C. Windolph's Shocking Account of Custer's Last Stand
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 15 сен 2024
- Dive into the gripping first-hand account of Charles Windolph, one of the few survivors of the Battle of Little Bighorn. Windolph's detailed narration offers a vivid portrayal of the events leading to Custer's Last Stand, revealing the harrowing experiences and bravery of the soldiers. Discover the strategic missteps, the intense combat, and the fierce determination of the 7th Cavalry Regiment. Like and subscribe for more incredible historical stories and accounts from the front lines. #history #ushistory #historyfacts #nativeamerican
Edith Crook, granddaughter of General Crook, was my great Grandmother. one of the nicest people i'd ever met. She told us about growing up during that time, and she, as well as my father, were the reason i joined the US Army. After my service, i went to see some of these battlefields and you can Feel the fear and excitement from the guides. Sadly, most of the people's stories were uncertain or lacking detail, so thank you for this video.
Thank you for your comments and your service.
If that narrative is an accurate account of Windhoff,s writings,it becomes evident that his education was far above an average soldier ,his accounts indicate that those in command acted with competence but were overcome by sheer numbers. His account of Major Reno,s action overcome the stories I have read of his inaction as well. For me this is the best account I have read,thank you for posting it.
+++++++++ !!!
like all of the indian accounts of this day, their words and stories have been edited, rewritten. they use the originals as a base and build on them. spruce them up. I doubt if Custer could've written any thing as eloquent as these stories are presented.
these are not windhoff's writings. his writings are in a book entitled "i fought with custer," meaning he marched into battle with custer's regiment but was not with custer's immediate command during the battle. had he been, he would not have survived to tell the tail, as no one of custer's immediate command was survived the fight. according to his book, windhoff's MOH was earned by volunteering to fetch water from a stream at bottom of reno's hill, where indians awaited, knowing how desperately water was needed by wounded situated at hilltop.
The “mainstream media” was as corrupt or even more corrupt as it is now… they “reported” that Custer and his men were incompetent so the public wouldn’t lost its stomach for war.
Custer was an incompetent idiot. His name should be removed from everything and he should be branded as a fucking total lunatic. I smile each time I hear about this reverse slaughter but I am sad that idiot Custer was the reason so many children soldiers lost their lives. So now let's rewrite history and portray Custer as what he truly was, a bumbling idiot.
It was said by the souix that the battle took as long as a hungry man eats a dinner
@Desolate-Undaunted Sioux is the whites version. They call themselves Lakota or Dakota.
A man called James Pym, born and bred in the same village as i was, Garsington, Oxfordshire, England, fought
on Reno hill. Like this gentleman quoted here, James Pym also won the Medal of Honour for his courage. There
are still Pyms living in Garsinton to this day.
that's so strange. I grew up in west Berkshire and i've never heard of Garsington until now lol. Maybe because I live in the USA these days and have forgotten.
@@dimwitsixtytwelve Garsington is only a small village, no reason you should have heard of it mate. James Pym won his
Medal of Honour for volunteering to leave Reno hill and cross open ground under heavy fire to fetch water from a creek
for his wounded and thirst maddened comrades. This he did several times until he was wounded himself, and could no longer go.
@@johnday6392 He would have got more plaudits if he managed to find some cans of Carling Black Label...and bring em back...
@@nialloneill5097 Nah mate, he wasa 19th century Garsington bloke, he would have spat that out. Now, if
he'd found some bottles of Clinches best bitter, he'd have definitely brought them back to his pals.
Courage for murdering children and women?
Custer with an army of 249 rode into the Sioux nation of 20 000 to 25,000 so how can bravery be confused with stupidity?
Custer had only 5 companies of the 7th cavalry. The other 7 companies were with Reno and Benteen on the hills above the river. Even with the casualties Reno had suffered attacking the village the combined commands held off the Indian attacks of superior numbers for a day and half with little trouble doing so.
I vote arrogance He did have a healthy respect for the plains Indians but apparantly his desire to be president of the US clouded his thinking and thought a successful battle to be a stepping stone.
@@foxykc No that is the movie hollywood Custer...
just make up numbers you know you want paleface🤣🤣
@@johngaither9263 you were there brave paleface🤣😂typical whitey embellishments
If you read the book No More Heroes Madness and Psychiatry In War, by the author Richard A Gabriel. There is an excellent account of the battle by Sioux warriors. This book one of my personal favorites, depict the realities of warfare long after the reporters, and noted biographers have left the battle field for their respective comfy chairs by the fire. Graphic in nature in describing the opioid crisis during and after the US Civil War. It is a must read for any serious historian. Custer is often depicted as some type of American Hero? but in reality, he finished dead last in his class at West Point. And in regards to this battle? his rock star sized ego clashed with the anger of Native Americans, in his ever lasting search for military glory
Custer has been viewed as incompetent and arrogant by most Americans since at least the 1960s.
History is always written by the victors. You have to dig if you want to find what really happened.
I have been at the site of Little Bighorn 3 times. I live in Wyoming not far from the battlefield in Montana. It is amzing how many pictures / paintings are wrong about the battle. It is rolling hills with some high grasses. No big boulders, no pine trees. After all of this time people still can't get this right.
One ting that you're forgetting - that in the USA history is nothing at all about remembering the event, it's all about remembering the Disney version of the event and all Americans are interested in seeing is the Museum to the Disney version of it.
Everything changes, nothing stays the same.
@@erichall6639 ...Not all Americans. People that treasure & study history would like an accurate description. Not a Hollywood version or as you call it, a Disney version.
There are numerous errors made in recording history. Your observations provide another example.
Humans need drama.
FyI- portraits of the surviving warriors were painted in the 1950's and all hang in the halls of the crazy horse musem in south Dakota. Their oral accounts were recorded and ive read them but have forgotten the book. Wandering through those portraits in the museum is worth it.
Charles wrote a book, "I fought with Custer".
Always read your mileswmathis updates daily.
Oòps
Never underestimate your opponent
and NEVER divide your force in the face of the enemy.
@@brianoidperson word's from Ancient Asian... a long with perch on the Cliffs and look down on the enemy....
@@Andrew-tx9jythe move Custer was trying to do had work for him in the past. Mostly because the Indians had always fled upon a surprise battle. benteen on the left and Custer on the right were trying to get ahead and close off the Indian escape but as we know they weren't going to flee this time. First Custer disobey the order to wait for the main party if they discovered the Indians and the fateful mistake was he didn't get eyes on the force he engaged prior to engagement.
Ah, but Custer saw the vainglory in the attack! Until he didn't.
It also didn't help (as I've read elsewhere) that Custer refused to take the new Gatlin guns that had recently been assigned to him, because he felt speed was more important than firepower. It's important to keep an open mind to new technological advances.
And listen to Sun Tzu.
The Battle of The Little Bighorn remains a profound and tragic episode in American history.
I would have thought the virtual annihilation of a race of people might be a tad more tragic.
I don't think that thought is one focused on by most of us especially the generations coming down the road. Sadly, this has been a common factor in human evolution where we destroy anything that gets in our way which will be our fate as well most likely. Don't forget how many indian tribes were probably eliminated through history before europeons even inhabited north america. It's one of the things humans are good at and is probably why we have survived for so long (at least during time scales from when we began).
You hit the nail on the head. He had his eyes on being a war hero eventually going to Washington as a politician. If you have ever been in combat, you know, glory has NO PLACE ON THE BATTLEFIED....It's scary enough without a 'fool' leading you to distruction..... Thanks for you comments......Me!
PS: Just ask all the Russian men going into the 'meat grinder' called Ukraine.....
@@mikeyoung9810 It's a dreadfully poor argument when you start bringing in the inter tribal wars before the Europeans arrived. I think that's a Westernised view that tries , and fails, to justify the European ethnic cleansing of a race of peoples.
Thank you for that, 66oggy.
I concur
"Pleeease Mr. Custer, I don't wanna go..."
"I had a dream last night...." always loved that song.
I remember that from Dr. Demento.
I remember that show.
Good one
LOL ! Ray Stevens!
Him and Dustin Hoffman were the only survivors. Yea when you attack people for no reason they get "hostile".
You mean like tribes attacking other tribes? And just like whites, they had reasons, land, and water they wanted.
Yeah but then Dustin Hoffman was holding one of Crazy Horses arms when the Soldier ran his Bayonet through his Guts Killing him till he was Dead
Hahaha. Them hostiles were hostile before any white people showed up. Hahaha
He then went on, many years later to have a successful acting career.
So why didn;t they asked Dustin Hoffman? He even has film on the battle.....
Let’s not forget, the Indians were fighting to keep their own land. This against the continuous “land grab” of the government and land speculators trying to grab as much settlor money as possible and to hell with the Indian nations who were already there.
I agree...it was a 'legalised' and 'justified' theft and genocide...except it cannot be justified...not in any shape or form. Many of the Natives were much more enlightened than their white counterparts...who only saw land, gold, and money in their eyes...all fool's gold..now look at the US and the world...WHO was backward?
Since you feel that way, you must give up your home, car and job... and get out of this country, you cowardly hypocrite. You enjoy the benefit won for you... then you insult the soldiers who won it for you.
And where do you live?
@@kenstclair453 New Zealand. And don’t start on how the English treated the Māori (original imhabitants).
The Little Big Horn area is not Sioux tribal lands nor the Cheyenne or Arapahos. Whose land were they fighting for then? Could it be they were fighting to keep from being returned to their reservation?
I read an account years ago by a Native American survivor of the battle. He said that Custer was one of the first to fall. The best book I've read on the subject is James Donovan's "A Terrible Glory - Custer and the Little Bighorn". It's one of those rare books, thoroughly researched, and captivating. You can't put it down.
Going from memory, I'm 99% certain that David Humphrys Miller mentions that in his book.
Another one I just earlier this yr is "Crazy Horse and Custer" by Stephen Ambrose.
Agreed… amazing book
Lao Tzu's Art of War manual: "know the number and strength of your enemy before attacking."
That's when thinking you know and actually knowing becomes problematic.
That would be Sun Tzu. Nice try
@@jamesmcbeth4463 When you graduate last in your class thinking you know is all you have.
Custer's body was removed from the Little Bighorn. He is buried at the cemetery at the United States Military Academy at West Point. It's marked with a beautiful marker showing scenes of the old west on it. I visited it often in the late 60's before and after my first tour in Vietnam. My grandmother raised me in Watertown, NY. She was born in Quebec, Canada, an Oka Mohawk Indian from the Iroquois Nation. I'm now retired from the USMC.
Actually they brought back bones they thought were Custer's and that was only after their second visit to the battlefield.
Custer was a mass murderer of Native American, especially women and children. He had comin everything that happened.
Semper Fi!
Wasn't the body of Custer missing HIS HEAD?
Thank you for your service friend. Salute and regards.
It never ceases to amaze me, how officers can lead good men to their deaths....needlessly..... US Army, 'nam vet....Nov '66 to Nov '67......May ALL my brothers and sisters REST IN PEACE.......
Hunger for glory killed Custer
Thank you for your service
Name one thing the Military has ever done right!
@@user-sp8eb6iz7f M&M's in the MRE's
"It never ceases to amaze me, how officers can lead good men to their deaths..." Opperative word is LEAD.
I find this account very difficult to believe. This ordinary soldier was somehow conversant with the orders emanating from Custer, the names of individual troops and their commanding officers, troop movements, dispositions of troopers and Indians, chains of command, tactical decisions, and was privvy to intelligence reports concerning the Indian positions and numbers? Really?? Not even Custer knew that much.
As he said, "I was not at the battle", all information was gathered later from various sources and accounts, he may well have had the ear of higher ranks who knows?? Seems more plausible than many other accounts of this a holes death
I too have serious reservations (no pun intended) about the veracity of this "account"
I find it difficult to believe too. It's ginned-up BS a century-and-a-half in the making. See Miles W. Mathis' account of Custer. (Always read your mileswmathis updates daily.)
Ever served in the US Army? Ask any soldier who their Chain of Command is made up of and they will tell you the chain up to and including the US President, if asked to go that far. It is part of your education in the history and customs of the Army when you are in Basic Combat Training, and it sticks with you for the rest of your life.
Its interesting actually, my adoption great relatives were there with the Cheyenne and it was always passed down through to family and from mom that Custer was shot whilst riding down from one ridge to another. They spoke about a few of the white soldiers wearing tan coats but one they said was leading the others when he slouched onto his saddle and someone lead the horse with him along a bluff. Considering the actions of the soldiers during that fight, id say they had a sudden jumble in leadership. Some confusion which lead to some soldiers bunching up, some moving and others taking ground. The Warriors won the day as soon as Custer decided to attack. That was no Sand Creek with women and children, but men ready for a fight.
I agree with JFK Our treatment of the American Indian is the real tragedy
American Indians terribly mistreated Whites: murders, raids, kidnapping and slavery... especially women and children. How can you be so naive?
Agreed, but we can’t seem to coexist with anyone. It’s like Chief Ten Bears said in the movie The Outlaw Josey Wales, “Governments are chiefed by the double tongued”
American Indians were also horrible to other tribes and to Europeans. The violence went both directions.
‘A profound and tragic episode’ for whom? The Native American village with women and children that was attacked? Custer wasn’t one of the good guys for heaven’s sake. The morality has been entirely inverted but myths last longer than the truth.
and don't forget about the gold supposedly in those hills some wanted.
War is tragic for all; in this case Custer was sent by the US army to punish the savages for attacks, murdering and raping of the settlers, which they loved to do. Only the hopelessly naive would believe Custer woke up one morning and decided "let's go and Kill Indians". Custer split his forces in two to catch the Indians in a crossfire, but the 2nd command never showed up. The result was the slaughter of 300 soldiers by overwhelming numbers. The loss of the 300 brave soldiers was one of the most tragic events of war here in the US. His name lives on and his heroism has not been forgotten.
@@bpp325 Yes...he had illegally led and fed men's greed for gold into the holy sites of the Black Hills...no respect whatsoever...
@@comptonboodhoo6504 Custer started it...taking greedy whites for gold...against all agreements...and slaughtering women and children in other showdowns...he had it coming...HE was the savage...and any reasonable person would have defended his people and sacred places against such an evil arrogant foe. He was not brave...he was arrogant and foolhardy! And did not care for human beings...including his own men and horses. Don't blame the Natives for defending what was THEIRS. There are many folk defend their own lands...such as against the Nazis...and what was the difference with the whites in the US...they were ruthless treacherous invaders...who needed putting to the sword...
@@nialloneill5097 the Sioux were from the Great Lakes region and that's where their holy sites were and it was the Iroquois that drove them off.
The cartridge used by the cavalry is pronounced "forty-five seventy", not "forty-five to seventy". It refers to a 45 caliber bullet propelled by 70 grains of black powder.
Technically, the cavalry carbine cartridge would be a .45-55, as it carried 15 fewer grains of powder than that intended for the infantry rifle. The two types of cartridge were outwardly identical, until in March 1877 the marking of the casing head with the month and year of production and either "C" for carbine or "R" for rifle began. (Some soldiers considered it a good joke to slip a full-power rifle cartridge into an unsuspecting cavalryman's carbine before he fired it.)
Those computer generated voices just read they have no smarts at all.
Thank you
I will never understand why the people who put out these videos don't check for accuracy before they post. So disheartening.
@@klcflyer these videos are "accounts" of the people who were there. no one is saying they are 100% accurate, they are just telling someone's story of events. all people involved in events will have different versions depending on place and time they were involved. in one case the narrator even mentioned the story teller was know to tell "stories", so the listener to take everything with a grain of salt. what's with the whine in the first place? life that bad?
I don't know Windhoff would have described Garibaldi as having fought for Italian independence because that's entirely wrong. He was fighting for Italian unification. Prior to that there was no Italy as a single nation. It was a collection of separate states which were brought together under the leadership of Camillo Benso, Count of Cavour and the house of Savoy.
Not Windhof but Martini !
My Uncle's last name is Martini originally from Italy. I believe this Martini bugler is a relative.
@@goaskmymom1350 he was spared by the sauvages because ha was rosso like them. It would have been different if he had belonged to the bianco branch of the family...
Dont you think you should have at least devoted to maybe a whole 10 seconds of what the calvary had done to the Indians, the horrific brutal treatment. Might be relevant to the Peoples motivation,
I totally agree
Cherokee accounts of the Battle are extremely accurate. No one knew who Custer was. That entire myth grew over time. Custer was a fool
No Cherokee were involved.
Custom may have been at the Little Big Horn, but he was a Civil War Hero and important American Serviceman
Arm-Chair Generals with the benifit of biased hind-sight still don't yet understand what happened or why.
@@HTub-bo2yl Your 100% right. It could be argued he very well may have saved the union army at Gettysburg.
He screwed up at the Little Bighorn costing the lives of those under his immediate command, but he non the less should be remembered as a hero that may have saved the Union.
@@larryhume2215 Think he means Cheyenne!
We owned a house on Washington Street in Lead, Sd. just above the open cut.and one day some people form the Museum stopped by and wanted to know if they could take some photos. That house was either lived in or owned by Charles. (I can not recall but the address was 318 Washington St.) I was friends with some older men in Lead, that when they were young - knew Charles when he was an old man, and tell me he used to get around using a pair of canes. Several of my kids have met met these men that knew him. This rather shrinks the time scale a bit. Several of my kids have met men that knew him. After he left the army, he later became a harness maker for the Homestake gold mine in Lead, SD. He Died March 11, 1950 making him the oldest white survivor of the battle. It was sometime in 2004 or so that the visit from the museum representatives that I found out that this little house I owned had historical significance.
There is a reason SO many books have been written about him and this event. HOT button stuff. Reading so many things it is clear that most thoughts say more about the writer than about Custer.
Native American accounts are the most accurate
You are correct !
I've listened to a few and they don't always agree with each other. different perspectives from different angles. one guy says he shot Custer, another was credited with shooting Custer, but says he didn't and that no one knew who, nor did the indians ever find his body. I've even heard Custer shot himself.
That’s a huge unverifiable stretch.
Well . I'm a native American and we were just as good at propaganda and making stuff up after a good puff of goodness knows what. Picking up white man terms like .....bollocks.😂😂😂
Yes as to what happened to Custer & his troops! Which is obvious no survivors except a horse! Numerous surviving calvary with Reno & Benteen to tell their parts
It’s time to paint this as a win for the oppressed that were defending their territory and families
The Iroquois and the Ojibwe oppressed the Sioux out of the Great Lakes region. Then the Sioux oppressed the Crow and Blackfeet out of the Dakota regions, who oppressed the Arapaho into Colorado, who oppressed the Ute over the mountains into the Western side of the Rockies, who oppressed the Navajo south into Arizona and New Mexico, where they were oppressed by the Apache, who were oppressed out of West Texas by the Comanche.
Then another tribe showed up and oppressed all of them.
Paint doesn’t change the shape
Killing Custer just got the Lakota and Cheyenne screwed out of whatever they could have negotiated. Custer's wife was a formidable evangelist. The "Indians" would have been better off surrendering. The tragedy at Wounded Knee was a direct result of their misunderstanding the European Heroic Myth. Custer's death was a direct result of his misunderstanding the Plains Indians.
Custer's demise was the result of his stupidity and his vainglorious attempts to recreate himself as a dead hero. He got what he was looking for, I guess, good and hard. I found it rather humorous that after the battle, the squaws drove sticks into his ears in order to say, "You didn't listen to us when we told you wed kill you if we attacked you. LOL
Oppressed? The Indian Wars lasted 350 years. Native American tribes were also brutal to other tribes, to their own people, their Women, etc.
I just visited the battle site and it looks nothing like the pictures used here. It is hills and grass land and no place to take cover. All of the advantages of the battle belonged to the Indians. Many mistakes at many junctures were made by Custer and the ultimate price was paid whether for his ego or his ignorance. I strongly recommend the battlefield tour to understand how the battle unfolded over 18 acres.
Custer didn't go there by his own volition. It was a seek and destroy mission courtesy of US Grant's infamously corrupt adminstration.
The "pictures" used here are from an AI's imagination. Someone put in text prompts and added whatever they got out of the AI in order to make this video. The narration was also AI - obvious once you notice the mispronunciation of certain words. I imagine that the entire narrative was done by someone instructing an AI bot to summarize the LBH battles. So take it all with a grain of salt.
Was there in July of this yr and concur. Hustled up to the Last Stand hilltop for the talk by the nps staffer about the events, he was awesome
@@michaelm.1947 The pictures are wonderful, but they don't represent the land around Custer's last stand.
@@StanfordCrane Please re-read what I posted. That's basically what I said. It's just random AI-created scenes that have nothing to do with the story.
Dead men tell no tales, witnesses tell no lies, all others spin and dance.
Always read your mileswmathis updates daily.
Germans have always been great warriors
I’ve read the highly detailed Native American version of this battle. It simply reads - We won.
Indeed they did, but not for long.
@@JonDingle … more’s the pity.
I think you read the short version
I'm sure your pea brain was happy to find an account with 5 letters divided into 2 words.
The sheer numbers of Indians, many of them better equipped with repeater firearms, signified only one outcome in a dustup. Had Custer only done his homework and properly reconnoitred the environment and village he would have realised that he had bitten off more than he could chew. Had he not split up sections under Benteen and Reno and sent in different directions it is distinctly possible that they would all have been wiped out to a man.
This is certainly possible, and yet it's hard to think what Custer was thinking. He wanted desperately to change his own status in the army back to what he thought it was in the Civil War, when he was the "Boy General" and the Hero to everyone. When he saw the Indian village he thought that this was another meeting of half-beaten Indians ripe for a quick and decisive whipping, and he was mostly afraid of them getting away. He knew how good he was, and that a quick charge would often result in victory, and also he was kind of used to having the other soldiers having his back in a pitched battle.
The Indians, unfortunately for Custer, were gathered in a large-scale convention, summoned by Bull Who Sits Down's vision and wishing to decide what to do about it; with other tribes watching, the tribes present were quite unlikely to run away and fight another day. Vastly outnumbering the 7th Cavalry soldiers, and using white soldier tactics, the Indians reacted and attacked swiftly - lots quicker than the unfortunate Army troopers could handle -- killing all of the US horse soldiers and then getting away as fast as they could; knowing the Whites would strongly retaliate if they were to stay with their families. The Indians mostly knew this victory would bring terrible retribution, and the American Army didn't let them down.
I believe that Custer asked for what happened to him. I also think that much of what most of America knows about this event is colored by Hollywood's(mostly Eastern-European) writers, the American public's desire to believe in the Manifest Destiny we learned about in school, and the US Military's unfortunate habit of thinking that they never make mistakes. I was in the US Army and have learned a lot of history, and I've learned a lot of the story from the Indian's perspective by living near First Nation communities and also Canadians.
You HAVE to also remember that America was celebrating it's Centennial in Philadelphia when news of Custer's debacle reached his fellow Americans -- horribly embarrassing us in front of Representatives of the rest of the world; there was a working example of Alexander Bell's telephone, and many other impressive achievements we could be proud of -- when America was made to look REALLY bad, especially the Army. The American Indians were mostly doomed, and were considered Bad Guys in America long into the 20th century. They were the "others" we fought as kids when we played "Cowboys and Indians" up until the mid-1960s. And even though they have casinos and now are considered grudgingly accepted as fellow Americans, they'll never be considered not guilty of somehow unfairly murdering Custer's gallant band of dashing horse soldiers.
@pdubya. ...and listened to his Indian scouts, instead of calling them cowards.
Custer led his men around to the northwest side of the encampment. His plan was probably impromptu and certainly not well thught out. He intended to attack the women who were holding the horses for the men. He found out they weren't exactly the dainty types. This soldiers account doesn't even make reference to Custer's foolish tactical plan, nor does it refer to Captain Benteen's wise refusal to come to Custer's aid when it was far too late. Capt. Bentern was out on trial but acquitted of disobeying Custer's order to "come quick."
Ego maniacs don’t care about anything other than their own thoughts!
Splitting up his command was his biggest mistake.
At 2:00 minutes they look like revolutionary war soldiers...
Yeah, I laughed at that too! I suspect, that image came from AI.
I noticed that too. I had to look twice, I thought I was imagining things. The figure second from the right. looks like he's wearing a kilt, ha ha.
Many of the pictures have nothing to do with the battle.
@@gfblack5307 [ have nothing to do with the battle ] They are simply filler.
According to what I've read ( an excellent book by the historian Stephen Ambrose entitled ' Custer and Crazy Horse ' ) there were survivors from Benteen's and Reno's detachments but none from Custer's force. Ambrose described a scene where Custer was outflanked and trapped in a small valley. It was Crazy Horse who outmaneuvered him. Crazy Horse had learned battle tactics from previous encounters with the U.S. Cavalry.
Read that one years ago. Must re read.
What gets my goat, the Sioux lobbied and eventually changed the name of Haney Peak in the Black hills because Haney was in battles where Women and Children of the Sioux tribe were killed. Now there is a monument to Crazy Horse being carved out of a mountain in the Black Hills, but Crazy Horse not only killed US Troopers at this battle but also was responsible for the killing of women and children on homesteads in the Dakota's during his days as a warrior. Good for the Goose, good for the Gander, let us stop this monument to a killer being raised in our South Dakota treasure, the Black Hills.
The correct name is or was HaRney peak (after the general William Selby Harney who had massacred Sioux women and children in 1855...), It has been changed in 2016 for Black Elk, a noted Lakota medecine man. The Black Hills were a Sioux sacred territory stolen by the US not respectifs the treaties. If the Indians have been responsible for lots of atrocities, do not forget the whites have committed massacres as well including mass murders (Sand Creek, Washita, Wounded Knee etc), and who was leading the troops at Washita ? George Armstrong Custer.
I think this name's change is a deserved symbol of reconciliation.
Ambrose is a proven plagiarist. Find out Ambrose's sources and read them.
Something wrong about defending your Land and property 😔?
while you have always been oppressed !!!
Gabby Hayes categorised them as "Pesky Redskins "
must have been part of the vernacular back in the days.
@@jamesmulvey1386 or Hostiles.... Backed off of sworn treaty's, not very honorable to this day. .
the Sioux took that land and property from the Crow and the Blackfoot.
@@brAveNewWorld-q3n Yes but eventually all of it ended up with the Pilgrim's?
Custer was shot down in the battle, dont try to make him a hero, custer was an expert in attacking unarmed women and chidren.
So were the Indians in tribal wars long before Europeans arrived. Also taking slaves.
Pretty sure the Indians weren’t unarmed. Custer was pushed by General Sheridan and General Terry to attack. His orders were also not followed by Reno and Benteen. A number of failures lead to his slaughter. Ultimately Custer underestimated the Crows and paid for it.
He was nothing but filth
Most Indian tribes were expert in killing white babies, toddlers and small children - then removing their scalps while still breathing.
Were you there? Custer was an expert in Cavalry tactics. He knew that if he held the village of women and children, the warriors would lay down their weapons and surrender. It worked ALMOST every time.
Hardly a tragedy. Custer was intent on wiping out an Indian village and got the shock of his life. Live by the sword, die by it……
Custer was ignorant
Another "expert".
Didn't all the prominent Indian leaders of the Plains tribes also "live by the sword""? (Or bow and lance and gun and hatchet, anyway.) Check out the Battle of Massacre Canyon in 1873 to see how the Lakotas were amusing themselves a few years before Custer's last battle.
How do you figure he was intent on wiping out an indian village when he was supposed to round them up and send them to reservations, he had no intention of wiping them all out
@@bustedford. To the reservations? In your dreams. He was there to deal with ‘the Indian problem’.
Charles Windolph, survivor of the battle of Little Big Horn, who fought Native Americans using bows and arrows, died in 1950, five years after atomic bombs were dropped on Japan by high altitude American bombers.
You do know that the men with Custer were significantly outgunned by the Indian warriors at Little Big Horn? They had repeating rifles. Custers men had single shot. What a sad sight it must’ve been for that small group of brave, overly confident men.
@@toman7957a lot were also killed by arrows
@@toman7957 [ men with Custer were significantly outgunned by ] Umm, plus, umm, they crested the last hill, and saw more Indians in one place than they had ever seen in their lives.
No soldiers survived battle!!
Just looked this up to fact check - sorry! Gosh!
In grade school 1940s I wrote a paper on the "Battle of the Little Bighorn " At the time I found 5 different versions
Over the years, I've continued to find additional versions of American and Native
This adds credence to the quote of Col David Hackwith
"History is often two totally different WARS from foxholes side by side
There is a common practice in law schools that on the first session of an incoming class to stage some outrageous stunt and then have the students write down what they saw. You get as many different accounts of what happened as there are students. The point is to make the students realize that eye-witness reports are not the absolute description of what happened.
I read "Son of the Morning Star"
Very good account of this.
The Springfield sounds like the M16A1, we issued in Vietnam! Wrong powder caused many a Marine’s death. Semper Fi, medically retired in 1970.
Worse. It was the same problem the Brits had at Islwanda about the same time: no repeating rifles. Although repeating rifles were over a decade old at the time, both the War Department in the US and the War Ministry decided on single shot Enfields - if memory serves... at least one army used Enfields. Hrnce, cartridges were loaded one at a time and fire rates were far less than US Cav units in the Civil War.
The pictures on here make little or no sense, most of them having nothing to do with the story ! I especially like the one with the guys with two right arms !
@@jimpomac lts what is known as fake news, a CNN production.
Isn't generative AI great...
Many of these RUclips historical videos are nothing more than historical written accounts that are put to sound by a computer generated voice, and they throw some old pictures on here, and voila they make money from posting these. Often, they will purposely post incorrect information to get more people to comment, that is part of getting the video pushed out to more people, and the more people that view this (like me), the better the analytics, and the more the creator is paid.
@@Larry_M6790hey i got alot of drunkin driving muffler draggin stories from back in the day. wit pics too. where can i find an AI?
Custer was not a General at the time of the battle.
When he died he was a lieutenant colonel.
@@peterjordaan5147 That's what I thought, PJ, but a commenter insists he was a Brevet Major-General in June 1876.
@@wildbillharding After the Civil War there were so many generals, there was even one turned in to a sergeant again. I have my info from TIME-LIFE BOOKS, 'The Soldiers'.
Custer was a brevet Major General of volunteers at the end of the civil war. He was briefly demoted all the way down to Captain in the regular army. Sherman got him promoted to major and finally to Lt. Colonel of the 7th cavalry.
One of my Great, Great, Great Uncles died at the battle of the little big horn. He was camping in the other valley and went over to find out what all the racket was about.
Good idea to mind your own bussiness i'd say!
Did you ever get a refund on his site fees?
@@Andrew-tx9jy 😅
That's a joke right?
@@CharlesMooradian He was really there. I saw him. I was too lazy to go over with him, though.
RIP great, great, great unc.
excellent account of the action. Still gotta root for the natives fighting for their lands and lives.
How romantic it seems... Most of the people that native americans slaughtered were poor uneducated white people (women and children) just trying to build a new life and survive. For centuries before the "white man" arrived native american war parties killed and raped other native american tribes on a regular basis and taking survivors as slaves.
Keep in mind these men you're "rooting" against were US veterans no different than Iraq or WW2 soldiers.
No innocent parties in this fight. Indians have been guilty of preying on each other for centuries. Raping killing and pillaging their own people. Same for the White man.
The information being provided here is incorrect. I have read more than one accounts of the battle and there were no survivors except Indians.
Miracles do happen, and it is possible that one US soldier did survive, but because of the loss of 300 men the battle was extensively investigated by the Army immediately after the tragedy. If there were survivors this would have been revealed.
The Indians scalped all the men except Custer, and they mutilated all the bodies. A survivor would have had to escape death, scalping and mutilation with the place swarming with Indians.
We live in an age where there are more than 100 million utube accounts; an age where some people are consciously engaged in re-writing history for various reasons; so I am not surprised to see a story like this.
We should care about accuracy, but I am afraid there will always be dubious accounts of history.
I don't think you understand. Custer's men perished but many other soldiers survived.
Walt Disney told us that Custer's horse: Comanche, was a survivor.
Custer and the 5 companies with him were wiped out. Most of the other 7 companies with Reno and Benteen survived.
@@grantkruse1812 Comanche was not Custer's horse. That distinction goes to Vic.
I am proud of the native americans or natives. They were not corrupt
Indians were just as corrupt as Europeans... or more corrupt.
You’re a buffoon.
No human is Native to the Western Hemisphere. Everyone is an immigrant. The Indians ancestors just arrived first.
@@johngaither9263 prove it paleface you got nothing.
Spend a year near the reservation, then tell me they were not corrupt.
Good trick at minute 9:50. The Indians have 2 hands on the bow and still have one hand drawing the bow string to the rear. So of course the Indians had to win because they were genetically superior. Have often wished for a third hand attached to the center of my chest. Where can I go to get this change?
How do you know they didn't use their wee wees??
someone picked a bad picture. someone evidently drew or made a bad picture. someone just had to whine about it. good trick.
that warrior had the foresight to go to the local 2nd hand shop before the battle....
Artificial 'intelligence'.
handy andy's
Custer refused 3 extra gatling machineguns; reinforcements were in the area but refuse to reinforce his arrogance. Yes, it’s true that General George Armstrong Custer refused to take Gatling guns with him to the Battle of the Little Bighorn. He believed that the guns would slow down his troops due to their weight and the difficult terrain. Additionally, there were reinforcements nearby, but Custer chose not to wait for them, likely due to his desire to achieve a swift and decisive victory.
Critics argue that these decisions were influenced by Custer’s overconfidence and desire for personal glory. However, it’s also important to note that the effectiveness of Gatling guns in that specific battle scenario is still a matter of debate among historians. - BARD
Lieutenant Colonel Custer.
Indeed; the gatling guns were very large, considered artillery by the troops back then, they would probably have not made a great difference as they would have stayed with the pack trains. Perhaps Benteen could have used them when he and Reno set up defensive positions but if you have been to the battlefield you would know there was not a lot of cover even for the troops who came late to the battle, they suffered from sniper shots till the Indians withdrew and headed for Canada. Now if they would have had a few M-60's.....
Have you ever rode horseback across any country like that in the American west. I have.... and done lots of it. I wouldn't blame Custer for not wanting to take them. Infact it would be hard enough to travel 4 abreast!
@@wazzamagoodiddlydoo Custer had attained the rank of Major General during the Civil War. Although this was a Brevet Rank, it was common for the men in his command to refer to him as General Custer after the Civil War as a sign of respect even though his official rank was Lieutenant Colonel. It was common practice at that time to continue to refer to military officers by the highest rank that they had attained even though it was a Brevet or temporary rank.
In the first sentence, “…one of the few survivors.” There were ≈ 700 calvary and scouts. Of those about 475 survived. So a lot were killed, but almost 500 is not “a few.”
Exactly.
AI hard at work.
No matter where or who you hear it from or read people will always form an opinion like myself! Custer was a hero during the Civil War no doubt but he seemed to have had a huge ego too! Mistakes were made & orders not followed during the Greasy Grass Battle! The bottom line the Native American forces won the battle but ultimately lost the war!
Go the battlefield in Montana & see for yourselves & imagine being a participant on either side! Draw your own conclusions if you will! I'm glad that we've come along way & even the Indians got a beautiful memorial out there on those hills!
Been there.
Custer was no hero. He graduated last in his class at West Point. The army sent him to that last battle knowing how reckless he was and hoped he would get killed. Too bad about the men with him and any native people who died. Custer was a big part of the national disgrace of the treatment of the native people.
@@patriciapryke6577 Maybe not a hero in the Indian war, but a hero at Gettysburg. His actions just may have saved the Union when he defeated Stuart in the Confederate attempts to attack the union lines in the rear.
His last words were I CANT UNDERSTAND IT. THEY WERE SINGING AND DANCING LAST NIGHT 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂🏴🏴🏴🏴🏴
I have a visual 😂😂😂
Yeah, right. Archeological evidence shows that Custers men ran and were massacred when running
Custer was an egotistical fool, who replaced competence with bravado and recklessness. He divided his forces while being faced with a enemy of unknown numbers. He disobeyed commands of his superiors to wait until the other two columns linked up with him. During the Civil War he charged his cavalry units until the enemy broke, but with horrendous casualties. In the end he got his entire command almost wiped out, while accomplishing nothing. It did, however, push the US Army to renew with more vigor its campaign against the Native American population, and was the beginning of the end for them and their way of life.
yeah Custer wasn't all that hot of a general. but just who were his superiors in this case? during the civil war he disobeyed his superiors as mentioned, not at Little Big Horn. the clown even tried civilian life after the CW, but was a failure there too.
You are wrong. Custer was an American hero who was a fearless fighter. He did not care about numerical odds.
At the battle of Little Big Horn he split his forces in three, he commanded 300 men while Major Marcus Reno commanded a smaller detachment and Captain Frederick Benteen commanded another.
The plan was for Custer’s group to attack the Indian village while the other two groups would come up behind the Indians as they crossed the river to face Custer’s command. The Indians would have been caught in a crossfire.
But Reno and Benteen’s groups never showed. They would say at the inquiry that Custer never gave them any orders. It is more likely that they were scared of the overwhelming numbers and got cold feet. The village was 20,000 strong.
@@comptonboodhoo6504 Custer was an imbecile, only hero to other imbeciles. Yes he had fantastic results in the CW alway at high cost to his men through reckless decisions. He was only good at killing women and children and old men when it came to native people. How can you hero worship the twat for gods sake.
@@comptonboodhoo6504 history tells a different story, the one I believe. maybe, just maybe someone should go back and read the actual history. he led his men on what the japanese called bonzi charges during the civil war, against orders. he failed in civilian life and had to return to the army to go commit genocide on the native americans.
Thanks for your ignorance of the facts and your baseless opinions.
Custer received his just due. What is most sad about this event is the number of soldiers Custer commanded to their death. When ego takes over common sense the outcome is rarely good. Custer is, was, never will be a hero.
Don’t think Custer and his men deserved anything less than what they received at the Battle. Ego may have killed Custer and his men. But if it weren’t for his ego, the Native American bands would have suffered the major defeat. Would the alternative outcome have been better? Didn’t the US Government eradicate enough Native Americans? Plenty more after the killing of Custer.
Custer and many other US military leaders did more than enough killing of Native Americans. This murderous push was almost a sport. The enlisted men may have wrote home about disliking the campaigns, but they all participated.
@@brokl26 The Native Americans eradicated plenty of Whites. You hate Whites and prefer Native Americans!
Custer had it coming.
His luck ran out. Go check out The Far Side comic called Custers Last View.
Custer was a reckless glory-hunting fool who disobeyed orders in his attempt to attack before the rest of the army came.
"We all have it coming kid."
but not his troops.
Son of the Morning Star by Evan S. Connell is a good one. I have one I can't find from the POV of the Sioux and Cheyenne. Custer cut his hair before the battle because he feared being scalped. Apparantly he got shot as they cross the river and possibly even dead by the time of the "last stand". This battle is a prime example of everything that can go south if your commander (Custer) is so egocentric he disobeys HIS commanding officer and underestimates the enemy.
Yes, and if I remember correctly, the book says that the Indians didn't know it was Custer till after the battle.
But remember Custer graduated last in his class, so what he did was pretty predictable. If he hadn't f*cked up at the Little Big Horn he would have f*cked up later.
The key element to this battle was the unlikely and unexpected alliance of the Sioux, Cheyenne and Arapaho tribes. The level and coordination of this alliance was unknown to the US Army. Indian scouts working for the Army erred in their reports that around 800 hostiles were in the Little Bighorn area. Their mistake was using numbers that had left the reservation under Sitting Bull, but were unaware of efforts to organize an alliance with the other tribes leading up to the battle. If the Army had good intelligence, it's likely they would have had a larger and more powerful force and certain decisions would have changed. Custer, for example, refused to take Gatling Guns with him as he forded the river to outflank the village. With Gatling crews, his men might have withstood the attack by a much larger force. Also, the strategy taken by Custer was not to really fight the indians, but to prevent their escape. He was sure that his forces were greatly superior, and had no fear of dividing his forces or leaving supply trains in the rear.
The 7th Cavalry were not supposed to be in Native American lands. They faced legitimate foes fighting for their culture and way of life!
Gee, I always thought that the 7th was there to force the natives back to their reservations, which they had left unlawfully, violating the treaty they had signed.
they were fighting for their very lives. the army was killing them as in genocidal killing.
@@mikeadams2351 Indians also killed Whites... in genocidal murder sprees.
@@mikeadams2351 Nonsense. Sheridan said, "the only good Indian I ever saw was dead" not Custer. Custers job was to return them to the reservation. The only way he could do that is by seizing the women and children. The warriors couldn't be forced to do anything because they knew the terrain and the cavalry couldn't catch them when they were on horseback.
@@johngaither9263 yeah Custer and his men never just raided indian villages and killed anything that moved.
Lest we forget, Custer was the invader, killing indians indiscriminately. This was genocide, pure and simple.
travesty in truth --- absolute !!!
You don't know what genocide is.
What is génocide, if not what happened to native américains? @@user-hv2ru2mq5u
@@user-hv2ru2mq5u Yes, he does. The US military rounded up Indians and put them in death camps "reservations" and then practiced biological warfare against them by giving them blankets with smallpox on them. Hitler got the idea of death camps from the US.
@@user-hv2ru2mq5uWhat was happening to the Native Americans was genocide. Loss of life, language, culture, land, forced religion, forced name changing etc…That pretty much sounds like genocide.
'Its crazy horse its crazy horse I wish you were here to see. I got yellow hair cornered at the bighorn and I'm about to set him free"
J. D. Blackfoot , you nailed it .
What’s sad is a land was invaded and stolen and Indians were murdered!
Are you talking about when the Govt, took it from the Sioux, or when the Sioux took it from the Cheyenne, or when the Cheyenne took it from the Crow?
@@sld2155 Too many facts will overload this numbnutts.
my grandfather, back in Pennsylvania, was 13 at the time of the Battle of Little Bighorn...must have read about it in a newspaper.
I bet the Battle of Little Big Horn remains a tragic event in Native American history too…! 😮
My thoughts exactly, no mention here of what the actual losses were for each side. Which would have given the account greater perspective. I grew up with a skewered view of events courtesy of 1950's Western movies and 1960's television shows. As an old dude now I have a completely different view of who were the victors and who were victims. It is true that the Indian tribes were fighting amongst themselves and taking lands from each other well before the arrival of the British in Plymouth. But the genocide that occurred later makes it pale into insignificance.
@@coolhand1964 Very much so...
One of my Lakota ancestors, Little White Man, took part as a young teenager.
A very informative and interesting account of this famous battle.
I love the scene at 9:50 with the native holding bow with BOTH hands, but what is he using to pull the bowstring back????
There's a hand on the bow string. I guess he's a special kind of Indian.... with THREE hands 😄
No amount of description can prepare you for the actual scene and gravestones marking where warriors of both sides fell.
The park is a good job too with these panoramic paintings that line up with the scenery behind it so you can really see how everything laid out Amazing
my great grandfather was in the infantry that Custer did not wait for (Terry ?) -- his unit "found" Custer and he collected a couple of arrows actually from the battlefield (as I remember they had metal arrowheads - tin?). He joined up in 1876 ... He claimed he was 18. But he was 16. My grandmother claimed that the army knew he lied and made him into a "musician". gave him a bugle apparently as well as a rifle.
Natives employed barrel hoops to fashion metal arrowheads.
On the other side Chief Low Dog (Lakota) has the best first hand account documented.
Awful AI stuff
You a actor or artist? Better learn to code.
I just paused it at 10 minutes to count the hands on each man - the first man has two hands holding the bow and something else holding the end of the arrow 😂
This private was not a witness; it's hearsay from a few soldiers that somehow managed to cower away. Gotta say, this is beautifully illustrated!
As long as you don't look too closely at the many distortions and weirdness of AI generated art - like soldiers with skull faces, or revolutionary war soldiers appearing at LIttle BIghorn, nonexistent flags & insignia, etc.
I think you got it mixed up on who the hostiles were.
The land belonged to the Crows, not the Sioux, Cheyenne and Arapaho.
Still does.
Custer finally got the point.
The standard rifle was the single shot 1873 model Springfield. The mule-shot Spencer had passed into private hands by then. The firepower of the indians was far in excess of that of the troops. Custer had two Gatling Guns at the fort. He elected not to take them with him. Gatling Guns had a rate of fire of about 500 round per minute and were quite accurate at that time.
Before you think about defending Custer, read Connel’s book. He was an asshole. His men dud not deserve it but he did. The book is called Son of the Morning Star. The reason for the title I’d that the Custer usually attacked sleeping villages very early in the morning. To me, this was the act of a coward. His men hated him, by the way.
is that different from D-Day? or Washington crossing the Delaware in the dead of night? Or Caesar or Hannibal or Napoleon or Eisenhower or Grant or Charles xii and thousands more all of whom attacked at dawn? what about using a trojan horse so they could attack a sleeping village very early in the morning?
I did 8 years in the US Army in the 70's, I had commanding officers I hated, some that I loved, it all depended on their leadership ability and their treatment of the troops that served them.
The thing that almost never comes up related to Little Big Horn is that Custer was one of three generals there, and he was NOT the ranking officer. He was the lowest ranked General. The other two generals were within ear shot of the battle but chose not to advance in the battle's direction. A review board was convened and covered in the Chicago newspapers of the time. The other generals kept quiet as much as they could and Custer came out looking the worst. The army never covered up what happened. But they were embarrassed enough that they never corrected the future reporting and stories, and they never really gave any help to Custers widow as she worked to clear his name.
Which Generals and where exactly were they?
@@davidforbes7772 Brigadier General Alfred Terry and Brigadier General George Crook. Terry was there, Crook was delayed.
Soldiers had "45 TO 70 caliber" rifles. That's funny. Reno didn't spread his men 75 yards apart. No wonder history gets messed up. Little things matter....
I noticed that too, 75 yards apart would be a ridiculously wide spacing of troops
Cowboys and Indians Magazine: Near the end of his life, Custer began a second serialized memoir in [The] Galaxy magazine. He tried to explain the failure of his hero, Gen. George B. McClellan, in part by noting that he was elevated to high rank without an internship at lower levels of command. The same was true of Custer, though his personal strengths and flaws were the mirror image of McClellan’s. Custer excelled as a combat commander - inspirational, courageous, and highly competent. In wartime his men loved him. But he failed as a manager under routine circumstances. He compensated with a high-handed manner, alienating subordinates and superiors. In this he resembles other controversial combat leaders, such as Patton or Col. David Hackworth. Custer had confidence in himself in battle, but he suffered insecurities that led him to lash out recklessly up and down the chain of command.
indians defending their ancestral land...fighting for what belonged to them.
Umm, they disposed people too
@@shantor100 Don't tell the dope that. He'll get confused with his hate-Whitey narrative.
Like all invasions, those who were on the land lost their war and were removed from the land, to the victor go the spoils, in this case the land. The Indians were just hunting the land, the winners began to farm it and produce the food you now enjoy, had the Indians kept it you would not be enjoying that bread, perhaps a bison steak once in awhile if the Indians would allow you to come on their land to hunt. During the Covid crap, the Sioux in South Dakota closed the Highway through their reservation to all whites to keep the covid from reaching their reservation. they had armed guards at the border of the reservations. Our motels were filled with travelers who had to bypass the reservation and travel an extra 100 miles to get around them. Go ahead root for the losers.
NO.This is not his account.Its the one written for him which he signed as a true and accurate representation.Its very much the official version which he was almost obliged to go along with-especially with a CMH dangling in front of him.Remember he could bearly speak or write above the very basic english.
I worked for a CREE one winter his first words to me were."Do you wear an arrow shirt?"
First of all, Windolph was not "one of few survivors" of the 7th Cavalry. Most of the 600 or so troopers survived the battle, although many were wounded. Second of all, Custer was not a general, but a lieutenant colonel. He had once held a brevet rank of brigadier general in the Civil War. Thirdly, Custer and the five troops did not first encounter the Sioux on the northern bluffs. The five companies attacked the village and reached the banks of the Little Big Horn, where they were driven back. Some troopers died in the river. Custer and his men tried to retreat back to high ground, but found that hundreds of Sioux and Cheyenne warriors under Chief Gall had circled around them and were pouring over the bluffs above the river. There was no hope for Custer and his men, although one of his Crow scouts managed to escape in the battle that followed.
Hostiles ---- imagine being a hostile in your own land ---- Adolph never thought of that one when he endeavoured to put the Russians on to a reservation --- 6 feet under the sod.
Your own land??? The conquerors decide who owns the land and we know who the conquerors are: the Europeans...the people who literally conquered all countries on earth with the exception of 24. Of course they gave it all back after centuries.
Custer was a narcisstic who wanted to be more than he should have been...even by the standards of his fellow Union troops during the CW. Someone like Grant, Lee and Sherman would have not led those troops to their demise. The U.S. should have preserved a greater portion of the American west for the natives but, at that time in history, the cultural mindsets were vastly different.
Custer should have left the Sioux alone. He broke the treaty, and they responded. Fucked Around & Found Out
The Indians broke the treaty when they fled their reservation. The US broke the treaty when they allowed gold hunters in the Black Hills. The Sioux originally came from the Minnesota area. How did the Black Hills become so holy to them when they were new to the area?
@@johngaither9263 a Reservation that the Government put them on AFTER STEALING THEIR LAND. Shame on you
It was given to them by treaty. Forever... oh wait. We found gold. Lots and lots of it. Nevermind!
Look at the history of the world. In most any land on any continent there are battles for the land, the winners often remove the losers or chase them from the land, this is not new to America, hell it isn't even new to Dakota or Montana before the whites came the Indians fought over hunting rights and water rights, they often killed off entire villages of their enemy, it was a way of life. When the Whites arrived we began a process of trying to bring our idea of civilization to a new land We won the battle, the Indians have been complaining ever since. I live in South Dakota on land that was once a part of the great Sioux Reservation, I own my little plot of land with my little white ranch style home in the middle of our little town named after one of the cowboys who hunted for the Railroad as they moved westward toward the West Coast of our great nation. It is my land, it was won from the Indians in battles that took place from Minnesota to Montana. The Indians were the losers, they have been treated badly but so have many others in the past history of peoples of this earth, look at Europe and Asia in their early battles to resist civilization.
To me, Custers biggest mistake, as mentioned by someone below, was going off without his machine guns, (Gatling guns). The firepower of those weapons would likely have made a huge difference in the outcome. Of course I'm biased. I was a US Navy machine gunner on Mekong riverboats 1968-1969, River Assault Squadron 13. 20mm aircraft cannons, MA2 50 cal, M1911 30 cal (7.62 NATO), MK19 40mm grenade launchers and M16s in a pinch. I loved my guns. They saved our butts. The knowledge of Custer leaving his most powerful weapons behind dumbfounds me. SMFH.
Custer was a moron, he got everybody killed! And some people talk of him like he was some kind of hero? He was one ignorant bastard!
Excellent presentation. Thanks for sharing
I nead to read more stories about Custer since recently staying in Custer, SD has peaked my interest to learn more.
Hard to believe 150 years later we are refighting Custer's Last Stand. With all of the newly found experts who present varying accounts, who are we to believe? I wasn't there and I don't know. Maybe it was just as simple as Custer in his vain quest for glory misjudged the size of the force he was up against and wound up being slaughtered.
Jack Crabb gave an excellent account of Custer's last stand........................
I believe the battle continues to resinate with the public is the fact that there were no survivors under Custer's immediate command. Nobody knows what actually happened that day to cause Custer's command being wiped out to a man. Had there have been a few survivors that battle probably would be just a footnote in our history. Theories abound about when Custer had been killed. Was he killed at the ford or did he die on last stand hill. Did his brother shoot him in a mercy killing or did he die at the hands of the Indians? Why were the troops so scattered? We'll never know the answers of what happened that day and that's the very reason the battle lives on in our minds.
You are right 150 years later we are refighting Custer Last Stand, But the real problem is we have a lot of haters in America, that hate this country. And what it stands for and they are the ones making bad comments here because they want to destroyed all of our history in this country and they are doing a good job of it. America needs to put in laws to protect our history now before it is too late.
Tragic episode? How so? WE stole the land from the Indians by breaking every treaty made with them. Then marched them with their babies by their frozen and bleeding feet to the lands we felt were worthless. America has a horrible history of causing suffering, death and slavery to those we feel are lesser. There was no "new" beginning in America for those that travelled here from Europe. It was nothing more than an extension of the brutality and greed of the British Empire. Still is.
Good on the Indians, they have always had a bad deal from the US and its Army. The Indians could never rely on the Government telling the truth and keeping to its treaties.
did they call the native american forces "indians"? i thought they referred to them as "hostiles"
Custer attempted to encircle the village, just to be clear, the warriors were in various positions for battle while the women, children, and elders were in the village. There was nothing brave or valiant about Custer. The Indians demonstrated heroic bravery while defending the country, something Indians took into every war since those days as soldiers in the various branches of service for the United States.
Custer fought the Indians the only way he could. Capture the warriors' families and they would cooperate. Otherwise they would flee while their families did the same.
Just like “Blackhawk Down” they rode in with “righteous indignation “
Did anyone in Washington get asked why their troops didn’t have repeating rifles whilst the enemy did, and how long was it before the cavalry were issued with them.
Yes, the military wanted range, low cost and durability which the Springfield was deemed superior to repeating rifles in test. The Sioux because of Custers foolishness were able to get into effective firing range for the repeaters that they had. The large of Sioux also helped to overwhelm the troops.
The Springfield cartridge was changed to a brass case to prevent jamming
Custer didn't want to bring the Gatling guns. He felt it slowed his cavalry down, having to drag then every where.
@@jeffnorris8848 Actually there were more Cheyenne in the battle than Sioux, but don't let facts get in the way.....
@@sld2155
You think Windolph knew that or even Washington at the time ?
The same fuck ups now with the military as there was then .. our so called leaders don’t learn..
No one talks about the strategy of the Indians in that battle. No one also talks about the strategy of the Zulus in the battle of Isandlhwana where the British troos were annihilated by witty Africans.
Makes me sick. Humanity at its worst!!!