1876: An advance regiment of cavalrymen under the command of George Armstrong Custer is killed to a man on a sun-parched ridge near the Little Bighorn River by a combined force of Lakota Sioux and Cheyenne warriors.
Tactical blunders and faulty intelligence work contributed heavily to one of the worst defeats ever sustained by the U.S. Army during its protracted campaign to subjugate the Plains Indians, but technology may have played a role, too. Simply put, the Indians may have come to the battlefield in eastern Montana better equipped to fight than the 7th Cavalry troopers. Odd, considering the mercurial brevet Maj. Gen. Custerwas leading the spear tip of a force ordered to compel the rebellious Indians to return to their reservations, or else annihilate them.
If the Indians were, in fact, better armed at the Battle of the Little Bighorn, Custer may have contributed to the situation by declining to include Gatling guns in his van. Because he was setting off on what amounted to a search-and-destroy mission, he argued that the Gatlings were too cumbersome and would only slow him down.
At the point where he was surrounded and outnumbered by a ratio as high as 9-to-1, he probably regretted making that choice. In such a dire situation, the Gatling gun would have considerably reduced the enemy's numerical advantage and may have even proven decisive in turning the tide.
The Lakota and Cheyenne warriors did join the battle with a number of Henry and Spencer repeating rifles, which provided a higher rate of fire than the single-shot Springfield Model 1873 carbines carried by the cavalry troopers. But the Springfields — chosen in part by the Army Ordnance Board because a single-shot weapon would help conserve ammunition — were considered more accurate and had a greater range than the Henrys or Spencers. On the other hand, they were also prone to jamming, because the copper cartridges tended to expand in the breech as the rifle heated up during repeated use.
Historians continue to debate whether or not the guns played a key role in Custer's defeat, or whether he was simply outgeneraled by chiefs Sitting Bull and Crazy Horse.
Contemporary accounts of the battle, including interviews with some of the warriors involved (none of Custer's men survived), suggest that the disparity in manpower tipped the scales. Although he apparently knew he would be outnumbered, Custer didn't seem overly concerned: He was known to have contempt for Indian military capabilities, and some of the intelligence he received from his Indian agents badly underestimated the numerical strength of the warriors in the area.
And while the Indians did employ repeating rifles on the attack, forensic evidence shows that most of the killing was done using the traditional war club and lance, as well as the bow and arrow. Indian accounts describe the battle as a "counting coup," where warriors attained prestige in battle by killing their enemy in close quarters. Many of Custer's men were run down by mounted warriors and either clubbed or stabbed to death.
The bow-and-arrow was also used to devastating effect. Custer intended to ford the Little Bighorn and attack the large Indian encampment on the other side, but he never made it. Attacked himself from all sides by vastly superior numbers, he was forced to withdraw to higher ground, leaving his men in an exposed position. Soldiers caught on an open field are especially vulnerable to concentrated attack, whether by arrows or artillery.
Custer's regiment -- 197 men -- was wiped out in a final assault that lasted approximately 20 minutes. Other cavalry units in the area took a beating, too, and were driven off, unable to reinforce Custer as he made his last stand. According to modern forensic evidence, the "stand" was probably more of a panic-stricken rout.
Word of Custer's defeat reached Washington, D.C., on July 3, the eve of the nation's centennial. The Army scrambled to put the best face on things, and the politicians and historians — not to mention Custer's widow — began their 19th-century version of spin control. The myth of the noble Custer holding off the red savages to his dying breath would endure in this country well into the next century.
For the Lakota and the Cheyenne, the elation of victory was tempered by the knowledge that they were only buying time, that in the long run the white man and, yes, the white man's technology would destroy their way of life.
Source: Various
*Photo: White marble gravestones **at Custer Battlefield National Monument in Montana *mark where men of the 7th Cavalry fell. The gravestone with a dark shield marks the site where General Custer fell.
Credit: Robert Harding/Corbis
