100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Custer: Hubris? Bad intel? | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
Custer lost simply because he was facing an opponent that knew the
terrain and used it to his advantage. Sitting Bull had a good tactical grasp of the situation. Custer did not. Custer had no idea of where the Sioux had their warriors and would not listen to his scouts. In blunt terms Sitting Bull was a better general. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Interesting dicussion!
Did the Sioux win because they were fighting on their own lands? Or was there some sort of cognitive or personality weakness in Custer? Or was he from a time and culture that just denigrated the people they were attacking? I guess I am asking what patterns lay behind the 'bad decisions'? What were the root causes behind the bad decisions? Oceans |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Personality weakness!
If he would have waited the Sioux would have been outnumbered and out gunned. They would have had to surrender or be wiped out! It was planned to be an attack by Infantry, Artillery, and Calvary supported by Gatlin guns! He didnt want to share the glory, wouldnt listen to his scouts and was too hasty! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What a combination of mistakes, all driven by personality weaknesses....
I wonder if it is possible to discern these personality weaknesses in a commnader BEFORE he is given life and death decisions over people....? |
|
|
|
|
