How the Battle of Little Bighorn Was Won
Accounts of the 1876 battle have focused on Custer's ill-fated cavalry. But a new book offers a take from the Indian's point of view
- By Thomas Powers
- Photographs by Aaron Huey
- Smithsonian magazine, November 2010, Subscribe
Editor’s note: In 1874, an Army expedition led by Lt. Col. George Armstrong Custer found gold in the Black Hills, in present-day South Dakota. At the time, the United States recognized the hills as property of the Sioux Nation, under a treaty the two parties had signed six years before. The Grant administration tried to buy the hills, but the Sioux, considering them sacred ground, refused to sell; in 1876, federal troops were dispatched to force the Sioux onto reservations and pacify the Great Plains. That June, Custer attacked an encampment of Sioux, Cheyenne and Arapaho on the Little Bighorn River, in what is now Montana.
The Battle of the Little Bighorn is one of the most studied actions in U.S. military history, and the immense literature on the subject is devoted primarily to answering questions about Custer’s generalship during the fighting. But neither he nor the 209 men in his immediate command survived the day, and an Indian counterattack would pin down seven companies of their fellow 7th Cavalrymen on a hilltop over four miles away. (Of about 400 soldiers on the hilltop, 53 were killed and 60 were wounded before the Indians ended their siege the next day.) The experience of Custer and his men can be reconstructed only by inference.
This is not true of the Indian version of the battle. Long-neglected accounts given by more than 50 Indian participants or witnesses provide a means of tracking the fight from the first warning to the killing of the last of Custer’s troopers—a period of about two hours and 15 minutes. In his new book, The Killing of Crazy Horse, veteran reporter Thomas Powers draws on these accounts to present a comprehensive narrative account of the battle as the Indians experienced it. Crazy Horse’s stunning victory over Custer, which both angered and frightened the Army, led to the killing of the chief a year later. “My purpose in telling the story as I did,” Powers says, “was to let the Indians describe what happened, and to identify the moment when Custer’s men disintegrated as a fighting unit and their defeat became inevitable.”
The sun was just cracking over the horizon that Sunday, June 25, 1876, as men and boys began taking the horses out to graze. First light was also the time for the women to poke up last night’s cooking fire. The Hunkpapa woman known as Good White Buffalo Woman said later she had often been in camps when war was in the air, but this day was not like that. “The Sioux that morning had no thought of fighting,” she said. “We expected no attack.”
Those who saw the assembled encampment said they had never seen one larger. It had come together in March or April, even before the plains started to green up, according to the Oglala warrior He Dog. Indians arriving from distant reservations on the Missouri River had reported that soldiers were coming out to fight, so the various camps made a point of keeping close together. There were at least six, perhaps seven, cheek by jowl, with the Cheyennes at the northern, or downriver, end near the broad ford where Medicine Tail Coulee and Muskrat Creek emptied into the Little Bighorn River. Among the Sioux, the Hunkpapas were at the southern end. Between them along the river’s bends and loops were the Sans Arc, Brulé, Minneconjou, Santee and Oglala. Some said the Oglala were the biggest group, the Hunkpapa next, with perhaps 700 lodges between them. The other circles might have totaled 500 to 600 lodges. That would suggest as many as 6,000 to 7,000 people in all, a third of them men or boys of fighting age. Confusing the question of numbers was the constant arrival and departure of people from the reservations. Those travelers—plus hunters from the camps, women out gathering roots and herbs and seekers of lost horses—were part of an informal early-warning system.
There were many late risers this morning because dances the previous night had ended only at first light. One very large tent near the center of the village—probably two lodges raised side by side—was filled with the elders, called chiefs by the whites but “short hairs,” “silent eaters” or “big bellies” by the Indians. As the morning turned hot and sultry, large numbers of adults and children went swimming in the river. The water would have been cold; Black Elk, the future Oglala holy man, then 12, would remember that the river was high with snowmelt from the mountains.
It was approaching midafternoon when a report arrived that U.S. troops had been spotted approaching the camp. “We could hardly believe that soldiers were so near,” the Oglala elder Runs the Enemy said later. It made no sense to him or the other men in the big lodge. For one thing, whites never attacked in the middle of the day. For several moments more, Runs the Enemy recalled, “We sat there smoking.”
Other reports followed. White Bull, a Minneconjou, was watching over horses near camp when scouts rode down from Ash Creek with news that soldiers had shot and killed an Indian boy at the fork of the creek two or three miles back. Women who had been digging turnips across the river some miles to the east “came riding in all out of breath and reported that soldiers were coming,” said the Oglala chief Thunder Bear. “The country, they said, looked as if filled with smoke, so much dust was there.” The soldiers had shot and killed one of the women. Fast Horn, an Oglala, came in to say he had been shot at by soldiers he saw near the high divide on the way over into the Rosebud valley.
But the first warning to bring warriors on the run probably occurred at the Hunkpapa camp around 3 o’clock, when some horse raiders—Arikara (or Ree) Indians working for the soldiers, as it turned out—were seen making a dash for animals grazing in a ravine not far from the camp. Within moments shooting could be heard at the south end of camp. Peace quickly gave way to pandemonium—shouts and cries of women and children, men calling for horses or guns, boys sent to find mothers or sisters, swimmers rushing from the river, men trying to organize resistance, looking to their weapons, painting themselves or tying up their horses’ tails.
As warriors rushed out to confront the horse thieves, people at the southernmost end of the Hunkpapa camp were shouting alarm at the sight of approaching soldiers, first glimpsed in a line on horseback a mile or two away. By 10 or 15 minutes past 3 o’clock, Indians had boiled out of the lodges to meet them. Now came the first shots heard back at the council lodge, convincing Runs the Enemy to put his pipe aside at last. “Bullets sounded like hail on tepees and tree tops,” said Little Soldier, a Hunkpapa warrior. The family of chief Gall—two wives and their three children—were shot to death near their lodge at the edge of the camp.
Single Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next »
Subscribe now for more of Smithsonian's coverage on history, science and nature.










Comments (50)
Custer and the Army was ordered by President Grant and his administration to force the Indians back to the reservation Generals Terry,Crook were in charge of the expedition.Custer"s plan was to capture the non combatants avoiding a big battle but faith intervened.
Posted by Emil on February 4,2013 | 02:02 PM
Was helpfull for my college report on the Battle of Little Bighorn.
Posted by Kristin Kuettel ( Q tell) on January 8,2013 | 01:02 PM
so who got to keep the land?
Posted by abnerd on December 5,2012 | 02:55 PM
I love the history! I went to many of your museums, Smithsonian and I love them. This article about Custer is awesome!
Posted by Bob Anderson on November 13,2012 | 05:12 PM
It was more likely counted on above Custer commanding gen. Terri that Custer didn't accept those extra troops or Buffalo soldiers to use as troops to wrecklessly sacrifice on that field of battle for their own good, Finally if those dam Indians ancestors had stayed in touch with their Asiatic roots then I believe the total war methods would have had the Indians lure Custer entire command into that valley and decimated them, also taking prisoners for leverage in wining the peace in the plains Indian wars with American history being totally different in European really paying a heavier price in dominanting the American continent.
Posted by darryl singleton on September 5,2012 | 09:14 PM
it sounds like war isnt fun no matter where it is
Posted by mike kinsella on August 6,2012 | 09:11 AM
Amazing history in a native American (Indian) view. Custer should have kept his promise to Stone Forehead. The Indians were merely trying to preserve their way of life and their land. Great history!
Posted by Ronnie Land on July 7,2012 | 01:00 PM
Better armed, Better numbers, meets arrogance and lack of forethought. Custer died because he was supposed to. His men died because they had the misfortune of being with a man who had consistently lost more men in the civil war than any other. Recklessness and medicine that was working took care of the rest. All that could have possibly gone differently, is that the whole of the outfit, Reno and Benteen's men could have easily shared the fate of Custer had they pushed it.
Posted by Jbeau edwards on June 26,2012 | 08:58 PM
My grandmother (100 years old) said that her grandfather was an indian guide for Custer. She says he told her that several of the indian guides left before the attack, saying that they were guides not soldiers.
Posted by Wonderdog on June 25,2012 | 05:05 PM
Very insightful article and commentary. I am a relatively new student of this subject. I've read a great deal on this & related subjects in the past few years. Two simple thoughts. All factors considered, this was a recipe for disaster. Textbook. Further, I simply don't find Reno's account credible. Given the scenario, when does a man abandon being a soldier and simply attempt survival?
Posted by Bart Beaudin on January 24,2012 | 02:14 AM
Previously, General Custer's reckless and audacious charges won him the day but, as with any game of chance, you don`t always win. He gambled and it was his moment to lose. He misjudged things at the Little Bighorn and it's as simple as that. In some people`s eyes he was the invincible hero. In their minds, the blame for his defeat must be shifted to other individuals or equipment that apparently failed or wasn`t there. They blame General Crook, Maj. Reno, Capt. Benteen, the Springfield carbines, the lack of sabers, the lack of Gatling guns, that Brisbin`s troops weren`t along, the fact that the Indians had Henry repeating rifles and whatever else they can think of. The bottom line is that Custer commanded the regiment and that it was his, and his decision alone to attack. Therefore the 7th Cavalry debacle was his responsibility. As such are the fortunes of war. On the other hand, the Indian combatants responded courageously and with alacrity to the attack on their village and they repulsed the invaders. The battle proceeded as it should have given the circumstances.
Posted by M. Provenzano on December 28,2011 | 09:58 AM
If at the very least,that overated buffoon crook had kept the pressure on the hostiles,after the rosebud,which was only about 40 miles from littlebighorn,and a week before the custer debacle,the massacre would never have happened. While custer and his men are being slaughtered,good old crook is back at goose creek[an apt place for george], hunting and fishing.Remember,this fool commanded 1300 men, double custers numbers,and simply withdrew from the campaign on the back of casualties,according to him of, ten killed and twentyone wounded,out of 1300 and made no effort to tell anyone.Now there is the sort of man you want to go to war with.If there is a more compelling reason for custers defeat,i would love to hear it.
regards to all david.
Posted by david wicker on December 7,2011 | 06:43 AM
I have been interested in the Battle of the Little Bighorn have read many books. All the books so far have been written by the white population. Can anyone tell me where i can find any books that are written by the Native American? I would very much like to get the views from the other side of the battle. Thank You very much for seeing this type of information is readily at the despositalbe to any one that might like reading this kind of history.
I, too have been at the Site of the "LITTLE BIGHORN Battle" and can see how the mistakes could be made before and after the battle. The day i was there was like stepping back into History and reliving the battle but of course there were no actual battles going on. Reading the books you don't get the size of the Battlefield. You don't really see the Indian camp until you are almost upon it and then it blows your mind the size of it.
I have always wondered if Custer had keep his command all together i know with the size of the Indians camped there were greater and the battle probably would have lasted alittle bit longer but the the Whole Command would have been wiped out. "Now this is my own thoughts but i personally hold Custer at fault for the lost of so many men for being just a great commander he made so many mistakes that lead up to his men being killed. 1. He never listen to his scouts when they reported the size of Indain camp 2. he never scouted the lay of the land so he would know what he should do. 3. He never kept his word to Reno or Benteen but went looking for glory for himself and doing so caused his death and those of his men. I am sorry that for what little bit of glory he found that it cost the lives of the men with him.
Posted by Robert D Cruit on September 22,2011 | 08:48 PM
Having been stationed at Fort Reilly Kansas, Custer's home is on the original parade ground. We used to tell the joke that while departing for his campaign with Crook..Custer turned in his saddle and reportedly said.."don't do anything until I get back". While there...I purchased "My life on the Plains" by LTC Custer, a fascinating account of his life on the frontier. Later I read "CRAZY HORSE & CUSTER", another good book on these two warriors. It wasn't until I was stationed in Oklahoma, that I ventured to Cheyenne to see the site of the Black Kettle Massacre that I could appreciate plains warfare. From everything I've read to include the Wet Point analysis..this article is pretty much right on the mark. It is important to understand that many plains Troopers were Irish and German immigrants whose motivation did not equal those of the natives they fought.
Custer points out the many discipline problems he had with his command. "MY LIFE ON THE PLAINS"
Posted by Gerald Chernicoff on June 29,2011 | 02:14 AM
Custer led many engagements against plains Indians and well understood that to attack the camp and block their escape as orders instructed he would have to divide his command, one group under Reno to cross the river and keep the Indians drawn to that attack as Custer with his command moved to encircle the camp and so prevent the Indians disbursing. But, there were simply too many Indians as Reno's attack collapsed and the terrain disfavoured more rapid movement by Custer. Instead, he got caught up in a topography veined with gullies which the Indians exploited, negating Custer's advantage of concentrated firepower.
He did not take the Gatling guns exactly because such lumbering guns would hinder progress of the cavalry. Fights against plains Indians - or survival and escape - were decided by speed and maneuver. Custer was no fool and surely no coward, but he was coming upon a superior number of hostiles highly strengthened by "summer roamers" and was obliged to make his own attack crossing terrain he hadn't had time to properly understand.
It is difficult to appreciate any of this - and refrain from looking to one viewpoint as "the truth" - without reading Centennial Campaign: The Sioux War of 1876 and the Custer battle in particular as analyzed by time-motion studies in Custer's Last Campaign: Mitch Boyer and the Little Bighorn Reconstructed, both by John S. Gray.
Posted by ScottLoar on June 27,2011 | 05:01 AM
In my opinion,on the available evidence,renos valley fight, and the custer fighting,were very similar in character. That is,initial stability,followed by a command break down, and then disintergration.Once the structure broke down on both fronts,it was a rout.Its fair to say,many wont like the sound of that,but as the relative of white man runs him said on one of the custer docos,{for some reason the white man does not want to believe the way it really was]. This is politically correct code for[It was a turkey shoot]. The only difference between renos and custers men,was renos command had a defendable position to run to,and custers men did not.Everybody wants to believe that custers men fought like demons,which is natural,but in this case,the laws of probability and reality need to come to the fore in my considered opinion.
Posted by david wicker on May 5,2011 | 07:54 AM
Suggestion: For insightful reading and understanding
The Journey of Crazy Horse: A Lakota History
Joseph Marshall III
The Day the World Ended at Little Big Horn: A Lakota History
Joseph Marshall III
Posted by CJ Ashley on March 24,2011 | 12:19 PM
Even today when I hear Garry Owen played it sends chills through my old body-Those who dont remember the past are condemmned to repeat it George Santanya.....
Posted by Thomas P Harry on January 28,2011 | 10:32 AM
how could custer ever have won?
crook had over twice as many men at the rosebud against roughly equal numbers,and just escaped with a draw. as for some of this nonsense about hundreds of indians being killed,its laughable crooks men fought for five or six hours,firing off 25000 rounds,and managedto kill about 40 indians.everybody accepts renos men stampeded out of the timber,but many will not accept custers men doing the same.
when the command was split,a g and m could just as easily have gone with custer.
its about time many historians looked at this battle from what probably happened,and not from the way they want to believe happened.more nonsense written on this battle than any other in history of armed conflict.
Posted by david wicker on January 5,2011 | 03:56 AM
Well written article. I fully intend to get the book. Custer's arrogance cost the lives of these troopers, set the heart of a nation and the face of the military on extermination of the Indians.
I have as have many other commenter’s, visit this battle site and in addition, the site of the running fight known as the Fetterman “massacre”. Only seeing the lay of the land, especially the deep coulles adequately informs how all his could happen.
Posted by Doug Johnson on December 28,2010 | 12:52 AM
Has no one heard of David Humphreys Miller's wonderful 1957 book, "Custer's Fall"?
Mr. Miller also used Native American accounts of the battle, but drew a dramatically different conclusion as to why Custer's men fell into dissaray almost before being fully engaged by the Sioux and Cheyenne.
Anyone truly interested in the battle would benefit from Mr. Miller's apparently unique reconstruction of that day's events.
Posted by Monte Montague on December 13,2010 | 09:43 PM
After visiting the battlefield, I discovered that you could not see the Native American's camps until you were almost on top of them (due to the lay of the land). The best article I ever read was the forensic investigation of the burned over battlefield, written in National Geographic, a few years ago. You must walk the site to even sense what was going on, as a flat map in a book provides no three-dimensional understanding.
Custer was a great leader of his men in the Civil War. He was not so as an Indian fighter (he and his men preferred to kill women and children in camps).
Gatling guns are useless, except in Hollywood movies. They are cumbersome to move, and do not work well against traditional Indian fighting styles.
The only battle Custer lost was at the Little Big Horn. Both Custer and Crazy Horse led their men from the front of the battle, and not from the far rear. This demonstrates rare courage.
Posted by Gerald Miller on November 24,2010 | 01:40 AM
What about Gen. James Sanks Brisbin who offered Custer the use of his men's Gatling Guns. Custer, in typical arrogance,refused the offer.
Posted by Lyn Dunham on November 23,2010 | 04:29 PM
If Custer had stayed off of Indian land this would have never happened.
Posted by ray wofford on November 18,2010 | 12:07 AM
What of Benteen?
Posted by Jack Walsh on November 17,2010 | 10:09 PM
A hard charge had always worked before. This time there were just to many. I've read that Indians were instinct shooters, which works well at close range. At any kind of longer range you miss a lot. In battle almost everyone misses. West Point cadets are still taken to the battle site . They find themselves shocked when, using what Custer knew, they do the same thing. Indian repeating rifles were so few they portably had no impact outside the movies.
Posted by D BROWN on November 17,2010 | 03:21 AM
One of the best books I have read on the Indian viewpoint of the affair is: A Warrior Who Fought Custer by Wooden Leg.
It has been about thirty years since I read the hardcover.
Posted by clifford cuellar on November 14,2010 | 03:54 AM
I'm reminded of a large antique Anheuser-Busch-sponsored, diorama-like, painting depicting the valiant and noble Custer atop his trusty white steed adorned in his buckskin fringed coat with dismounted soldiers all around whilst a sea of menacing Indians (not a name they use to describe themselves) swarms around him. Such a grand and utter falsehood portrayed on canvas to sell beer to the ignorant mass of misled arrogant European conquerors back East!
Posted by Zane Evans on November 10,2010 | 05:17 PM
I found it odd that there is no mention of Sitting Bull in this article. I realize that the book is focused on Crazy Horse but one would expect the role of Sitting Bull in the battle would be at least noted.
Posted by Larry Mugler on November 8,2010 | 12:05 PM
Another interesting note is the story I've heard from the idigenous Lakota themselves. I was told that the word "sioux" wasn't even from their language. The men from the calvary would ask their Crow scouts "who ARE these people in the Black Hills??" and the Crow scouts snickered and simply replied (because they were at war with the Lakota amongst others) "they are 'Sioux'..." which translates in Crow as 'snake in the grass'...
Posted by Craig on November 7,2010 | 02:28 PM
This is merely an excerpt, condensed somewhat for the magazine. I am reading Mr. Powers' book now, and it is both finely detailed and thrilling. Highly recommended, by myself AND Larry McMurtry, who calls it "one of the finest books yet written about the American West." I figured Mr. McMurtry should know - and I figured right.
Posted by Alex on November 7,2010 | 12:56 PM
In the mid-50s I lived in San Antonio where a newspaper reporter realized that it was fewer than 80 years earlier that the battle occured and perhaps there were some still alive who were there. He found an American Indian who stated that at the last moment, Custer shot imself in the head. Thomas Power's article notes that Custer died of a bullet in the head, and some further research can verify my recollection of reading it in the paper and add to the story.
Posted by George K on November 5,2010 | 02:44 PM
We visited the Little Bighorn Battlefield National Monument this Summer, 2010. We did the auto tour which helps join the pieces together. I was born on an anniversary of the battle and into a family with Cherokee ancestors, so I have been interested in the story since childhood. This was my first time at the Monument. The main "aha" was the re-interpretations based on the use of forensic archaeology. On that information, the oral histories look generally accurate. In short, the "Last Stand" and "Massacre" legends fit a dictionary definition: "An unverified story handed down from earlier times, especially one popularly believed to be historical."
The National Park Service's shifting interpretation should remind us that while "victors write history", sometimes it takes awhile for their message to be heard.
Posted by Lee Seaton on November 5,2010 | 02:27 PM
My parents loved to travel to the West from Texas and when I was about 8 years old they took me to the Custer Battlefield. I can never forget how a wave of feelings splashed over me as I stood there frozen to the ground and felt that I had been there before. The wind, the ground, the sky and the smell were so familiar, as if I had been there yesterday. At that age I had no idea of past live experience and certainly had little real knowledge of the battle and the area around it. But I knew I had lived in this place before and perhaps died there. In the military or a Native human being? I did not know which, only that something seemed to take over my spirit and tell me things I could not know. I have returned many times in my life and still get this feeling, stronger at some times but always there. I simply can't explain this but I will have my ashes scattered on this sacred ground when I pass from this existence. Perhaps the Great Spirit will smile upon me and welcome me back with open arms.
Posted by David Mead on November 4,2010 | 02:50 PM
The shooting of women and children outside the camps before the battle even began makes Custer's "mission" clear.
Posted by Cleve Gray on November 4,2010 | 12:08 PM
I have discovered a most unusual stone in the Black Hills of Wyoming, which historically have been the sacred hunting grounds for Native Americans since at least 7000 b.c. As the discovery was midway between the Paha Sapa and the Battle of the Greasy Grass, I believe I have a supposition theory of what it may actually be, although I am curious to learn what others may think also... http://i191.photobucket.com/albums/z122/s34w0lf3/image04.jpg
Posted by Craig on November 2,2010 | 04:36 PM
For another viewpoint story read Flashman and the Redskins
Posted by Speedicut on October 30,2010 | 12:53 PM
It is interesting to note that the exhibit in the museum located near Custer Hill states that the US Calvary didn't have enough funds to afford shells for target practice and thus these US soldiers "couldn't hit the broadside of a barn".
Posted by Ed Rice on October 29,2010 | 04:57 PM
This is a rehash of work already done in Lakota Noon by Greg Michno who has aptly covered the Indian accounts. There is nothing really new and the author only has a superficial knowledge of the battle at best. Some timed rides and field research will poke many holes in his writing here. There are some glaring errors as well as Indian accounts and maps that have been omitted (or the author was unaware of them). John Stands in Timber is a good example and one of the most important Indian contributors. Custer never went to Weir Point and the Indians movement's noted in Michael Donahue' book "Drawing Battle Lines" are overlooked and not used. Kill Eagle is another important Indian map and account.
This claims to be an Indian perspective but he needs to look at Rich Fox's book as well. He was the first to do this and put it with the archeology. The author has ignored the entire Company C fight on Finkle/Finley Ridge and has not pieced this together very well.
I hope his book is more original that this article. There are others more deserving of Smithsonian space.
Posted by michael Donahue on October 28,2010 | 05:21 PM
Excellent article from Indians' viewpoint. Visited the battlefield years ago and stood there silently, looking out over that empty scene, but for grave markers and the memorial stone, and thought, "What a helluva place to die."
Posted by Keith Simons on October 26,2010 | 01:53 PM
I'm pleased to see the Smithsonian Magazine feature this topic, and look forward to reading the actual book. I would like to comment, however, that this is by no means the first publication to foreground Indian accounts of the battle. Interest in the Indian side of the story began as soon as the dust settled, and newspaper correspondents began trying to track down and interview Indian battle veterans immediately. Historians and anthropologists soon followed, and many of them recorded important Native accounts. The first major book on this topic appeared in the 1930s. In the past several decades these narratives as well as pictographic drawings created by several Indian battle veterans have provided the source materials for several books that chronicle Indian accounts of the battle. Gregory Michno's 1997 LAKOTA NOON:THE INDIAN NARRATIVE OF CUSTER"S DEFEAT provides a close chronological recap of the battle based on Native sources, and Richard Hardorff has published separate volumes devoted to Lakota and Cheyenne accounts. In short, there is a voluminous literature on the Custer fight from every conceivable angle, this one included.
Posted by Castle McLaughlin on October 25,2010 | 04:24 PM
A very insightful and interesting article, for too long we have alwways heard or hear the white man's version of events. But this exerpt gives us the indians view and being the victor, it is quite unbias. More than often the victor writes the history, but in this case the victor's voice was silenced, it is nice to see this wrong being righted.
Posted by Jeff Mouland on October 24,2010 | 02:34 PM
My hat is off to Mr. Thomas Powers on his article on "How the Little Bighorn Battle was Won." I have read numerous books on the subject much to my confusion of the sequential events and locations. The illustration on the chronology of the battle with times established by soldiers testimony (in the Smithsonian magazine) cleared up in my mind once and for all this historic event. The correct whys and responsibilities of this event will always and forever be only in the minds of the participants at the time.
This illustration should be in all textbooks! Thanks
Posted by Robert E. Bose on October 24,2010 | 01:36 PM
In 1935, David Humphreys Miller began a 22 year interview process of native survivors of the Battle of the Little Bighorn. His findings are recorded in Custer's Fall: The Native American Side of the Story. He deserves much of the credit for the solid evidence we have available today. In the 1970's I was in the museum in Cody, Wyoming and saw a gruesome reminder of the battle: a trigger finger necklace given to a white female teacher at around 1900, as a gift from one of her students. I have no idea if it is still in display, but will never forget how real that made the battle for me. It still haunts me to this day and Mr. Powers' rendition brings it clearly to mind again. As painful as it is, we need to hear these stories. Those who do not learn from our history are doomed to repeat it.
Posted by Christine Wilson on October 24,2010 | 12:47 PM
Eight pages of great detail on the battle, and not one word on the repeating rifles the Indians had, where they had gotten them, and the effect of the difference in firepower vs. the soldiers' single-shot carbines?
Not one word?
Posted by doug on October 23,2010 | 06:22 PM
Comment: “How Little Bighorn Was Won”
This well-written account from the Native American perspective focuses on the fight on the Custer battlefield known as “Custer’s Last Stand.”
Apparently based exclusively on Indian testimony, its depiction of a compact fast-moving battle along “backbone ridge” differs from scholarship that assumes a northward movement beyond “Last Stand Hill” by Companies E and F (the Left Wing) of Custer’s command. This research is based on Native American accounts and oral history as well as archeological evidence. A “re-ride” by one historian has established that there would have been sufficient time for such a movement and a return to the battlefield to witness the final action in the Keogh/Calhoun sector.
Also debatable is the author’s conclusion that “Custer and his men got no closer” to the Little Bighorn River than “several hundred yards back up” Medicine Tail Coulee at which point “Custer acted on the defensive.” For example, interviews of Indian participants by researcher Walter M. Camp confirm that at least part of the command reached the river bank, engaged in limited fighting but did not cross the Little Bighorn. If one accepts the premise of the subsequent northward movement to capture non-combatants and/or to block the escape of the Indian encampment, the command remained on the offense until the warrior assault in the Keogh/Calhoun sector. Archeological as well as historical evidence does support the statement that the troops made “an orderly, concerted defense” on Calhoun Hill.
Further comment on the merits of this article is difficult in the absence of knowing the author’s sources, which are not cited.
C. Lee Noyes, Editor
CBHMA Battlefield Dispatch
www.custerbattlefield.org
Posted by C. Lee Noyes on October 23,2010 | 10:55 AM
My point of view is that Custer was killed trying to ford the Little Big Horn River. This is the main reason the troops did not cross or enter the camp. Knowing what the Indian's would do to his body, his relatives carried him back during there retreat.
Posted by Edward Hruslinski on October 22,2010 | 08:27 PM
The more I read about the battle of the Little Big Horn, the more fascinated I become! This month's (Nov) is no exception. I know there are many that subscribe to Custer's vanity, stupidy or a number of other reasons. I've never thought that the answer, but this article made me wonder- could it be that Custer & his men weren't even out there looking for a fight, could it have been that they were on another mission or missions? That's more than likely not a new thought, just new to me.
Posted by Mary Lou Stewart on October 22,2010 | 03:23 PM
When I received my current issue of SM I was hoping to learn something about the Battle of Little Big Horn, but I was so confused about where to start so started with the two page diagram of the battle site and then tried to correlate the text with that but soon gave up in frustration. Perhaps a subsequent effort at further publication, if possible, might be worth while by another author. I assume the battle was more complicated than I first thought and maybe I should go to the book, but the article did not inspire me to want to read more by the author. My apologies for any offense. rc
Posted by ray cush on October 21,2010 | 10:11 PM