Custer wins Little Big Horn

What has to happen for him to win? Should he have taken the reinforcements from General Terry, and not left his Gatling guns on the Yellowstone river? Howabout not dividing his command? Furthermore, if his subordinates had been faster to respond, maybe some elements of his command could have been saved.

I am also curious what Custer would have done after a successful battle. I believe he was all about the media, would he have tried for public office? What about a President Custer?
 
Perhaps the "Custer's Revenge" video game for the Atari wouldn't have been made. That would probably be a good thing.

Only probably?

That game doesn't even deserve the dignity of being flame bait.

To Chewy:
I'm not sure Custer has the forces with just the 7th Cavalry to win. The Gatlings and reinforcements should tip the scales, but I wouldn't swear to it.
 
He continues his falling out with President Grant and probably winds up cashiered when he overreaches himself due to a MacArthur-level ego in the wake of Little Big Horn.
 
He continues his falling out with President Grant and probably winds up cashiered when he overreaches himself due to a MacArthur-level ego in the wake of Little Big Horn.

And presumably, no one is as impressed by his accomplishment there as anyone else.

Incidentally, didn't Terry say OTL that if Custer had survived he'd have been court martialed?

Forget why or if any of the PODs address this, though.
 
And presumably, no one is as impressed by his accomplishment there as anyone else.

Incidentally, didn't Terry say OTL that if Custer had survived he'd have been court martialed?

Forget why or if any of the PODs address this, though.

Custer behaved insubordinately and tried to embarrass President Grant during one of the Reconstruction-era scandals involving his brother Orville. He was let fight on Sheridan's request, at which point with his glory gained politics would have re-intervened and he'dve been dismissed from service thereafter.
 
What has to happen for him to win? Should he have taken the reinforcements from General Terry, and not left his Gatling guns on the Yellowstone river? Howabout not dividing his command? Furthermore, if his subordinates had been faster to respond, maybe some elements of his command could have been saved.

I am also curious what Custer would have done after a successful battle. I believe he was all about the media, would he have tried for public office? What about a President Custer?

In a word, no! Custer had some 647 troopers under his overall command versus any number of Sioux warriors. Wiki gives some 1,800 and recent recreations that I saw recently on History and on the Science Channels gave maybe as many as 5,000. :eek:
Added to this was the fact that the Sioux had the advantage of knowing the terrain and being able to utilize it in their attack. While the Cheyenne (who attacked from another quarter) were mounted, many of the Sioux were on foot and able to swarm up the various coulees to be able to get within as close as thirty to forty feet from the exposed troopers to pick them off. :eek:
Even if Custer had brought up the gatling guns, they wouldn't have been able to make much of a difference in the end (a gatling gun is not a hand-held machine gun in that it can't be used to track a target all that well).
Actually, his best bet would have been to follow orders and wait for Terry, Crook, and Gibbon (although Crook was set back because of the Battle of the Rosebud and turned back - unbeknownst to the others) so that they could have attacked the Native Americans en masse. :(
 
Although not due to winning the Little Bighorn, A.M. Turtle created this for my TL concerning Custer. (Yes, this is a shameless plug).
2m6ocuu.png
 
In a word, no! Custer had some 647 troopers under his overall command versus any number of Sioux warriors. Wiki gives some 1,800 and recent recreations that I saw recently on History and on the Science Channels gave maybe as many as 5,000. :eek:
Added to this was the fact that the Sioux had the advantage of knowing the terrain and being able to utilize it in their attack. While the Cheyenne (who attacked from another quarter) were mounted, many of the Sioux were on foot and able to swarm up the various coulees to be able to get within as close as thirty to forty feet from the exposed troopers to pick them off. :eek:
Even if Custer had brought up the gatling guns, they wouldn't have been able to make much of a difference in the end (a gatling gun is not a hand-held machine gun in that it can't be used to track a target all that well).
Actually, his best bet would have been to follow orders and wait for Terry, Crook, and Gibbon (although Crook was set back because of the Battle of the Rosebud and turned back - unbeknownst to the others) so that they could have attacked the Native Americans en masse. :(
And didn't the Sioux and Cheyenne have better weapons as well? I think at least like half had guns, and their guns were Winchesters, better than the jamming Springfield carbines of the Cavalry, and I read accounts from some warriors who took part saying they were glad to have bows because with a bow they should shoot from cover without exposing themselves.
 
What is the requirements for Custer to "win"?

Does he have to defeat the natives or can he just be able to withdraw his men from the hopeless battle in one piece?
 
What is the requirements for Custer to "win"?

Does he have to defeat the natives or can he just be able to withdraw his men from the hopeless battle in one piece?

In whose eyes? Custer's? His superiors'? The American media & public? Custer would, I imagine, try to spin even a tactical withdrawal as a win, but I doubt that his superiors would.
 
Top