Announcement

Collapse

New Site - PLEASE READ

Hello All,
My name is Ashley and I am the one that moved the forum to its new hosting location. This was done for security reasons and try to keep the forum from going down every other day. I understand that the new forum looks very different from the old one but I promise almost everything you had before you still have it might just be in a different place.

Items that are gone due to a limitation of the new hosting/ forum update:
- Awards
- Flags

As I was going thought your posts I was able to fix a lot fo the issues you were listing. Below is kind of a running list of issues an what is fixed and what I am still working on.

Items that I have fixed from your comments:
- Smilie are now working.
- Color/Theme changes
- Signature are now showing up. (Here is how to edit them https://screencast.com/t/OJHzzhiV1)
- Ranking is now showing up.
- Private messaging is now working.

Some issues I am still working on are:
- Missing items from the Calendar
- Like button the posts is giving an error.

One other note I have seen a lot is theme/color related items. I know this is important to all of you but at the moment the most important thing was getting you back a functioning forum with as many features I can get you back from before.

Theme/color is something we can change but it the moment I do not have the time and resources to fix all of the issue and design the site. I did do some theme updates yesterday but it is very time consuming. Please just be patient with the forum as we get it back to as close as I can to what you had before.

If anyone has any issues that they are running in to please let me know in the post below. Please give me as much detail as possible .
https://forums.armchairgeneral.com/forum/world-history-group-welcomes-you/armchair-general-magazine/5034776-new-site-please-read
See more
See less

So Custer? Great General, or Greatest General . ?

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #61
    Originally posted by FluffyBunnyFeet View Post
    Again primacy affect, "when forms an initial belief from an initial source they are inclined to reinforce it, rather than question it.
    You do realize this applies to you as well?

    Pruitt
    Pruitt, you are truly an expert! Kelt06

    Have you been struck by the jawbone of an ASS lately?

    by Khepesh "This is the logic of Pruitt"

    Comment


    • #62
      [QUOTE=FluffyBunnyFeet;2774959]uhm? name a commander that never lost and I'll show you a guy that led one battle... Alexander despite his propaganda lost battles especially in India are they now bad commanders?QUOTE]

      Louis N. Davout, Marshal of the Empire never lost a battle, and he definitely fought more than one and commanded alone at Auerstadt in 1806, Eckmuhl in 1809, Moghilev in 1812 and in the fighting in northwest Europe in 1813-1814, including his famous unyielding defense of Hamburg.

      Wellington never lost a battle as a commander, and he fought in India, the Iberian peninsula from 1808-1814, and in Belgium in 1815.

      Another British commander, Marlborough, never lost a battle either.

      And if you believe that Alexander lost a battle, name it, please.

      So, there you have at least three. Care to up the ante?

      Now get off your high-horse and actually pay attention to the others here-you might actually learn something. And there are plenty of members who have admitted mistakes here. Perhaps when you've been here just a little longer, and also grow up a little, you might fit in well-though I doubt it as most of your postings are just piles of manure.

      Sincerely,
      M
      We are not now that strength which in old days
      Moved earth and heaven; that which we are we are; One equal temper of heroic hearts
      Made weak by time and fate but strong in will
      To strive to seek to find and not to yield.

      Comment


      • #63
        Originally posted by Wooden Wonder View Post
        Custer was no battlefield master tactician. He made the same sort of blunders at Little Big Horn, as Chelmsford made about 4 or 5 days later at Isandlwana.

        Things like underestimating the opposition, and splitting up his forces in enemy territory without sufficient fore-knowledge of the oppositions' deployment and intentions.
        That those two events occurred so close together always intrigued me.
        "I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
        George Mason
        Co-author of the Second Amendment
        during Virginia’s Convention to Ratify the Constitution, 1788

        Comment


        • #64
          Originally posted by Urban hermit View Post
          he under estimated them just as you do now.
          When you are outnumbered between 3 to 1 and 5 to 1, it doesn't do to underestimate anybody. I'm not underestimating the Indians but am not crediting them with military genius, either. Considering how bad Custer's tactics were it would have been surprising if the Indians DIDN'T win.

          Comment


          • #65
            Originally posted by III Corps View Post
            Custer's tactics hastened the disaster since, we now know, it was going to happen that afternoon in June anyway.
            Not true at all. If he had kept his Regiment consolidated......as he should have. Kept his reserve ammunition with his main body.....as he should have. He had every opportunity to win a victory. Remember, history is replete with examples of small units of soldiers defeating masses of tribal warriors. The battle was not un-winable.

            Comment


            • #66
              Originally posted by Bdell View Post
              Not true at all. If he had kept his Regiment consolidated......as he should have. Kept his reserve ammunition with his main body.....as he should have. He had every opportunity to win a victory. Remember, history is replete with examples of small units of soldiers defeating masses of tribal warriors. The battle was not un-winable.
              Quite. He was trying to do what had been fairly common practice with gatherings of Indians. Set up blocking forces and then push through the village with an attack. The Indians would run rather than engage and be caught by the blocking forces.

              He underestimated the competition. And he arrogantly and arbitrarily decided that they'd behave in exactly the same way that they always did, because they were afraid of direct confrontation.

              He did have intel that this gathering was bigger than average. And yet he did not do anything to prepare his command for more than a skirmish and pursuit, because he believed that's all that would happen. Reno was meant to be the hammer, driving the indians into the Anvil, with Benteen in pursuit.

              Nobody thought about what to do if the Hammer got mobbed.......and the Anvil got smashed.....

              With the Gatlings, extra ammo, and not dividing his command so much, he could have taken on Crazy Horse and Sitting Bull's force in a field battle, which they might have initially offered, and crushed them. The Indians were raiders after all, not professional soldiers. They tended to quickly balk at casualties.

              Instead he went for a repeat of previous successful attacks on small villages....
              Tacitos, Satrap of Kyrene

              Comment


              • #67
                Custer did demonstrate, however, that the central position was not always an advantage.

                Sincerely,
                M
                We are not now that strength which in old days
                Moved earth and heaven; that which we are we are; One equal temper of heroic hearts
                Made weak by time and fate but strong in will
                To strive to seek to find and not to yield.

                Comment


                • #68
                  Originally posted by Cyberknight View Post
                  That those two events occurred so close together always intrigued me.
                  Except that Chelmsford was not present...

                  Sincerely,
                  M
                  We are not now that strength which in old days
                  Moved earth and heaven; that which we are we are; One equal temper of heroic hearts
                  Made weak by time and fate but strong in will
                  To strive to seek to find and not to yield.

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Originally posted by Massena View Post
                    Except that Chelmsford was not present...

                    Sincerely,
                    M
                    The 'synchronicity' of unconnected events, both commanders did however have commonalities in their personalities, which inclined them to similar action and error.

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      [QUOTE=Massena;2775084]
                      Originally posted by FluffyBunnyFeet View Post
                      uhm? name a commander that never lost and I'll show you a guy that led one battle... Alexander despite his propaganda lost battles especially in India are they now bad commanders?QUOTE]

                      Louis N. Davout, Marshal of the Empire never lost a battle, and he definitely fought more than one and commanded alone at Auerstadt in 1806, Eckmuhl in 1809, Moghilev in 1812 and in the fighting in northwest Europe in 1813-1814, including his famous unyielding defense of Hamburg.

                      Wellington never lost a battle as a commander, and he fought in India, the Iberian peninsula from 1808-1814, and in Belgium in 1815.

                      Another British commander, Marlborough, never lost a battle either.

                      And if you believe that Alexander lost a battle, name it, please.

                      So, there you have at least three. Care to up the ante?

                      Now get off your high-horse and actually pay attention to the others here-you might actually learn something. And there are plenty of members who have admitted mistakes here. Perhaps when you've been here just a little longer, and also grow up a little, you might fit in well-though I doubt it as most of your postings are just piles of manure.

                      Sincerely,
                      M

                      Didn't Thomas in the ACW make a zero loss record as well?

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Originally posted by Bdell View Post
                        ...Not true at all...
                        We can agree to disagree. You look at things which could have happened. I look at what actually occurred.

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Originally posted by III Corps View Post
                          We can agree to disagree. You look at things which could have happened. I look at what actually occurred.
                          I don't know what you're talking about. The point of the thread is Custer's ability as an independent commander, and what I am pointing out is not something that didn't happen , but what SHOULDN'T have happened.
                          The one over-riding fact is that Custer was confronted by a massive collection of Indians. How he dealt with that fact, determined how that battle was to be fought. However you try to cut it, Custer had a great deal of information and could have formulated a winning strategy. But he refused to face the reality of his situation, and instead tried to use such tactics as had been used on other occasions, which is why I say he did not possess good deductive reasoning skills.

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Originally posted by Massena View Post
                            Custer did demonstrate, however, that the central position was not always an advantage.

                            Sincerely,
                            M
                            Id argue that since he split his forces up and they became separated..... that the Sioux had the central position.
                            Tacitos, Satrap of Kyrene

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Originally posted by Bdell View Post
                              I don't know what you're talking about. The point of the thread is Custer's ability as an independent commander, and what I am pointing out is not something that didn't happen , but what SHOULDN'T have happened.
                              The one over-riding fact is that Custer was confronted by a massive collection of Indians. How he dealt with that fact, determined how that battle was to be fought. However you try to cut it, Custer had a great deal of information and could have formulated a winning strategy. But he refused to face the reality of his situation, and instead tried to use such tactics as had been used on other occasions, which is why I say he did not possess good deductive reasoning skills.
                              Same difference. III Corps is correct.

                              Sincerely,
                              M
                              We are not now that strength which in old days
                              Moved earth and heaven; that which we are we are; One equal temper of heroic hearts
                              Made weak by time and fate but strong in will
                              To strive to seek to find and not to yield.

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                Originally posted by TacCovert4 View Post
                                Id argue that since he split his forces up and they became separated..... that the Sioux had the central position.
                                Interesting point of view, since the Indians had no need of it because of overwhelming numbers. The strategy of the central position is used when outnumbered, as Napoleon did in Italy in 1796 and in Belgium in 1815.

                                Sincerely,
                                M
                                We are not now that strength which in old days
                                Moved earth and heaven; that which we are we are; One equal temper of heroic hearts
                                Made weak by time and fate but strong in will
                                To strive to seek to find and not to yield.

                                Comment

                                Latest Topics

                                Collapse

                                Working...
                                X