"Custer and Sitting Bull: Parallel Lives" - Nathaniel Philbrick
Вставка
- Опубліковано 26 сер 2024
- Nathaniel Philbrick is the author of The Last Stand: Custer, Sitting Bull, and the Battle of Little Bighorn.
Philbrick's lecture is part of Hillsdale College's CCA seminar on The American West. See more from this seminar at www.hillsdale....
The history of the Old West, dating roughly from the beginning of the Lewis and Clark expedition in 1804 to the Wounded Knee massacre in 1890, was but the length of one long lifetime. The debate over how to understand America’s western expansion has already eclipsed it in time. This third CCA of the 2016-2017 academic year will consider both the history and the debate.
Learn more about Hillsdale College at www.hillsdale....
![Lp. Сердце Вселенной #1 НАЧАЛО ПУТЕШЕСТВИЯ [Новый сезон] • Майнкрафт](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/380Q7gLWGvk/mqdefault.jpg)
Thank you Hillsdale College. This was wonderful to listen to.
One of my favorite authors, speaking on one of my favorite subjects... An evening made in heaven. Thank you!❤
Outstanding lecture. Indians were not all living in peace and harmony before Europeans arrived. They were Tribes with a Warrior culture and they fought each other as much as they fought Europeans. It is only reason Europeans became so strong.
Doesn't justify Wounded Knee or Sand Creek though
Superb. Hugely interesting, as well as wonderfully delivered. Many thanks.
The comments the woman makes around 47:49 are all BS in my opinion, those generals she mentions did care about their men to a great degree...furthermore lady, we do not need to know your name or where you are from...
Completely agree with your comment. There's a reason General Patton was buried with his troops.
@@daveeddington9325 he did slap two men who had shell shock on two separate occasions. Men who had been through more than him and he had the gaul to strike them? Tough man.
They didn’t act the way they did because of where they graduated in the West Point order of merit. Rather, their fate and performance at West Pt were similarly results of their quest for glory. You could make a similar case for MacArthur but he graduated first in his class and some would say did not treat his men exceptionally well. This lady is trying to cross a bridge too far
@@Daylon91 Drawing conclusions based on isolated events seems narrow minded.
Yes, she even brought up Gen Pickett. Saying he Slaughtered his man a Pickett’s charge. lol Lee planned that assault at Gettysburg, Pickett was just following orders.
Thanks for Uploading.
The women who puts Picket and Patton as well as Custer down , needs to go into Battle.
Yes, I guess she never heard of Patton and his Third Army's success. And as to Pickett, he was ordered to attack, he was not the one who came up with the idea to attack the Union center.
put her in charge. Not.
@@JamesBray-qm8gr-q3w General Pickett followed his orders. Having walked on that field in person, I have always had great admiration for what his soldiers tried to achieve that day knowing that the odds were stacked against them, what courage they possessed...
The speaker stutters too much
Not only that…he doesn’t seem to know the difference between “cavalry” and “calvary.” Amazing author, I have almost all his books, but bad public speaker.
A time when the course of events were not CONTROLED OR CONTRIVED.
that woman in the question and answer section...I mean honestly she doesn't know what she's talking about
....and her crap about Patton and who finished where at West Point...it's often been the case that the people finishing low at west point are some of the best generals we've had....
and Patton had a VERY good connection with his troops and an EXTREME level of care for them irregardless of TWO slapping incidents blown out of proportion by the press does NOT invalidate that.
and as for Picket....the charge at Gettysburg was NOT his decision, at all.
"he slaughtered his men".....give me a break
Patton and Custer WERE military achievers....what they were NOT is text book achievers
war isn't really text book friendly as we've seen through history
Exceptional author.
As to the second question from the audience. I doubt Custer wanted to attend the Republican convention in St Louis. To my understanding, he was a Democrat.
At that time Democrats were segregationists I doubt Your opinion !
@@edwarddraves7893 You're welcome to doubt any opinions I might hold. The fact remains: George Armstrong Custer was a lifelong Democrat. His father Emanuel was a staunch Jacksonian Democrat and instilled his political beliefs on his children.
When Custers appointment was subject to Congressional approval he openly worried that his political affiliation might interfere. And his criticism of Secretary Belnap was, although merited, somewhat political.
It's no secret, and not a hunch on my part. The man was a northern Democrat. If it makes you feel better, I was surprised as well.
Custer was an ardent democrat.
The Horse could be useful to ride on
In spite of his flamboyance and faults, Custer was a good field tactician. Men like him are seldom loved by their contemporaries and worshiped by their fans. He was one of the best Indian fighters of his day. He and his native American foes shared a quality.... they were both fearless. A trait that worked remarkably well..... untill that day. There is no shame in being defeated in battle. Plus, lot of good and bad things can be true at the same time. Initially I thought this guy lacked the nuance the subject really deserved. I was glad to be wrong when he proved otherwise during the Q&A at the end. Custer had the misfortune of being of being the first commander to feel the wrath of the Indian's capacity to coalesce in very large groups. Something unusual because the hunter gatherer lifestyle is heavy on the land and much better when groups are smaller. The Indians also took advantage of the commercially available, high capacity repeating rifles. The 19th century equivalent to assault rifles. A technology that perfectly suited their tactics. You could say the battle was a paradigm shift of sorts. That played heavily against Custer's strengths.
Custer was not the "first commander to feel the wrath of the Indians' capacity to coalesce in very large groups". That indignity fell upon the shoulders of General Arthur St. Clair. On the Ohio frontier, in 1791, U.S. forces suffered a resounding defeat by a coalition of Northwestern Indian tribes under chiefs Little Turtle and Blue Jacket. Arthur St. Clair lost around 800 men. It was the worst defeat Native Americans ever afflicted upon the the U.S. Army.
But you are correct about Custer; he was a good field tactician. Custer had his faults, but he was always in his element whenever fighting in a battle. He was one of the best, if not THE best, cavalry officers in U.S. history.
They were bison with horns and the hooves and their furry skins.
Philbrick should stick to writing about Nantucket, shipwrecks, and whales.
Sitting Bulls’ Horse can be ridden or with a saddle
So could Custer's.
What an excellent author...Brevit Brigadier General Custer...
Photography is necessary
Is this dude really going to read a script for this entire speech? Lame
Writer's write and Nathaniel Philbrick read what he wrote, and can he write! Issues with that? Go ahead and write the equivalent of any of his books and give talks....a script is helpful.
Philbrick is an amazing author, but not a polished public speaker. Don’t confuse the two skills.
Donald Trump’s ego is tremendous
Most men of history shared that quality or flaw, however you see it.
Custer’s Last Stand he had curly blonde hair
He cut his hair short before the Yellowstone expedition. It was not long.