Compare And Contrast General Custer And Little Bighorn

This review essay helps to contextually establish the history of public perception and/or opinion of who Custer was as a military leader due to a result of the many historical works developed up through those published in 1993. These disparate reviews of General Custer and Little Bighorn were written by various sources, using varying points of view and aspects. Some to assert Custer as an inept leader who was principally responsible for the death of his unit while others attempt to restore the image of Custer to provide a favorable impression and reestablish his name and credibility as a military leader. Some of the literature is taken from the accounts of the Indian witnesses, who from the perspective of the James Potts, offers a more accurate

Pro was the character and mindset of a soldier fighting in the Indian Wars. Con was the embodiment of white imperialism. Nelson Miles, who, by historical accounts, serves as the anti-Custer in that he is not flamboyant or arrogant and achieved greater success with more accolades in both the Civil and Indian Wars than Custer, but was never idolized and for the most part forgotten in time. Benteen and Reno who served as leaders under Custer, who played a part in the failure at Little Big Horn, although not singularly completely responsible for the failures. By many accounts, their decisions contributed to many other factors which created overwhelming odds that Custer’s unit could not

However, the conditions of the environment, and great distance from civilized establishments made it extremely difficult for Custer to maintain the same type of military discipline within himself or his troops. This aided in the demoralization and combat ineffectiveness of his unit. While this is not necessarily typical of all units fighting in the Indian Wars, it was noticeably true to be captured by historical accounts of both surviving members of his unit and through personal diaries of those who did not survive Little