Isabella Gazi 13AO

Leadership was the main reason for the defeat of General Custer at the Battle of Little Big Horn
1876. How far do you agree with this statement?
The quality of leadership bestowed upon the American soldiers fighting in the Battle of Little Big
Horn no doubt would have played a pivotal role in defining their fates. However, to say that
leadership was the most important reason for General Custers defeat would be doing a great
injustice to the more-than-competent and skilled members of the army as the failure of this
particular battle extends far beyond poor leadership.
General Custer (also known as the Boy General for attaining the status of General in the Union
Army at the mere age of 23) with his record for never having lost a single battle was chosen to lead
the operation, although his generalship cannot go unfaulted.
Custers generalship has been criticised by both historians and colleagues of his. To start with, many
people claim that Custer disobeying the instructions of his commanding officer, General Alfred Howe
Terry (who had decades of experience) was his first major downfall. Terry informed and warned
Custer about the dangers of crossing Wolf Mountain something which Custer not only ordered his
men to do on June 25
th
1876, but to do so with great urgency and immediacy.
However, others claim that it is unfair to criticise Custer for making this decision. Firstly, Custer knew
that because his men had been spotted by some of the native Americans, they absolutely had to
make the move to cross Wolf Mountain otherwise the tribe would flee (and it had already taken the
7
th
cavalry a month to find the Native Americans) or prepare for battle, advantageously giving them
more time to prepare than the army would have done. Moreover, in his orders, Terry who had
faith in Custers strategies and tactics - granted the Boy General permission to use his own
judgement should circumstances warrant a change in plan of which they most certainly did.
There was also a hint of arrogance to Custers entire approach to the war as he brought along __
family members and a newspaper reporter to the battle, presumably to show off and have the
glories of the Americans documented for all to see. It is possible that his slightly pompous attitude
may have led to his downfall, although this would be an unfair claim to make. Custers assumption
that the 7
th
cavalry would prevail was based on entirely logical reasoning; he himself had never lost a
battle, the Native Americans weaponry was more primitive (and thus, by presumption, less
effective) and they were outnumbered. This supposed air of arrogance is unlikely to have affected
Custers strategies and tactics, and there must be a better explanation for the cavalrys resounding
defeat.
On the other hand, Custers decision to divide the 7
th
Cavalry into 4 different sections was one that
turned out the be problematic this division allowed the Native Americans to be defeated one by
one, as opposed to as one large army which may have proved to be advantageous. Benteen thought
that this division of labour would prove to be costly and he was right it cost Custer and 267 of his
soldiers their lives.
However, once again it would not be fair to criticise Custer for this dividing up the force and
creating a pincer movement (/enveloping the flank) is a standard military procedure which is still
used in many armies to this day. Other pragmatic problems prevented the pincer movement forming
as planned, and so it is unfair to blame this aspect of Custers generalship for the loss.
Isabella Gazi 13AO
If the leadership at the Battle of Little Big Horn didnt lead to its defeat, then what did? Many claim
that the communication to and from the cavalry members is what failed the Americans but how fair
a judgement is this to make?
Visual communication for many soldiers had been impaired from an early point during the battle 2
miles away from the Custer battle at Weir point, soldiers tried to observe the events of the battle to
no avail for a major dust cloud was impairing their vision. This meant that the soldiers could not rely
on visual communication and so they could not rely on their senses something that is vital on the
battlefield. However, it is important to note that this minor setback that had little impact on the
remainder of the battle is not a satisfactory explanation for the American defeat.
The poor standard of written communication may have impacted the course of the battle when
Custer sent a note over to Benteen, the ambiguity of the written message confused Benteen who in
turn was unsure what to prioritise making a quick arrival to the scene of the battle or delivering
the ammunition. His decision to deliver the ammunition as opposed to making a swift journey to the
scene proved to be fatal for many of the soldiers in the 7
th
cavalry and so communication (or lack
thereof) is of paramount importance in terms of leading to the defeat of the US Cavalry at Little Big
Horn. However, it is also important to remember that all of the battles that the cavalry fought in
prior to Little Big Horn were all plagued by the communication difficulties, and yet all of Custers
battles managed to be resounding successes.
Lastly, the messenger who Custer had sent over to Benteen to deliver the note was John Martini, an
Italian immigrant who only spoke broken English. When Benteen questioned him on the events at
the hill, Martini said they skeddaddlin which, to Benteen, meant that the Native Americans were
fleeing and that the Americans had the upper hand, and so Benteen believed that he could afford to
wait for the ammunition before making his way over there. This miscommunication error
undoubtedly changed the course of the battle.
Whilst both the leadership decisions and the communicative facilities were pivotal in determining
the fate of the battle, communication most definitely played a greater role in the American forces
demise. Many of the leadership decisions that have been called into question were impaired by lack
of instant and reliable communication methods e.g. had Custers men been able to communicate
with one another instantaneously, the decision to divide the cavalry up into groups of 3 regiments
wouldnt have faced such criticism. Furthermore, it was the miscommunication errors that were
most costly to the war Custers mens chances of survival would probably have been rather high
had they all been able to execute their given orders to their best abilities. When looking at aspects of
the battle such as Major Reno being unaware that Custers men werent following his, or Renos
withdrawal to the woods, it is important to note that the fast-past, ever-changing nature of warfare
wasnt to blame for the Americans defeat but rather the inability to confer with the other groups
and amend the existing strategic decisions, and so communication (or the lack thereof) was the main
reason for the defeat of General Custers forces at the Battle of Little Big Horn.



Isabella Gazi 13AO

- Shade of arrogance Boy General, first at age 23, the youngest general in the Union army
Hired a reporter to come with him
- Hammer and Anvil tactic
- US Dept of the interior bureau of Indian affairs estimated 1000 native American warriors in
reality this was 5000
- Believed that the village would scatter to protect women + children (is it fair to blame him
for this?). This time Indians had nowhere to scatter to stayed and fought.
Crossing Wolf Mountain (was Custer disobeying Terry?)
Dividing the 7
th
Cavalry into 4 sections (Benteen thought this a bad idea)
Moving away from Reno (without informing Reno)
Not crossing the river & setting up a defensive position on Greasy Grass Ridge

MAJOR RENO:
Told he would be supported but unaware Custer was not following him (depends upon your
interpretation of supported)
Withdrew to the cotton woods
Panic to Reno Hill
Ordered the dig in at Reno Hill (wounded)
Denied Captain Weir (who tried anyway)
CAPTAIN BENTEEN:
Thought the dividing of the command a risk
Abandoned his area of the mission to rejoin the others
Interpretation of Martini message
Saved Reno on Reno Hill
Supported Reno in denying Captain Weir


COMMUNICATION:
- Visual: Soldiers observe the Custer battle from Weir point. At this distance of about 2 miles
all that could be seen was a dust cloud. Frequently the soldiers were out of visual comm..
Isabella Gazi 13AO
- Auditory: Bugle calls were used as signals. No help arrived. Sound carries but one needs o
act on it.
- Written: Written communication written in haste = open to interpretation. Benteen did
not know what to prioritise making a quick arrival or delivering the ammunition.
- MESSENGER: John Martini Italian immigrant who spoke broken English.
HOWEVER: all previous battles fought in the same, communication-less difficulties and managed to
be a success.