this had never happened before. In the face of anything the size of the 7th Cavalry, the Plains Indians had always fled – not because they were afraid but because they new the firepower of the US sodiers. Crook knew this, yet the battle of the Rosebud was an encounter that was significantly different from anything that he had ever experienced from confronting the Soiux before. The battle lasted for a good couple of hours with the Souix and Cheyenne continually re-attacking and re-deploying against the US soldiers again and again. It has been reported – though they never really received any great credit for it – that the Crow scouts attached to Crook's colomn actually did more to prevent a major debacle occuring then the soldiers themselves. On more than one occasion Crow warriors dashed in to save isolated soldiers from certain death at the hands of the Souix and Cheyenne. General Crook demonstrated negligence – in my opinion – on two counts: The first was that even after that battle he still had at his disposal over 1000 soldiers – yet he refused to participate any further in the campaign until he was re-supplied and reinforced. The second, however, was possible the most crucial. He made ABSOLUTELY NO ATTEMPT WHATSOEVER to communicate with either Terry, Gibbon or Custer as to the nature of the engagement that he had experienced with the Indians on the Rosebud. Had he done so and informed them that the Indians were not fighting as expected but rather as a large coordinated unit then would Custer's tactics at the Little Bighorn been different? Custer was not a man without faults – and I am definately NOT a Custer lover or a supporter of the Custer faction. From what I have read, however, Custer was a competent and astute commanding officer.

The tactics that Custer applied on June 25th 1876 were close to flawless given his understanding of how the Souix and Cheyenne responded when confronted with a well armed and disciplined cavalry force. Even where the splitting of his forces were concerned. The Indians had never, prior to the Little Bighorn, even remotely attempted to turn away an offensive force anything the size of the 7th Cavalry before and, even though Custer's men were close to exhausted, this was still not enough reason for Custer to be dismayed. He did NOT know that he was confronting an Indian encampment that was NOT even remotely considering running away BUT was preparing to fight Custer to the death. This single piece of information was crucially missing from all of the information that Custer had at his disposal. If Crook had dispatched the information regarding the mood of the Indians immediately, it still may not have reached Custer anyway. We simply do not know.

Did Reno and Benteen disobey orders? Yes, I believe they did – BUT not willfully. The officers of the 7th Cavalry were simply not aware of the fighting mood or the fighting disposition of the Souix and Cheyenne. There were many more of them than they anticipated and – even with this number – they were completely unaware that the Indians had absolutely no intention of standing and fighting to the death. Did Reno display cowardice when he was in the valley and orered a retreat? This will always be up to the individual's own persoanl opinion. I can only try to empathise by asking the question 'What would I have done if I were in a similar situation? Reno was seriously outnumbered; he had been cornered into a wooded area in the river valley; he was running out of ammunition; the longer he stayed the more trapped he became in, from his perspective on things, an increasingly undefensible position; and he had no idea as to the whereabouts of his commanding officer. Under this set of circumstances, few people, if they have any honesty and heart, could blame Reno for his subsequent actions. Would we have done any differently?

Where Benteen is concerned, he arrived on Reno Hill with his 3 companies to reinforce Reno. Once the wagon train arrived he had at his disposal seven of the twelve companies of the 7th cavalry at his disposal – yet, three of these (Reno's battalion) were in no condition to continue in offensive mode. Remember that the entire 7th Cavalry was near the point of exhaustion. Had the entire 7th Cavalry moved to support their commanding officer (of which they were not completely clear as to his whereabouts – they knew the general direction on the basis of gun-fire and other pieces of information) it would have only contributed, in my opinion, to the tradegy that unfolded. Reno and Benteen may have disobeyed orders, however, I do not believe it was wilful – rather an honest acknowledgement and an honest appraisel of the situation that they were faced with.

I do not believe that any individual can be singled out as having to take complete responsibility for what happened on June 25th 1876. So many other issues have not even been raised in this response – the political situation of the day; the considerable under resourcement of the US forces on the Plains; the constant breaking of treaty's and the refusal of the US government to enforce treaty boundaries; the incredibly inept way that the US government treated those Indians who did come in from the Plains and moved onto reservations. The completely unjustifiable bloodbaths of Sand Creek and Wounded Knee! I do have to admit that I grow a little weary of reading accounts that continue to impart sole responsibility for the debacle of what happened on the Little Bighorn all those years ago. From my limited understanding of everything that occurred, I think that the US government administration at the time does need to accept a reasonable portion of the responsibility for what occurred.

Finally, SO LITTLE CREDIT is actually given to the Plains Indians for their bravery and ingenuitiy. They fought for their lands. The reasons for the sending in of US troops into Souix lands to force them onto reservations are spurious at best and very close to lies and deceit at worst. From all that I have read it was the US governemnt who violated any treaty signed between the two groups of people. The Plains Indians stood up against an overwhelmingly powerful enemy and fought for their rights. They outfought two very competent US army officers – Crook and Custer – but with their victories they guaranteed the loss of all that they held dear. Within ten years the culture of the Plains Indians no longer existed.

By Michael Ey on Mar 22, 2009 at 1:48 am

Major Reno lost his nerve and Captain Benteen had no intentions of helping out Custer whom he despised especially after losing his best friend Major Joe Elliott at the battle of the Washita to rescue white captives destined for slavery in Mexico!
Evidence suggest that Custer and his brothers along with scout Mich boyer and "Mr.Kellogg" the newspaper journalist were all shot-mortally wounded-while attempting to cross the Little Big Horn to capture the village. This stopped the attack cold so the troopers retreated by which time the Sioux and Cheyenne were coming back from repelling Reno at the south end of the huge encampment.
Refusing to leave the mortally wounded Custers at the rivers' edge, the demoralized troopers withdrew with a huge amount of angry Cheyenne and Sioux on their rather exhausted heels, cut off from Reno and Benteen….with only Lt. W.W.Cooke to guide them and try to save the badly wounded Custer brothers…!

By TEC on Apr 18, 2009 at 3:13 am

I have never heard a convincing rebuttal to Benteen's claim that Custer did NOT have a plan. When he sent Benteen on his scout, without agreeing on a place and most of all, a TIME to rendevouz, Custer had no right to count on Benteen's support. It was just a fluke that Martin was able to reach Benteen at all. If Benteen had followed his orders to the letter, even if Custer had meant for him to rejoin the regiment at the Little Bighorn valley, rather than go “all the way to fort Benton” as Benteen sarcastically testified, he would have traveled all the way to present day’s Lodgegrass, before reaching the river. Then he would have had another 15 miles or more to ride before reaching the village. All, with worn out and underfed horses. In the meantime, Martin would have backtracked (as he was specifically ordered) all the way to Davis Creek, to then turn south trying to catch up with Benteen! And to top it all, Custer rode away at a gallop from the point where Martin had last seen him, so that when finally Benteen got to the area, Custer was nowhere to be seen.

What’s more, Martin conveyed no idea that Custer was in trouble. When he first saw the village, Custer (who had the largest of the three forces, each of which was believed to be able to engage the hostiles on its own) was buoyant, he thought they had “got them napping” and that they would “finish them up and then go home to our station”. In fact, Martin said that the Indians were “skedaddling. Even Weir had no reason to believe that Custer was in trouble. He was simply eager to be in the fight, as he had already indicated when he grew impatient when Benteen was watering the horses and took off without orders in the direction of Reno’s (not Custer’s) firing. This was BEFORE Martin brought Custer’s order to Benteen.

By Vincent on May 1, 2009 at 2:01 am

Custer was mortally wounded at the ford. That was the moment the command 's posture changed from offense to defense. It was also the moment it became leaderless and confused. Custer was carried with his officers around him to the most defensive point on the field, Custer hill, where he remained incapicitated and later killed in the Indian final charge. No other scenario explains the attitude and movement of the command. It also is supported by Indian eye-witnesses. The most likely killer of Custer was White Cow Bull who shot an officer on a sorrel with 4 white sox in the river.

By Mike on May 18, 2009 at 2:04 am

This is the simplest Question of all! Why did Lt Col Custer attack the souix in lands that were given to them by treaty? My responce is your countries greed. You attacked the native populace for the greed of gold. Now you are attacking other countries for your greed of oil. How long will it be before you attack this country of mine ( Canada). Good examples; our oil supplies and our water supplies. Your country needs us, yet you pull your companies out of here. You have nuclear power yet you do not want any other country to have it. Who in the H do you think you are. Your country has been the most destructive nation on the planet. You interfere in every countries business. Oh! You play the rhetorical game, but most nations are starting to see through this.

By Dan Lee on Jul 10, 2009 at 9:39 pm

Read up a little bit there Dan Lee before you barf again, eh?

1. The Sioux were not in their native stomping grounds in Montana, that would be the home of the Crows, who the Sioux thought it was just fine to butcher and drive out.
2. Gold and Oil? OK Mr. Yukon Klondike, go back to England if you're so self-righteous about such things. Just why did you hamsters push the native population out of their native lands?
3. How long will it be fore we attack Canada? Don't know, you better build up your military – oh that's right – you don't have one because you've always relied on the U.S. to protect your sorry backside.
4.We pull our companies out of Canada? Boo Hoo. Go cut some ice cubes.
5. Nuclear Power? Nobody's stopping Canada from going nuke. We just don't want Iran and North Korea to have it, as opposed to yourself (see refer to response number 3).
6. Who in the H do we think we are? 10 times the force for good that Yukon Klondike thinks we are.
7. Most destructive on the planet? Again, go cut some ice cubes. We weren't around for the ice age or the twilight of the dinosaurs. Hopefully we are when you become extinct so we can come visit and dance on your frozen grave.
8. We interfere in every country's business? Really? Go sit on the ice cubes that you cut.

By TWilliam on Aug 20, 2009 at 6:27 pm

Way to go, Dan Lee – letting your intelligence (?) show. This is for comments on "Custer's Last Stand", not some ignorant Canuck's political views.

You're evidently not old enough to understand, but without the U.S., Europe would be speaking German and most of the Western World would have had to learn Russion about 30 years ago. We don't wave it under peoples' noses until idiots like you bring it up.

Don't worry, we won't won't be invading Canada any time soon – nothing there worth fighting over. On second thought, we're softies for things like freedom, so if it needed saving, we'd probably do the same thing again !

Who inhabited Canada before white people ? Musta been the Frenchmen who wanna leave & take their Province with 'em. Couldn't have been Indians (they woulda been treated better).

By Willie on Sep 15, 2009 at 5:15 pm

I have read so many Books on the Little big horn battle. custer to me is a Hero and I wish there was someone that lived to tell the truth about what happen. Custer too me is the most interesting person, and if you read his wife books they are wonderful. They tell a differnent side of Custer , she is a great story teller. I wish she had written more books. I don't blame Reno and Benteen but I am sure if they had helped him that no one would have lived. I know for a fact Benteen did not like him and proofed if over and over. Who knows what any one person would have done in the battle . I know that history waS not very nice to Custer. He was no Idoit , he was a man just like you and I . I know he loved every bit of being in the calavry and gave his life for his country. Thanks Custer!!!!!!

By rebecca northcutt on Sep 21, 2009 at 5:37 pm

I found several new pieces of information I had not previously known about. Custer refused to take along the new Gattlin guns that had arrived. They were still in boxes. He had his men box up their sabres since he expected no hand-to-hand combat. He received offers of help from other commands but refused them wanting the 7th Cavalry to get full credit. His tactic had been to wait until the Indian men (braves) left the camp and then go in and kill the women & children and burn the camp. This was supposed to make them move out of the area and not come back. But this only angered and organized them into a heavy resistance. He also divided his forces at a critical time. The estimates are 200 soldiera against 4000 Indian Braves. Not too good.

By djdickerson on Oct 1, 2009 at 5:45 pm

To dj, anonymous, and others,

There is NO evidence of the Regular Army purposely killing women and children as a prescribed tactic. Women and children were killed, just as they are in war today, by accident and by the the acts of sick individuals. The evidence is overwhelming at the Battle of the Washita (for example) that the army strived to avoid non-combatant casaulties. The Sand Creek Massacre was carried out by Colorado Militia, not the Regular Army. I challenge anyone to show me evidence that the Regular Army ever puposely went and killed non-combatants on the post-Civil War frontier.

By Eric Kerska on Oct 10, 2009 at 5:57 pm

Some time ago, I read "somewhere" that one of the General's relatives rode back to Reno Hill, before Benteen's arrival. I cannot recall whether this was before or after Martini's delivery of the orders to Benteen. In any event, the General's relative then rode back to the battle, and to his death and glory. What this all means to me is that the public needs a reliable "timeline" about precisely what was "happening" at various locations, and precisely "when". My reading has left me with the firm conviction that Reno and Benteen failed the General, who has been much maligned.

By Ashton O'Dwyer on Oct 14, 2009 at 6:13 pm

I don't believe Reno or Benteen failed anyone. If they had continued the attack on the south end of the village, there woulda been 652 bodies for Gen Terry & Gibbon to bury instead of 210. They were so far outnumbered that even if Custer had accepted Terry's offer of the gattling guns and Major Brisbin's Battalion and kept his unit all together, the outcome would have been the same – it just woulda taken the Indains a little longer to do it.

Gen Crook got his butt kicked (and retreated to Wyoming with his tail between his legs) by those same Indians the week before on the Rosebud. He knew they would stand and fight and how large a force they had but never sent word to Terry, Gibbon, Custer, Reno, Benteen or the man in the moon.

The biggest failure to Custer was his own belief that the Indians would scatter rather than fight and that his 7th Cavalry could "whip any Indians they might come across".

By Willie on Oct 16, 2009 at 1:54 am

As I see it, there were possibly a few thousand rested Indians fighting a few hundred tired soldiers.

Crook showed that a formidable sized unit was no guarantee of success against a foe who was not fighting as expected.

These elements had a major contribution to Custer's demise.

Cookes Benteen note, as I read it, was for Benteen to bring the packs, indicative of Benteen needing to locate the pack train THEN meet Custer. Custer's "scouting" orders to Benteen would indicate that Custer had not intended Benteen to be part of his battle. I believe that Benteen received his note, made for the pack train, found a decimated Reno and assisted him, By this time Reno's outfit were in a defensive position and fighting for their lives. I think that Benteen and Reno accessed that going to look for Custer would have led to the annihilation of the 7th.

It seems to me that if Benteen had gone to Custer, Reno would have run out of ammo. Benteen would have found Custer's command essentially finished and I believe he would have shared their fate. No doubt Reno's command with no ammunition would also have been destroyed.

Reno was originally told to attack the village and that Custer would support him with the whole "outfit". Reno attacked the village, was getting his ass whipped and Custer did not come to his aid. Reno then went on the defensive and ultimately saved his command.

If Reno and Benteen went to aid Custer, the end result would have been no 7th Calvary survivors and a busier burial detail when "relief" came.

Custer's command seemed to have a variance in its actions till its demise. Some companies fought and died in situ, others "ran". I believe that Custer was at least mortally wounded while attempting a ford crossing…and this meant the command was essentially broken to the point where individual company commanders fended for themselves…with no "battle plan" . I think that Custer was incapacitated is indicated by his head wound applied post Morten. I believe that due to the shortness of the Custer fight, his body was still warm and those who recovered him from the river, shot him in the head in the final moments, to ensure a living Custer did not end up tortured by Indians.

By Fool Walks In on Oct 19, 2009 at 2:30 pm

Fool -

Am in agreement with all your points except two:

When Martini gave Cooke's note (Custer's order) to Benteen, he (Benteen) would have headed southeast (away from Reno), to find the pack train, which was behind him with Capt McDougall's B Company. Thus,he would not have then "found a decimated Reno", as Reno was already northwest of him.

I too, believe that Custer was shot in the chest, either at or in the river (many believe he didn't go to the river), and that his troops carried or dragged him up the hill. But I like to think the post mortem temple shot was delivered by one of the Indians after the battle, as they were known to do. No particular reason – maybe just don't wanna think his own people had to do it.

;

By Willie on Oct 20, 2009 at 3:27 pm

I also believe Custer was shot early in the engagement. Some sources believe Custer intended hanging around on the bluffs until Benteen came along before attacking the village. In my opinion Custer was not the type to hang around and he intended attacking that village there and then-let Benteen join in when he arrives. Something caused the charge to halt and I believe it was when Custer was mortally wounded near the ford. no doubt Tom, Cooke and possibly Keogh all dismounted to help and the hold up was fatal. Soon warriors began arriving in force and the troops began to retreat to the bluffs and wait for Benteen.
By now hundreds of warriors were hot on their trail and the rear most troops Calhoun and Keogh dismount to try and halt the warriors advance, while Tom,Cooke and Yates all head to Last Stand Hill and attempt to dig in. Calhoun holds out for a while but is overwelmed, Keogh trys to make a stand but cant hold out, the remains of the companies flee to Last Stand Hill. Now surrounded one company decides to break out but are forced into Deep Ravine. They hold out for a while and the handful of remaining troops on Last Stand Hill make a futile break out to try and join them.
I`ve read so many stories of organised resistance but I dont believe it happened, the soldiers simply didnt have time. It was over very quick indeed.

By Dee Cee on Nov 2, 2009 at 5:05 pm

"It seems to me that it was Custer’s own fault for his defeat. For you see, Terry’s orders were percise to stay and wait for more troops."

The above statement is categorically false. It was one of the first I came across and copied it. But then I became overwhelmed by so many instances of misinformation, that go way beyond simple conjecture, that I became disheartened and gave the project up. I guess it's the manifestation of so many theories that have been promulgated over the last 133 years. The real problem is that there is much that we do know about the battle (such as Custer's orders from General Terry) and judging by many of the above posts the known facts or the most likely scenarios as supported by the evidence have been completely obscured and debased by the wild conjecture on the less supportive evidence. It seems that many people are unable to carry fact, very solid, very good, and good evidence from one article/book to the next. Or they're not interested enough to read more than one piece regarding the subject and then form their opinon on that one piece.

For example: after sifting through so much of the information of this battle for so many years, taking into account testimony afterwards by Curley, Martin, etc., knowing which horse Custer was riding that day (Vic), that Custer had taken off his buckskin jacket and tied it behind him on the saddle (Peter Thompson and the Arikara scout Soldier), the different colors of the horses in the various companies, I think it's very likely that Company E alone went to the river (Medicine Tail Coulee) for a reconnoiter of the ford there, and it was E Company C.O. 1st Lt Algernon Smith who was shot at the river, not Custer.

By NorPlains on Nov 18, 2009 at 5:36 pm

Excellent roster of comments. A few minor contributions: (1) The Lakota (Sioux) — who originally lived as farmers in Minnesota and had been driven out by better-armed tribes with guns in the later 1700s — were indeed in Absaroka (Crow) territory in 1876 because the rations the Lakota had been promised by the Sioux Treaty of 1868 were not delivered. Friendly whites report that some of the agency Indians were near starvation when they left the agencies to hunt because they weren't being fed as promised. The war also also waged to protect the Black Hills, which had been promised to the Lakota in 1868. (2) Custer didn't intend to murder the women and children wholesale — he intended to round them up alive as possible and use them as hostages to make the warriors give themselves up. (CF Martini) It's not a nice tactic but it's better than mass murder and since the Indians could ride circles around his troopers it was probably a reasonable way to end what was essentially a runaway situation. (3) "Indian defiance meant war…." William Taylor, a Reno Hill survivor, points out that the fugitive Indians were ordered to move their camps in January and probably would have moved if the government had let them wait until April when they didn't risk freezing. (4) Custer killed off by his own men to escape torture…Not hardly…Custer wasn't terribly popular and in a rout like that I doubt people would have dragged a dying man around like a beanbag…Lakota don't torture much — they chop dead people up afterwards to invalidate their ghosts. They definitely killed men trying to give up — what else would they do with them? — and sometimes raped white women and sometimes didn't — Fanny Kelly was forced to teach them to read in 1864, but nobody raped her. Torture wasn't part of their culture….Interesting too. As early as 1860, the three Little Bighorn tribes has offered Agent Thomas Twiss a modus vivendi where the Indians would be fed for 20 years while they learned farming and skilled trades and literacy. Congress wouldn't pay for it. In 1868, after the stalemate of Red Cloud's War, Congress paid for it — but crooked politicians stole most of the food….the same politicians also cheated the soldiers, and when the much-maligned Custer stood up for his men, they tried to break him for it….Custer remains endlessly controversial, a turbulent mixture of brilliance, agression, sentiment, and headstrong violence, all mixed up together….but the Indians were the real heroes of the Little Bighorn, as any man is when he defends his wives and daughters from rape and murder.

By John Koster on Dec 3, 2009 at 3:10 pm

there are no records of him carrying the gatling guns.,thus if he had……………………..?

By elliot on Feb 6, 2010 at 2:50 pm

This website has too much information on it.

By a on Mar 3, 2010 at 12:52 pm