Quote Originally Posted by Fred III View Post
Steve--

I certainly respect your opinion, but the problem with that argument is multifold. First of all, if Custer was incapacitated early in the fight, then why didn't the very experienced senior officers-- Myles Keogh and George Yates-- take the command back the way it had come? There was no pressure from that direction and that was where the remainder of the regiment was. Second, the battle lasted-- probably-- an hour and a half to 2 hours after the place Custer would have most likely been hit. Third, there is plenty of historical, anecdotal, and archaeological evidence that the command continued on in an offensive mode for quite a bit longer and quite a distance farther. Despite Custer's bravado, reputation, and domineering aura, Keogh and Yates were highly competent officers, fully capable of carrying on the mission.
Best wishes,
Fred.
Keogh was experienced, as was Yates, but they were also both very combat-oriented officers. And given the momentum of a cavalry charge, I really doubt if either of them could have turned the command around. Also, you have to factor in the presence of Tom Custer, who was cut from very much the same cloth as his brother (and if anything was the bolder of the two).

Custer launched a number of charges during the Civil War (starting at Gettysburg) that he was unable to finish...yet the charges continued. There's also a great deal of evidence that the battle broke into a series of skirmishes, with some units resisting more effectively than others. Had Custer been alive, wouldn't it make sense for him to have sounded recall and rallied his forces?

While I respect the urge that many have to assume that Custer lived and fought to the very end, I also do not discount that something very different might have taken place. Keogh and Yates were both very much "Custer men," and it stands to reason that they would have attempted to continue the charge their commander had ordered. Also, Keogh's body was one of the few that was not mutilated (a sign of respect on the part of the Sioux and Cheyenne). Does it not stand to reason that Custer's would also have been spared had he fought to the end (especially since by all Civil War accounts he was not afraid of single combat in the least)? The Sioux were not aware of the identity of the commander until after the fight (well after in most accounts), so they wouldn't have been "singling out Yellow Hair" in any sense. Most accounts from journals taken right after Terry's command found the battlefield indicate that Custer had been mutilated (although this was not often mentioned later out of respect for Libbie).

As for the Armenian question...I'd suggest a new thread either in "Historians" or possibly one of the current affairs forums...depending on the thrust of the discussion.