OK, I've been doing a little re-reading on this famous battle and I though I'd ask a question and get some feedback. This may have been asked before BTW but if so I couldn't find it. Also I'm not looking for controversy, just some basic assessments/opinions from people who are likely to be far more knowledgeable on the topic than me. Finally if there a pointers to a good modern text on the topic I'd be grateful. Now to the specific question.
Given a starting scenario where Custer had listened to the advice of his scouts about the potential size of the force he was facing could he have retained the 7th cavalry as a force in being (is that the correct term?) at the end of the fight if they had stayed concentrated in one (heavily screened) column and then advanced into contact with the enemy? Or alternatively would it have made no real difference to the outcome - given the prevailing numbers, terrain, weapons and other relevant factors?
Note 1: This doesn't mean he could still have successfully achieved his initial objective of securing non-combatants at the campsite and forcing the tribes to surrender. Instead the question is could he have advanced into the battle with only those forces immediately available to him at the start of the original battle (no reinforcements, no gatling guns, no artillery etc ) have been fully engaged by enemy and then have successfully withdrawn once engaged with most of his force intact?
Note 2; The scenario also assumes the same number of native American warriors (no-more, no less) were deployed, that they were fighting under the same commanders etc AND his opponents were reasonably determined to prevent any withdrawal?
Given a starting scenario where Custer had listened to the advice of his scouts about the potential size of the force he was facing could he have retained the 7th cavalry as a force in being (is that the correct term?) at the end of the fight if they had stayed concentrated in one (heavily screened) column and then advanced into contact with the enemy? Or alternatively would it have made no real difference to the outcome - given the prevailing numbers, terrain, weapons and other relevant factors?
Note 1: This doesn't mean he could still have successfully achieved his initial objective of securing non-combatants at the campsite and forcing the tribes to surrender. Instead the question is could he have advanced into the battle with only those forces immediately available to him at the start of the original battle (no reinforcements, no gatling guns, no artillery etc ) have been fully engaged by enemy and then have successfully withdrawn once engaged with most of his force intact?
Note 2; The scenario also assumes the same number of native American warriors (no-more, no less) were deployed, that they were fighting under the same commanders etc AND his opponents were reasonably determined to prevent any withdrawal?
Comment