Crazy Horse and the Battle of Little Bighorn: Complete Historical Guide

Crazy Horse stood out as one of the most formidable Sioux leaders during the Battle of the Little Bighorn, a watershed moment in American history that occurred on June 25-26, 1876. This clash between Native American tribes and the U.S. Army resulted in one of the most stunning military victories ever achieved by indigenous forces against the United States.

The battle represents far more than a single day’s fighting along the banks of Montana’s Little Bighorn River. It symbolizes the desperate struggle of Native peoples to preserve their way of life, the collision of irreconcilable worldviews, and the tragic inevitability of cultural destruction masked as “progress.”

Understanding Crazy Horse’s crucial role helps explain how the Sioux, Northern Cheyenne, and Arapaho managed to organize a coordinated defense that completely destroyed five companies of the 7th U.S. Cavalry, including the entire detachment led by Lieutenant Colonel George Armstrong Custer. His tactical brilliance, combined with the unified strength of multiple tribes, created a perfect storm that overwhelmed one of America’s most celebrated military commanders.

The battle itself emerged from decades of broken treaties, forced relocations, and the systematic destruction of Native American cultures. When gold was discovered in the sacred Black Hills, the final pretense of honoring agreements evaporated, setting the stage for this dramatic confrontation.

This comprehensive guide explores the complex background leading to the battle, Crazy Horse’s life and leadership philosophy, the detailed events of those fateful two days, and the profound impact this victory—and subsequent defeat—had on Native American history. You’ll gain insight into military strategies, cultural perspectives, and why this battle continues to resonate nearly 150 years later.

Key Takeaways

• Crazy Horse led Sioux warriors with innovative tactics and fierce determination during the battle
• The Battle of Little Bighorn was the most significant Native American military victory against U.S. forces
• Despite winning the battle, Native tribes ultimately lost the broader conflict as the U.S. intensified military campaigns
• The fight symbolized the clash between indigenous sovereignty and American expansionism
• Crazy Horse’s legacy extends beyond warfare to represent cultural resistance and Native pride

Background to the Battle of Little Bighorn

The conflict at Little Bighorn didn’t emerge from nowhere—it was the inevitable result of decades of pressure, broken promises, and incompatible visions for the American West. Understanding these underlying tensions is essential for grasping why this battle occurred and what it represented to both sides.

The Root Causes: Gold, Greed, and Broken Treaties

The immediate catalyst for the Battle of Little Bighorn was the discovery of gold in the Black Hills in 1874. This discovery transformed a remote sacred landscape into ground zero for conflict between Native Americans and an expansionist United States.

The Black Hills, known to the Sioux as Paha Sapa, held profound spiritual significance. These mountains were the heart of Sioux territory, protected by the Treaty of Fort Laramie signed in 1868. This agreement guaranteed the Black Hills and surrounding territories to the Sioux Nation “for as long as the grass shall grow and the rivers flow.”

That promise lasted barely six years.

When Lieutenant Colonel George Armstrong Custer led an expedition into the Black Hills in 1874 and his men found gold, thousands of prospectors and settlers flooded into the region, completely ignoring treaty boundaries. The U.S. government made token efforts to stop this illegal invasion but ultimately prioritized the interests of white settlers over treaty obligations.

The government attempted to purchase the Black Hills, offering money the Sioux flatly refused. The mountains weren’t for sale—they were sacred ground where warriors sought visions and where the people’s spiritual identity was rooted. When negotiations failed, the government simply changed its approach.

In December 1875, the Commissioner of Indian Affairs issued an ultimatum: all Sioux bands must report to designated reservations by January 31, 1876, or be considered “hostile” and subject to military action. This deadline was unrealistic—it came during the brutal Plains winter when travel was nearly impossible, and many bands never even received the message.

The ultimatum wasn’t really about compliance. It was a legal pretext for military action against tribes who refused to surrender their freedom and accept reservation life. When the deadline passed, the U.S. Army received authorization to force compliance, setting the stage for armed conflict.

This pattern of broken treaties wasn’t new. The Fort Laramie Treaty itself had replaced earlier agreements that the government violated when convenient. Native leaders like Crazy Horse and Sitting Bull recognized that no treaty would protect them once Americans wanted their land badly enough.

The Plains Indians and Their Threatened Way of Life

The Sioux, Northern Cheyenne, Arapaho, and other Plains tribes had developed a sophisticated culture perfectly adapted to the Great Plains environment. Their entire civilization centered on following the buffalo herds that provided food, clothing, shelter, and spiritual meaning.

Life on the Plains was mobile and free. Tribes moved with the seasons, following game and maintaining relationships with the land that went back generations. Leadership structures emphasized earned respect rather than hereditary authority—warriors like Crazy Horse rose to prominence through demonstrated courage, wisdom, and success in protecting their people.

Spiritual life permeated every aspect of Plains culture. The Sun Dance, vision quests, and other ceremonies connected individuals to the sacred powers that governed the world. These practices weren’t recreational—they were fundamental to identity and survival.

Plains warriors developed exceptional military skills. Growing up on horseback, they became some of the world’s finest light cavalry. They understood guerrilla tactics, hit-and-run warfare, and how to use terrain to their advantage. Their decentralized military organization allowed for flexible, adaptive responses to changing battlefield conditions.

The social organization of Plains tribes emphasized community welfare over individual accumulation. Generosity was a mark of status—successful hunters shared their kills, and warriors protected the vulnerable. This collectivist ethic contrasted sharply with the individualistic, property-focused culture of American settlers.

Buffalo hunting defined the economic base of Plains life. These animals provided meat for food, hides for clothing and shelter, bones for tools, and sinew for thread and bowstrings. The systematic destruction of buffalo herds by white hunters—often killing animals just for their hides or even for sport—represented an existential threat to Native peoples.

By the 1870s, Plains tribes faced mounting pressure from all directions. Railroads cut across traditional territories, bringing endless waves of settlers. The U.S. government constructed military forts throughout the region, projecting power and restricting Native movement. Buffalo herds, once numbering in the millions, were being systematically exterminated.

Reservation life offered survival but at an unbearable cost. On reservations, Native people couldn’t hunt freely, follow the buffalo, or maintain their traditional spiritual practices. Government agents controlled food distribution, often providing inadequate rations while corruption siphoned off resources meant for Native communities.

For leaders like Crazy Horse, the choice was stark: accept cultural death on reservations or fight to preserve freedom and tradition. Many chose to resist, gathering in large encampments that alarmed government officials and military commanders who saw them as threatening concentrations of “hostile” Indians.

The Role and Strategy of the U.S. Army

The U.S. Army in the 1870s served as the enforcement arm of American expansionism. Its mission on the Plains was straightforward: pacify Native resistance, protect settlers and transportation routes, and force tribal compliance with government policies.

The army operated under the assumption of technological and tactical superiority. Soldiers carried modern firearms, received formal military training, and followed established European-style warfare doctrine. Officers like Custer believed that disciplined troops could defeat any number of “savages” through superior organization and firepower.

This confidence was partly justified—the army had won most major engagements during the Indian Wars. But it also bred dangerous overconfidence and a tendency to underestimate Native military capabilities.

The 7th Cavalry Regiment, formed in 1866, had established a reputation for aggressive action against Native peoples. Lieutenant Colonel George Armstrong Custer commanded the regiment from 1866 until his death at Little Bighorn. Custer himself was a controversial figure—a Civil War hero known for bold, sometimes reckless tactics, as well as a glory-seeker whose judgment could be clouded by ambition.

The army’s strategy for dealing with non-reservation Indians involved finding their villages, usually in winter when mobility was limited and supplies were low, then attacking to destroy food stores, kill horses, and force survivors onto reservations. This strategy had worked repeatedly throughout the Indian Wars.

In spring 1876, the army launched a coordinated campaign against the Sioux and their allies. Three columns would converge on the region where intelligence suggested large numbers of Native people had gathered. General Alfred Terry commanded the Dakota Column, which included Custer’s 7th Cavalry. Colonel John Gibbon led the Montana Column, and General George Crook commanded the Wyoming Column.

The plan called for these forces to trap the Sioux between them, preventing escape and forcing a decisive engagement. It was a sound strategy on paper, but it relied on accurate intelligence about enemy numbers and locations—information the army didn’t actually possess.

Army leaders fundamentally misunderstood what they faced. They expected to find several scattered villages that could be defeated piecemeal. Instead, unprecedented numbers of Native warriors had gathered in one massive encampment, united by spiritual leadership and shared determination to resist.

The army also failed to appreciate how effectively Native scouts and communication networks tracked military movements. The tribes knew the army was coming and had time to prepare, while Custer and his fellow officers operated with incomplete and often inaccurate information about enemy strength and position.

Treaties, Reservations, and Systemic Betrayal

The treaty system nominally governed relations between the U.S. government and Native tribes, recognizing tribes as sovereign nations with whom the United States negotiated agreements. In practice, this system became a mechanism for gradually dispossessing Native peoples of their lands.

The Treaty of Fort Laramie (1868) represented the most significant agreement affecting the Sioux. After Red Cloud’s War—a successful Native military campaign that forced the U.S. to abandon forts along the Bozeman Trail—the government negotiated this treaty, which established the Great Sioux Reservation covering all of present-day South Dakota west of the Missouri River.

Critically, the treaty also recognized the Powder River country in Wyoming and Montana as “unceded Indian territory” where Sioux bands could continue hunting. The Black Hills were guaranteed to the Sioux, with provisions stating that no treaty changes could occur without approval from three-quarters of adult male Sioux.

For a few years, this treaty appeared to hold. Then came the Black Hills gold rush, and the government’s priorities shifted entirely.

Rather than enforcing the treaty and removing illegal miners, the government pressured the Sioux to sell the Black Hills. When tribes refused, officials simply ignored the treaty provisions requiring Sioux consent for territorial changes. In 1877, after the army had defeated the Sioux militarily, Congress passed legislation seizing the Black Hills without the required Native approval—a violation of the government’s own treaty that the Supreme Court would eventually acknowledge (in 1980) was an illegal taking.

Reservation life was designed to transform Native peoples from independent, mobile hunters into sedentary farmers on individual plots of land. This wasn’t just about confinement—it was a deliberate attempt to destroy tribal culture and replace it with American values of private property, Christianity, and agricultural labor.

Reservations were often located on poor land unsuitable for farming. Government agents controlled food distribution, creating dependencies that could be exploited to force compliance with assimilation policies. Native children were sometimes forcibly removed to boarding schools where they were punished for speaking their languages or practicing their traditions.

Corruption was rampant. The “Indian Ring” was a term for the network of government agents, contractors, and politicians who profited from the reservation system. Supplies meant for Native people were routinely stolen, sold, or replaced with inferior goods. Rations were inadequate, leading to malnutrition and disease.

For many Sioux, refusing to accept reservation life wasn’t about wanting war—it was about survival with dignity. Leaders like Crazy Horse and Sitting Bull represented those who chose to remain free, following the buffalo and living according to traditional ways, rather than submit to a system designed to erase their culture.

The ultimatum issued in December 1875 targeted these “non-treaty” Indians—bands that had never agreed to reservation life or who had left reservations to resume traditional hunting. The government’s patience for allowing even this limited freedom had run out. The Black Hills gold was too valuable, and the mere existence of free Native peoples contradicted the narrative of inevitable American expansion.

Crazy Horse: Life and Leadership

Crazy Horse emerged as one of the most legendary figures in Native American history—a warrior whose skill and courage became the stuff of legend, a leader who put his people’s welfare above personal glory, and a symbol of resistance against overwhelming odds. Understanding his life helps illuminate not just the Battle of Little Bighorn, but the broader struggle of Plains Indians to maintain their freedom.

Early Life: The Making of a Warrior

Crazy Horse was born around 1840 near Bear Butte in present-day South Dakota. His birth name was Cha-O-Ha (“In the Wilderness” or “Among the Trees”), and he belonged to the Oglala Lakota, one of the seven bands of the Sioux Nation.

His father was a holy man also named Crazy Horse (the name would later pass to his son), and his mother, Rattling Blanket Woman, died when he was young. This early loss may have contributed to the introspective, somewhat solitary nature that characterized him throughout his life.

As a boy, Crazy Horse displayed unusual qualities. He was lighter-skinned and had wavy brown hair, leading to the childhood nickname “Curly.” More significantly, he showed exceptional courage, skill with weapons, and a deep connection to the spiritual aspects of Lakota life.

A pivotal moment came when he was about 12 years old. He witnessed the Grattan Massacre of 1854, when U.S. soldiers attacked a Lakota village over a dispute about a cow, leading to the death of all the soldiers. The army’s retaliatory attack on a different Lakota village the following year, killing women and children, profoundly affected the young Crazy Horse. He saw firsthand that peace with white soldiers was impossible.

After these traumatic events, Crazy Horse went on a vision quest—a traditional spiritual practice where young men sought guidance from the sacred powers. During his vision, he saw himself riding through a storm on horseback, untouched by enemy weapons, while his own people tried to hold him back. A red-tailed hawk flew above him, and a small stone hung behind his ear.

This vision shaped his understanding of his purpose and his approach to warfare. He interpreted it to mean he should never take spoils from enemies, should always put his people’s needs first, and that he would be protected in battle if he remained true to these principles. Throughout his life, Crazy Horse followed this vision, often riding into battle with a small stone tied behind his ear and avoiding the material rewards that other warriors sought.

Rise as a Warrior and Leader

Crazy Horse earned his reputation through demonstrated courage and tactical brilliance in a series of conflicts during the 1860s and early 1870s. Unlike some leaders who were born into prominent families, Crazy Horse rose to leadership purely through his actions and the respect he commanded.

During Red Cloud’s War (1866-1868), Crazy Horse played a key role in several significant victories. He helped plan and execute the Fetterman Fight in December 1866, where Lakota, Cheyenne, and Arapaho warriors killed all 81 soldiers in Captain William Fetterman’s command. Crazy Horse served as a decoy, drawing the overconfident soldiers into an ambush—a tactic he would perfect and use repeatedly.

By his mid-twenties, Crazy Horse had become a shirt wearer, a position of high honor among the Lakota. Shirt wearers were expected to put the welfare of the people above everything else, settle disputes, and demonstrate courage in protecting the tribe. This formal recognition confirmed what his people already knew—Crazy Horse was a leader they could trust.

His military approach differed from traditional Plains warfare, which often emphasized individual acts of bravery and counting coup (touching enemies without killing them) as measures of warrior status. Crazy Horse focused on winning—on destroying enemies and protecting his people rather than accumulating personal glory. This pragmatic approach made him exceptionally effective.

Several characteristics defined Crazy Horse’s leadership:

Strategic thinking: He carefully planned attacks, studied enemy behavior, and adapted tactics to specific situations rather than following predictable patterns.

Personal courage: He regularly led charges personally, inspiring warriors through example rather than merely giving orders from safety.

Selflessness: He took no trophies from enemies, gave away captured horses and supplies, and lived simply despite his status.

Spiritual grounding: His vision quest experience and connection to Lakota spiritual practices gave him confidence and moral authority.

Unity building: He worked to unite different bands and tribes against common threats, subordinating individual or band interests to collective survival.

Military Tactics and Strategic Innovation

Crazy Horse’s tactical brilliance set him apart from many of his contemporaries. While he respected traditional Plains warfare customs, he wasn’t bound by them when survival demanded innovation.

His signature tactic involved the decoy and ambush strategy. Small groups of warriors would attack enemies, then retreat in apparent panic or defeat. When pursuers gave chase, they would be drawn into prepared ambush positions where overwhelming force waited. This tactic required discipline and coordination—warriors had to resist the temptation to engage too early and maintain the deception even while appearing to flee.

At the Battle of Little Bighorn, Crazy Horse adapted these tactics to the specific terrain and situation. His forces used draws and ravines to conceal their movements, appeared suddenly from unexpected directions, and maintained pressure from multiple angles to prevent Custer’s troops from establishing effective defensive positions.

Mobility defined Crazy Horse’s approach. Plains warriors were expert horsemen who could shoot accurately while riding at full gallop, mount and dismount rapidly, and use their horses as shields. Crazy Horse maximized these advantages, keeping his forces mobile, striking quickly, and disengaging before enemies could bring superior firepower to bear.

He also understood psychological warfare. The sight of hundreds of mounted warriors appearing suddenly, their war cries echoing across the prairie, had a powerful effect on soldiers already nervous about fighting Native forces. Crazy Horse deliberately created chaos and fear to disrupt enemy cohesion and decision-making.

Another key aspect of his tactical thinking was terrain exploitation. Growing up on the Plains, Crazy Horse knew every hill, ravine, and river crossing in his homeland. He used this knowledge to position forces advantageously, create ambush points, and predict where enemies would move.

Unlike European military doctrine that emphasized massed formations and frontal assaults, Crazy Horse employed fluid, adaptive tactics that took advantage of circumstances as they developed. His warriors could disperse when facing artillery or superior firepower, then mass quickly when opportunity arose.

Political Dimensions and Spiritual Leadership

While remembered primarily as a warrior, Crazy Horse also navigated the complex political landscape both within Lakota society and in relations with the U.S. government. His political stance was uncompromising: he would not accept reservation life or surrender Lakota freedom.

This position put him at odds not just with the U.S. government but sometimes with other Native leaders who chose accommodation. Chiefs like Red Cloud and Spotted Tail eventually accepted reservation life, believing it was the only way to ensure their people’s survival. Crazy Horse and Sitting Bull represented those who refused to compromise, maintaining that survival without freedom wasn’t true survival at all.

Oral histories preserved by Lakota elders provide crucial insights into Crazy Horse’s character and motivations that written accounts often miss. These stories, passed down through generations, describe a man who was humble despite his fame, generous beyond his means, and deeply committed to his people’s welfare.

The oral tradition emphasizes aspects that contemporary written accounts overlook—his sense of humor, his affection for children, his careful attention to mentoring young warriors, and his complex inner life. These stories humanize Crazy Horse beyond the warrior image, revealing someone who struggled with the same questions about duty, sacrifice, and the future that confront any leader.

Crazy Horse’s political philosophy centered on the belief that the Lakota way of life was worth fighting for, even against impossible odds. He saw clearly that accepting reservation life meant the end of everything that made Lakota culture meaningful. For him, physical survival without cultural survival was a kind of death.

This uncompromising stance eventually led to his death. In 1877, less than a year after Little Bighorn, Crazy Horse surrendered at Fort Robinson in Nebraska after months of being pursued by the army. On September 5, 1877, under circumstances that remain controversial, he was bayoneted while allegedly resisting being placed in a guardhouse. He was approximately 37 years old.

His death sparked outrage among the Lakota, and the exact circumstances remain disputed. What’s clear is that the government saw Crazy Horse as too dangerous to remain alive—a symbol of resistance who could inspire renewed rebellion even in defeat.

The Crazy Horse Memorial: Honoring a Legacy

Today, the Crazy Horse Memorial in the Black Hills of South Dakota stands as the world’s largest mountain carving in progress, honoring not just the man but the broader heritage of Native peoples. Started in 1948 by sculptor Korczak Ziolkowski at the request of Lakota elders, the memorial depicts Crazy Horse mounted on a horse, pointing over the land.

The memorial’s famous inscription captures Crazy Horse’s spirit: “My lands are where my dead lie buried.” This statement, attributed to Crazy Horse though its exact provenance is uncertain, encapsulates his connection to place and his people’s relationship with their homeland.

The memorial remains unfinished decades after work began, funded entirely by donations and entrance fees without federal or state support. This independence reflects Crazy Horse’s own rejection of government control—the memorial exists on its own terms, much as Crazy Horse lived his life.

Whether the memorial truly honors Crazy Horse or represents an unwelcome imposition on the Black Hills remains debated within Native communities. Crazy Horse never allowed photographs of himself and lived simply, avoiding monuments to his own glory. Some argue that a massive tourist attraction contradicts everything he represented, while others see it as an appropriate symbol of Native resilience and pride.

What’s undeniable is that Crazy Horse’s legacy extends far beyond the Battle of Little Bighorn. He represents the possibility of resistance, the choice to stand for principles despite impossible odds, and the enduring connection between people and place that no amount of military power could sever.

The Battle of Little Bighorn: Day-by-Day Events

The Battle of Little Bighorn unfolded over approximately 48 hours in late June 1876, though the most intense fighting occurred during several hours on June 25. Understanding the sequence of events helps explain how a Native American victory of this magnitude occurred and why Custer’s defeat was so complete.

Setting the Stage: The Gathering of Nations

By mid-June 1876, an unprecedented gathering of Sioux, Northern Cheyenne, and Arapaho peoples had assembled along the Little Bighorn River in Montana Territory. Estimates of the total population—including warriors, women, children, and elders—range from 7,000 to 10,000 people, making it one of the largest concentrations of Plains Indians ever recorded.

This gathering wasn’t planned as a military operation but as a traditional seasonal meeting. Tribes came together for the Sun Dance ceremony, to trade, renew friendships, and discuss the growing pressure from the U.S. Army. The spiritual leader Sitting Bull had experienced a powerful vision during the Sun Dance showing soldiers “falling into camp,” which many interpreted as prophesying a great victory.

The village stretched for approximately three miles along the western bank of the Little Bighorn River (called the Greasy Grass by the Lakota). Different tribal circles occupied distinct sections—Hunkpapa, Oglala, Minneconjou, Sans Arc, and Blackfeet Sioux, along with Northern Cheyenne and a small number of Arapaho.

Warrior numbers are debated but likely ranged from 1,500 to 2,500 fighting men. These weren’t professional soldiers but hunters and warriors who had grown up on horseback, intimately familiar with the terrain and highly motivated to protect their families encamped nearby.

The Native forces possessed a mix of weapons—some modern repeating rifles (Henry and Winchester models) obtained through trade or captured in previous fights, traditional bows and arrows that could be fired more rapidly than single-shot army carbines at close range, and war clubs and lances for close combat.

June 25, Morning: Custer’s Approach and Fatal Decisions

General Alfred Terry had ordered Custer to march south along Rosebud Creek, then sweep west toward the Little Bighorn where intelligence suggested a Native encampment existed. Terry and Colonel Gibbon’s forces would approach from the north, ideally trapping the Sioux between two forces.

Custer, however, deviated from these orders. Worried that the Sioux might escape before he could engage them and eager to secure the glory of a decisive victory, he pushed his regiment hard, reaching the vicinity of the Native camp on June 24—a day earlier than planned.

On the evening of June 24, Crow scouts reported signs of an enormous village ahead. Custer and his officers climbed to a high point called the Crow’s Nest at dawn on June 25 to observe. The scouts insisted they could see a massive horse herd in the distance—evidence of a huge encampment. Custer, his vision not as sharp, couldn’t see what they described but accepted their judgment.

Custer now faced a critical decision. He could wait for Terry and Gibbon’s columns to arrive, ensuring overwhelming force. Or he could attack immediately, risking a fight against unknown numbers but preventing the village from scattering.

Fearing the Sioux would discover his presence and flee before reinforcements arrived—the fate that haunted many Indian Wars campaigns—Custer chose to attack immediately. It was approximately noon on June 25, 1876.

Custer divided his regiment into four battalions:

• Captain Frederick Benteen led three companies (approximately 125 men) on a scouting mission to the south to ensure no Natives escaped in that direction
• Major Marcus Reno commanded three companies (approximately 140 men) ordered to attack the village from the south
• Captain Thomas McDougall stayed with one company (about 130 men) to guard the pack train carrying ammunition and supplies
• Custer personally led five companies (approximately 210 men) to attack from the north and east

This division of forces—standard practice in cavalry operations to prevent enemy escape—proved fatal. Each element would be unable to support the others, and communication between separated units was nearly impossible over broken terrain.

June 25, Afternoon: Reno’s Attack and Retreat

Major Reno’s battalion attacked first, crossing the Little Bighorn River and charging toward the southern end of the village around 3:00 PM. Initially, his attack caught warriors by surprise, and some families began fleeing in panic.

But the surprise lasted only moments. Warriors rushed to defend their families, gathering horses and weapons with remarkable speed. What Reno thought would be a disorganized camp turned out to be a hornets’ nest of determined defenders.

Within minutes, Reno’s charging line halted as he realized the overwhelming numbers facing him. He ordered his men to dismount and form a skirmish line—a defensive rather than offensive formation. This decision probably saved his battalion from immediate annihilation but surrendered the initiative.

Warriors under leaders like Gall (a Hunkpapa chief) and Crazy Horse swarmed around Reno’s position, firing from cover and threatening to surround the soldiers. After less than an hour in the valley, with casualties mounting and his position becoming untenable, Reno ordered a retreat back across the river to high ground.

The retreat quickly became chaotic. Soldiers ran for the river, some on horses, others on foot. Warriors pursued, killing stragglers and causing panic. In the confusion, Reno’s Arikara and Crow scouts (who had been recruited to fight their traditional enemies) largely fled. The retreat cost Reno approximately 40 men killed or missing.

Reno’s survivors reached the bluffs on the east side of the river and dug in defensively. They would remain pinned in this position, under intermittent fire, for the next day and a half until relief arrived.

June 25, Late Afternoon: Custer’s Battle and Annihilation

While Reno attacked the southern end of the village, Custer led his five companies northward along ridges east of the Little Bighorn River. His apparent plan was to strike the village from the north or northeast while Reno’s attack held warrior attention to the south.

What happened next is one of American history’s great mysteries because no soldier in Custer’s battalion survived to tell the story. What we know comes from Native accounts, physical evidence from the battlefield, and the positions where bodies and artifacts were found.

As Custer moved north, warriors alerted by Reno’s attack began streaming in his direction. Leaders like Crazy Horse and Two Moons (a Cheyenne chief) rallied fighters and organized a response. Rather than facing a surprised village, Custer encountered an aroused and organized defensive force.

Contrary to popular myth, Custer’s “Last Stand” wasn’t a single heroic defensive position. The evidence suggests his battalion fragmented into several groups across about a mile of terrain now called Custer Hill and Battle Ridge. Some companies may have tried to attack toward the river but were driven back. Others attempted to establish defensive positions on high ground.

Crazy Horse likely led the decisive maneuver. Native accounts describe him leading a force that swept around behind Custer’s position, attacking from the north and east—directions Custer wasn’t expecting threats from. This movement, combined with pressure from other directions, created a collapsing perimeter situation.

The terrain—broken by ravines and low ridges—prevented soldiers from maintaining sight lines or supporting each other effectively. Warriors used these features to approach closely, firing from cover while remaining difficult targets.

The battle probably lasted between 30 minutes to an hour, though the exact timeline remains uncertain. As defensive positions collapsed and panic spread, organized resistance broke down into desperate last stands by small groups and individuals.

All 210 men in Custer’s immediate command died. Custer himself was found on the slope now called Custer Hill, shot twice—once in the chest and once in the left temple. Whether the head wound was self-inflicted to avoid capture or came from a Native warrior is unknown. His body was not mutilated, suggesting warriors recognized him and treated his remains with some respect.

The overwhelming victory came from several factors: the warriors’ numerical superiority at the point of contact, their intimate knowledge of terrain, their motivation to protect families nearby, Custer’s division of forces and inability to concentrate his regiment, and the tactical skill of leaders like Crazy Horse who exploited every advantage.

June 25-26: The Siege of Reno’s Position

Warriors maintained pressure on Reno and Benteen’s combined forces (the two battalions had joined on the bluffs) throughout the night of June 25 and all day June 26. The soldiers dug rifle pits and threw up earthworks, suffering from thirst and the Montana heat while under intermittent fire.

The Native forces never pressed an all-out assault on this position for several reasons. Many warriors had exhausted their ammunition in the fighting against Custer. Others were focused on protecting families and preparing to move the massive village. Most significantly, the decisive victory had been won—there was little to gain from further casualties attacking an entrenched defensive position.

On June 27, scouts spotted columns of smoke to the north—Terry and Gibbon’s forces approaching. The Native village dispersed, with different bands heading in various directions. By the time relief forces reached Reno’s position, the Prairie was empty except for abandoned camp equipment and the evidence of catastrophic defeat.

The Battlefield Aftermath: Bodies and Evidence

The relief forces found a scene of devastation. Bodies of soldiers from Custer’s battalion were scattered across the battlefield, many stripped of clothing and weapons (valuable resources for Native warriors), and some mutilated in ways that shocked the rescuers.

Mutilation of bodies, while disturbing to Victorian-era Americans, followed Plains warrior traditions regarding enemies. From the Native perspective, killed enemies were denied proper burial and spiritual peace. This wasn’t sadistic—it was a spiritual practice related to beliefs about the afterlife. The extent of mutilation also reflected the deep anger many warriors felt about years of broken promises and attacks on their families.

Custer’s body was recognizable and largely unmutilated. His brother Tom Custer’s remains were severely mutilated, making identification difficult initially. Other officers and enlisted men were buried in shallow graves on the battlefield where they fell.

The wounded from Reno’s command received medical treatment and evacuation. The regiment had lost approximately 268 men killed and 55 wounded—nearly half its strength. For the U.S. Army, it was the worst defeat in the Indian Wars and a shock that reverberated through American society.

The Forces, Leaders, and Their Roles

Understanding who fought at Little Bighorn and what motivated them provides essential context for interpreting the battle’s meaning and impact.

Native American Forces: Unity in Diversity

The Native forces represented an unprecedented coalition. Normally, these bands operated independently, coming together only for major ceremonies or when facing common threats. The gathering at Little Bighorn represented unity driven by shared danger and purpose.

Sitting Bull (Tatanka Iyotake) was the spiritual heart of this gathering. A Hunkpapa Lakota holy man and chief, Sitting Bull’s vision during the Sun Dance—seeing soldiers falling upside down into camp—gave warriors confidence that the spirits favored them. Though he didn’t fight directly (he was in his mid-40s and his role was spiritual leadership), his presence united the various bands and provided moral authority for resistance.

Crazy Horse served as the preeminent war leader. His tactical skill and personal courage made him the natural commander of offensive operations. Native accounts consistently credit him with leading the flanking movement that sealed Custer’s fate. His fighting style—aggressive, mobile, exploiting terrain—shaped how the battle unfolded.

Other significant leaders included:

Gall (Pizi): A Hunkpapa war chief whose family was killed during Reno’s initial attack, fueling his ferocious counterattack. Gall led warriors who overwhelmed Reno’s valley position.

Two Moons (Isi’eyo’nis): A Northern Cheyenne chief who fought alongside Crazy Horse and helped coordinate Cheyenne warriors’ participation.

Lame White Man: A Southern Cheyenne leader who died in the fighting, demonstrating the personal costs even in victory.

Black Elk: Though only 13 years old during the battle, Black Elk witnessed the fighting and later became a famous holy man whose accounts provide valuable perspective.

These leaders operated through influence and respect rather than formal command structures. Warriors chose which leaders to follow based on reputation and spiritual power. This decentralized organization provided flexibility but also made coordinated large-scale operations challenging.

U.S. Army Forces: The 7th Cavalry

The 7th Cavalry Regiment was formed in 1866 specifically for frontier duty and fighting Native peoples. It had participated in campaigns across the Great Plains, earning a reputation for aggressiveness under Custer’s command.

Lieutenant Colonel George Armstrong Custer remains one of American history’s most controversial military figures. A Civil War hero at age 23, Custer was known for personal bravery, bold tactics, and flamboyant self-promotion. He had attacked a Cheyenne village on the Washita River in 1868, killing Chief Black Kettle and scores of others in an operation that some viewed as a military success and others condemned as a massacre.

By 1876, Custer was 36 years old, seeking to restore a reputation tarnished by his testimony about corruption in the Indian Service (which angered President Grant) and by his increasingly reckless behavior. Glory at Little Bighorn might have secured his political future—instead, it ended his life.

Major Marcus Reno commanded one battalion and bore significant responsibility for the initial attack’s failure. His decision to halt and dismount, then his chaotic retreat, were later criticized. A court of inquiry eventually cleared him of wrongdoing, but his reputation never fully recovered. Some historians argue he made reasonable decisions given the overwhelming force he faced; others see failure of nerve at a critical moment.

Captain Frederick Benteen was an experienced officer who disliked Custer personally but followed orders professionally. His battalion arrived too late to assist Custer but helped defend Reno’s position. Benteen testified at the inquiry that Custer’s orders were vague and that the division of forces was tactically unsound.

The enlisted men of the 7th Cavalry included veterans and raw recruits, native-born Americans and recent immigrants. Many had limited training with their weapons and horses. The Springfield carbines they carried were single-shot weapons prone to jamming, especially when cartridges expanded from heat. This mechanical limitation became critical during sustained fighting.

Native scouts serving with Custer included Arikara and Crow warriors, traditional enemies of the Sioux. These scouts provided intelligence and warned Custer that the village was enormous. Several were killed in the fighting, and others fled when they realized the battle was lost.

Leadership Decisions and Their Consequences

The battle’s outcome was shaped by decisions made at every level. Custer’s choice to attack immediately rather than wait for reinforcements was the most consequential. His confidence that the 7th Cavalry could defeat any Native force it encountered proved fatally wrong.

Dividing his regiment was tactically sound by cavalry doctrine—it prevented enemy escape and allowed attacks from multiple directions. But it required communication and coordination that proved impossible over the broken terrain, and it meant no single element had sufficient strength to overwhelm the opposition.

Crazy Horse’s tactical decisions showed superior battlefield judgment. His flanking maneuver exploited Custer’s divided force, and his use of terrain prevented soldiers from establishing effective defensive positions. Most importantly, his ability to inspire and coordinate multiple groups of warriors—each following different leaders and customs—demonstrated exceptional leadership under pressure.

The decentralized Native command structure actually proved advantageous in this battle. Small groups of warriors could adapt to changing conditions without waiting for orders from a central commander. When opportunities appeared, warriors exploited them immediately. This flexibility contrasted with the army’s more rigid command hierarchy.

Legacy and Historical Significance: Understanding the Long View

The Battle of Little Bighorn’s impact extended far beyond the battlefield casualty counts. It affected military policy, Native American survival, cultural memory, and how Americans understood their nation’s expansion.

Immediate Aftermath and Military Response

News of the disaster reached the American public during the nation’s Centennial celebration in July 1876, creating a profound shock. How could America’s army be defeated so decisively by “savages” at the very moment the nation celebrated 100 years of progress?

The government’s response was swift and overwhelming. Rather than reconsidering policies that had driven Native peoples to desperate resistance, officials intensified military pressure. More troops deployed to the Northern Plains with orders to hunt down and force all non-reservation Indians onto reservations.

The campaigns of 1876-1877 were relentless. Sitting Bull fled to Canada with some followers, remaining there until 1881. Crazy Horse and his band were pursued throughout the winter of 1876-77, suffering from hunger and cold as the army destroyed camps and supplies. By spring 1877, exhausted and facing starvation, Crazy Horse surrendered at Fort Robinson, Nebraska.

The military established more forts, increased patrols, and adopted more aggressive tactics specifically designed to prevent any future gathering like the one at Little Bighorn. The strategy worked—never again would Plains tribes concentrate in such numbers or achieve such a significant military victory.

Impact on Native Americans: Victory’s Bitter Consequences

The Battle of Little Bighorn became a symbol of Native resistance and courage, but the reality following the battle was grim. Winning the battle meant losing the war.

The government used the defeat as justification for even harsher policies. Congressional sentiment shifted toward those advocating complete military subjugation rather than negotiated settlements. Funding for military operations against Plains tribes increased dramatically.

The Black Hills were formally seized in 1877 through an agreement signed by only 10% of adult male Sioux—far short of the three-quarters required by the Fort Laramie Treaty. This illegal taking (later acknowledged by the Supreme Court) transferred control of the sacred mountains to the United States.

By 1877, most Sioux and Northern Cheyenne were confined to reservations under military supervision. Traditional hunting grounds were closed, buffalo herds nearly extinct, and the mobile life that had defined Plains culture became impossible. Children were sent to boarding schools to be “civilized,” forbidden to speak their languages or practice their religions.

Sitting Bull returned from Canada in 1881 and was eventually killed by Indian police during an arrest attempt in 1890 on the Standing Rock Reservation. His death came amid growing tensions around the Ghost Dance movement—a spiritual revival that promised a return of the buffalo and the restoration of Native lands.

Crazy Horse’s death in 1877 deprived the Sioux of their greatest war leader just when his guidance might have helped people navigate the transition to reservation life. Some historians argue he was killed precisely because government officials feared his influence even in defeat.

The Wounded Knee Massacre in December 1890—where the 7th Cavalry killed approximately 300 Lakota men, women, and children—is sometimes viewed as the army’s revenge for Little Bighorn, though the connections are complex. What’s certain is that by 1890, Plains Indian resistance had been completely crushed.

Shaping Historical Memory and Cultural Understanding

How Americans remember Little Bighorn reveals much about changing cultural attitudes. Initially, the battle was portrayed as a massacre of brave soldiers by treacherous savages. Custer became a martyred hero, his tactical failures forgotten or excused.

Custer’s Last Stand entered American mythology, depicted in countless paintings, dime novels, and eventually films. These portrayals typically showed Custer and his men surrounded but fighting bravely to the end—a narrative that emphasized American courage while implicitly justifying subsequent military actions against Native peoples.

This interpretation began shifting in the 20th century as scholars examined Native accounts and archaeological evidence. Rather than a heroic last stand, the battle appeared as a military disaster caused by intelligence failures, tactical mistakes, and overconfidence. Custer’s reputation declined as historians recognized Native military skill and leadership.

In recent decades, perspectives have continued evolving. The battlefield, originally called “Custer Battlefield National Monument,” was renamed “Little Bighorn Battlefield National Monument” in 1991, recognizing that the battle involved multiple peoples, not just Custer. In 2003, a monument honoring Native warriors was dedicated at the site, providing long-overdue recognition of their perspective.

Modern interpretations emphasize the battle as a tragic moment in a larger tragedy—the near-destruction of Native cultures through deliberate government policy. From this view, neither side truly “won” Little Bighorn. Native peoples won a battle but lost their homeland, their freedom, and nearly lost their cultures. The United States won its territorial objectives but at the cost of violating its own treaties and inflicting immeasurable suffering.

Native American perspectives, increasingly centered in historical discussions, emphasize Little Bighorn as a moment of justified self-defense. The Lakota, Cheyenne, and Arapaho were protecting their families, their sacred lands, and their way of life against an aggressive military force sent to subjugate them. From this viewpoint, the battle represents the moral right of people to resist oppression.

The Battle’s Place in Educational Curriculum

The Battle of Little Bighorn appears in history curricula worldwide as a case study in military conflict, cultural collision, and the complexities of historical memory.

In GCSE and IGCSE History courses, particularly in British examination boards like Cambridge International (CIE), Little Bighorn illustrates themes of imperialism, resistance, and the costs of expansion. Students examine primary sources, compare perspectives, and develop critical thinking about how history is recorded and remembered.

The battle provides opportunities to discuss:

• Multiple perspectives: How do different sources describe the same events differently, and why?
• Causation: What combination of factors led to this confrontation?
• Consequence: Why did a Native victory lead to defeat in the broader conflict?
• Change and continuity: How did this battle affect subsequent events?

Modern pedagogy emphasizes including Native voices and perspectives rather than presenting only the military or governmental viewpoint. This approach helps students understand that history is contested terrain where different communities remember events differently based on their experiences and values.

The battle also raises ethical questions relevant across time: When is resistance justified? How should societies balance expansion with rights of existing inhabitants? What responsibilities do governments have to honor agreements? These questions transcend the specific historical moment, making Little Bighorn relevant for understanding contemporary issues.

Conclusion: Remembering Crazy Horse and Little Bighorn

The Battle of Little Bighorn stands as one of the most dramatic moments in American history—a stunning military victory for Native forces that marked the beginning of their final defeat. Crazy Horse’s leadership, courage, and tactical brilliance achieved what seemed impossible: the complete destruction of five companies of U.S. Cavalry and the death of one of America’s most celebrated commanders.

Yet this victory came at an terrible cost. The battle’s aftermath brought intensified military pressure, forced relocations, cultural suppression, and the near-destruction of the Plains Indian way of life. Within a year, most of the warriors who fought at Little Bighorn were confined to reservations, their freedom curtailed, their cultures under assault.

Crazy Horse himself survived only a year after the battle, dying under questionable circumstances at Fort Robinson. His death deprived his people of a leader who might have helped navigate the impossible transition from freedom to confinement. Whether he could have made a difference is unknowable, but his absence was deeply felt.

The battle’s legacy continues to evolve. What was once remembered primarily as “Custer’s Last Stand”—a story about American heroism and sacrifice—is now understood as a more complex moment highlighting Native resistance, military incompetence, broken treaties, and the human costs of expansionism.

For Native Americans, particularly the Lakota and Cheyenne peoples, Little Bighorn represents a moment when their ancestors stood against overwhelming power and prevailed, even if only briefly. It symbolizes the courage to resist, the importance of unity, and the enduring connection to land and culture that no amount of military force could completely sever.

The Crazy Horse Memorial, the Little Bighorn Battlefield National Monument, and countless books, films, and scholarly works ensure that this story remains part of our collective memory. Each generation rediscovers the battle and finds new meanings relevant to their own times.

What endures is the recognition that this wasn’t simply a military engagement but a collision of worldviews, a desperate fight for survival and dignity, and a defining moment that shaped the American West. Crazy Horse and the thousands of warriors who fought alongside him demonstrated that Native peoples were not passive victims of history but active participants who fought skillfully and courageously for their rights and their futures.

Their victory at Little Bighorn, though ultimately overtaken by historical forces beyond any single battle’s control, remains a testament to human resilience, strategic brilliance, and the enduring power of people fighting for what they believe in most deeply. That legacy belongs not just to history books but to the ongoing story of Native peoples’ survival, adaptation, and cultural preservation despite centuries of pressure to disappear.

Additional Resources

To deepen your understanding of Crazy Horse and the Battle of Little Bighorn, explore these authoritative resources:

• Britannica’s detailed overview of the Battle of Little Bighorn provides comprehensive historical context and analysis
• The Library of Congress collection on the American West includes primary source documents, photographs, and maps from this era
• Little Bighorn Battlefield National Monument offers historical information and Native perspectives on the battle